TR Air Forces|News & Discussion

[Afif]

Nice concept, modularity is a trend among many defence developments. Hope our people at TAI and Baykar have that in mind too.

Yes, i think this is an important strategy decision to prevail in tomorrow's Warfighting. The reason modularity has started to become critical, is because it allows for mass production at a scale for a cost that were not possible otherwise.

Up until now western air forces (and armed force in general) were kind of operating on the assumption that, if you pack so much technology into a single platform it will be highly survivable and won’t face attrition due to its qualitative edge. But this notion has came more and more under Challenge. It is increasingly clear that Technology cannot replace the mass.

Now even USAF has started to recognise, given the trends in technology development, in next 10-15 years in a full scale peer to peer conflict it could loose its highly touted 5th JSF at an unacceptable rate. Thus, the strategy is to layer its expensive 5th and 6th gen assets with (relatively) cheaply mass produced UAV/UCAVs not only to be a force multiplier, but also to be expandable and take on the attrition.

 

[Sanchez]

That is US Air Force's one of the proposed CCA (collaborative combat aircraft) concept. You can get an idea how MUM-T may look like.

Yes, i think this is an important strategy decision to prevail in tomorrow's Warfighting. The reason modularity has started to become critical, is because it allows for mass production at a scale for a cost that were not possible otherwise.

Up until now western air forces (and armed force in general) were kind of operating on the assumption that, if you pack so much technology into a single platform it will be highly survivable and won’t face attrition due to its qualitative edge. But this notion has come more and more under Challenge. It is increasingly clear that Technology cannot replace the mass.

Now even USAF has started to recognise, given the trends in technology development, in next 10-15 years in a full scale peer to peer conflict it could loose its highly touted 5th JSF at an unacceptable rate. Thus, the strategy is to layer its expensive 5th and 6th gen assets with (relatively) cheaply mass produced UAV/UCAVs not only to be a force multiplier, but also to be expandable and take on the attrition.

I'm going to tattoo A T T R I T A B I L I T Y on my arm. Ukraine's invasion showed us. Tech alone doesn't cut it. If we are to have wars in this century, our cutting edge weapons need to be cheap. If an advanced Kızılelma costs 50 million apiece, it's not very different than losing an F-16 in war.

 

[Yasar_TR]

I'm going to tattoo A T T R I T A B I L I T Y on my arm. Ukraine's invasion showed us. Tech alone doesn't cut it. If we are to have wars in this century, our cutting edge weapons need to be cheap. If an advanced Kızılelma costs 50 million apiece, it's not very different than losing an F-16 in war.

Don’t forget to add the price of the pilot in the case of F16. That is if you can put a price on our pilots.

However I fully agree with you in terms of using easily expendable weapons.
Good examples are:
-MAM-L
-Artillery rockets like TR230 and 122 turned in to precision strike missiles in the form of IHA230 and 122
-Dumb bombs like MK series, turned in to precision guided smart bombs of HGK and KGK

 

[Sanchez]

Don’t forget to add the price of the pilot in the case of F16. That is if you can put a price on our pilots.

However I fully agree with you in terms of using easily expendable weapons.
Good examples are:
-MAM-L
-Artillery rockets like TR230 and 122 turned in to precision strike missiles in the form of IHA230 and 122
-Dumb bombs like MK series, turned in to precision guided smart bombs of HGK and KGK

In a war scenario where we lose 100-500 men a day, we are bound to lose some pilots as well, that's why we have CSAR birds. It's not about the inherent value of the human life, plain and simple, they will die.

 

[boredaf]

In a war scenario where we lose 100-500 men a day, we are bound to lose some pilots as well, that's why we have CSAR birds. It's not about the inherent value of the human life, plain and simple, they will die.

Losing a pilot isn't the same as losing soldiers though, that is a false equivalence.

While loss of life is inevitable, any country that has a semblance of competency in its commanding structure would anything and everything in their power to reduce the risk to their pilots as much as possible. Pilots are much harder to train and losing experienced pilots are much worse than losing a jet.

 

[Sanchez]

Losing a pilot isn't the same as losing soldiers though, that is a false equivalence.

While loss of life is inevitable, any country that has a semblance of competency in its commanding structure would anything and everything in their power to reduce the risk to their pilots as much as possible. Pilots are much harder to train and losing experienced pilots are much worse than losing a jet.

We lost what, 20 to 30 percent of our flyers in a year in 2016? Yes, every lost pilot is a monumental loss in experience as well as time and money in the drain. No one doubts that.

We can't replace the aircraft we lose. In a time of war, we will lose pilots with their aircraft. Point of contention is not that pilots are expendable. It's that our main line ucavs are just as valuable as our fighter jets and we can't see them as easily replaceable. How many Akıncıs do we have? 15?

 

[Quasar]

What we can except not only from KE but also from ANKA 3, Akıncı, Aksungur and TB 3 is the emergence and even the impementation of the concept of Unmanned wingmans for Unmanned vehicle, for now we call them Kemakeş, Şimşek II, Jemsah…. Clearly the distinctions between cruise missiles, loitering munition and UAvs are in some cases almost not existing.

We are witnessing the emergence of not only homogeneous but Heterogeneous swarms as well i.e micro networks consisting of UAVs and UAVs + USVs with differing sizes and roles.

