Turkiye needs systems that can be hidden easily and then deployed easily. Basically air defence systems that can be deployed in a hit and run sort of way.
This is the concept behind the Soviet -Russian style low-medium range GBADs. It doesn't really work. Being too mobile means it's never really connected to greater umbrella and enemy with LO aircraft and aircraft with great EW capabilities run circles around them, picking them off one by one.
One thing should be clear, there's no air defence in the world that can stay tall against the kind of massed air power US can throw for long enough. Not the Soviets, not even China. US and coalition lost more than 70 aircraft against Iraq in 91. Iraq at the time had one of the most complex air defence umbrellas in the world; it took Americans 15 years to disassemble it with follow up strikes and corruption and even then they still lost more than 10 aircraft in and after 2003. But none of those losses prevented the Americans from winning. When the enemy comes at you with 2400+ aircraft, shooting down 70 is not that important.
Iran in two wars in over 1.5 years have managed to shoot down one single aircraft(which did manage to land safely) and I believe 10 or so drones. Iran's air defence performance is abysmal; it's a bad example.
Air defence can only help support air operations. Up until 2021 or so, only system we had that could shoot down a very high flying drone or an aircraft flying 50kms away we had was an F-16 with AIM-120s. It's not that different today, will be much better in 2-3 years. Air defence is not a net you can use to cover the whole country. It should be methodical. It's expensive, you never have enough of it. It will be used to cover strategic installations; factories, bridges, airports. And even then there will be many losses. If the idea is to dish out against an enemy that can send in hundreds of tankers and hundreds of aircraft, that's always a losing proposition.