If you fight with peer or near peer state war,UAVs will not survive long enough on this high density condition only the stealth ones can survive.We have to work on derivetes of Anka 3 like smaller ones,bigger ones,but not the TB3 or Aksungur,or Akıncı.They can not protect themselves from enemy fighters,and they will be shot down by gunfire of fighters not missiles.Its always certain to attack weak ones firstly.Make them stealth or away them from detection range there is no choice.USA now working on TB2 size UAVs but the stealth one for their carrier strike group.
Too expensive and pointless, but Kizilelma are there to intercept these planes and drones, and Anka 3 flies as a bomber low in the airspace with an intact air defense to drop bomb loads.
There is no need to develop 20 different versions of the same type, the USA has the money, we don't.
For everything else, TB2/3, Anka S, Aksungur are currently sufficient, without intact air defense of the enemy you can use them all.
Hybrid solutions such as Akinci are even capable of flying for a few hours at an altitude of 45/50000ft and 800 km/h in boost mode, albeit with considerable fuel consumption.
With its AESA and later BVRAAM capabilities, it could act as a sentinel & bomber in patrol flight to put pressure on enemy aircraft - this approach should be pursued by the defense industry in future developments.
What we currently need is a long range stealth drone in the form of a Global Hawk variant for reconnaissance and early warning.
That being said, not every development and purchase is justified in the US, although there is already a weapon system that is effective and cheap, they develop to get contracts from the government = money.
This has more to do with job creation measures than a need to fill a gap.