Unlike relativly simpler tasks of reconnaissance or CAS more complex roles like SEAD and ASW… seems to require micro networks slaved to KAAN (and poteinially to Hürjet) and third party manned platform.

Mass produced low thec platforms and heavly thec invested platforms are not two compiting approaches but rather they are complementary.

 

[Saithan]

We lost what, 20 to 30 percent of our flyers in a year in 2016? Yes, every lost pilot is a monumental loss in experience as well as time and money in the drain. No one doubts that.

We can't replace the aircraft we lose. In a time of war, we will lose pilots with their aircraft. Point of contention is not that pilots are expendable. It's that our main line ucavs are just as valuable as our fighter jets and we can't see them as easily replaceable. How many Akıncıs do we have? 15?

Having too many could be a detriment too. I was thinking we should have 1000 TB2, Anka, Aksungur etc. in our inventory (yeah I love overkill).

But it's better to spread it out and build according to need, while having backups.

I don't know what the criteria for backup is, but I want the enemy to know that we are not in any problem if they shoot down 20-40 ucavs. Psychological pressure of having exess units would be just another wepaon we can use.

Thus it's important that we are not relying on foreign suppliers for our ucavs. And those countries who're part of the supply chain are reliable. imo Azerbaycan, Pakistan, BD, Indonesia fits that description.


I think the carrier from Starcraft is a good depiction of what we can expect

 

[Ripley]

The recent posts beautifully showed that neither state of art machines or mass quantities are good enough alone.
The war in Ukraine showed that a collaboration of quality (Western mentality) and quantity (Eastern mentality) is needed.
I like to add another factor, or a restrain. Time!
Your high tech assets should be readily available at any given time to concert any military operation, in real time and real 3D battlefield concept and quickly too. If you can’t do it quickly it’s doubtful that you’ll replace the lost equipment quick enough and drag on a conflict that you can’t afford. Time is essential.

 

[Fuzuli NL]

Any weapon is deemed useless without proper and timely logistics, replenishments, and maintenance.

 

[Heartbang]

I think the carrier from Starcraft is a good depiction of what we can expect

That is a stupid idea. A well-timed attack on that carrier platform wipes out all those aircraft with the effort of a single strike.

You gotta spread out the platforms.

 

[Spitfire9]

US-Sweden defence agreement has been signed. Whether Turkiye accepts or refuses Swedish accession to NATO will be diminished in importance, I think. That may impair prospects of the US Congress approving F-16 supplies to Turkiye.

Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States

In 2023, representatives of Sweden and the US have negotiated an agreement to deepen defence cooperation between the countries. The Defense...

www.government.se

 

[Ryder]

US-Sweden defence agreement has been signed. Whether Turkiye accepts or refuses Swedish accession to NATO will be diminished in importance, I think. That may impair prospects of the US Congress approving F-16 supplies to Turkiye.

Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States

In 2023, representatives of Sweden and the US have negotiated an agreement to deepen defence cooperation between the countries. The Defense...

www.government.se

Lol its cooperation still not giving them nato access.

As Turkiye and Hungary said no.

 

[Spitfire9]

Lol its cooperation still not giving them nato access.

As Turkiye and Hungary said no.

Yes, Turkiye and Hungary are a problem for NATO. Is this US-Sweden defence accord an effective workaround to mitigate the problem?

I am interested in the 5G projects of various countries. TuAF needs fighters. KAAN needs F110 engines. Given that the chances of F-16 or Eurofighter being cleared for export look extremely poor, how careful does the Turkish government need to be with its policies to avoid a deterioration in relations with the US to the point where F110 supply is refused, too? Perhaps a multi-year delay in KAAN being delivered would be a price Erdogan would be prepared to pay.

 

[boredaf]

Yes, Turkiye and Hungary are a problem for NATO. Is this US-Sweden defence accord an effective workaround to mitigate the problem?

I am interested in the 5G projects of various countries. TuAF needs fighters. KAAN needs F110 engines. Given that the chances of F-16 or Eurofighter being cleared for export look extremely poor, how careful does the Turkish government need to be with its policies to avoid a deterioration in relations with the US to the point where F110 supply is refused, too? Perhaps a multi-year delay in KAAN being delivered would be a price Erdogan would be prepared to pay.

I find it funny that in your mind it is always Türkiye that is the problem, not our supposed "allies" that blackmail us by keeping our own security as hostage to further their agendas.

 

[Afif]

Yes, Turkiye and Hungary are a problem for NATO. Is this US-Sweden defence accord an effective workaround to mitigate the problem?

I am interested in the 5G projects of various countries. TuAF needs fighters. KAAN needs F110 engines. Given that the chances of F-16 or Eurofighter being cleared for export look extremely poor, how careful does the Turkish government need to be with its policies to avoid a deterioration in relations with the US to the point where F110 supply is refused, too? Perhaps a multi-year delay in KAAN being delivered would be a price Erdogan would be prepared to pay.

Well……I used to share some of these 'logical' concerns. But ultimately what I learned is, no matter what Turks are going to make it out in the end. They need Western cooperation, until they don’t need it anymore.

From where Turkish defence industry stands today, it is no longer possible to hold it back. Yes, 'allies' may be able to delay some of the projects with unofficial sanctions, but in my experience, in the end it hurts their interest more than it hurts Türkiye. Not only they looses valuable export opportunities, but also, the leverage that one can hold with joint projects and joint supply chains. Not to mention, consequentially Türkiye becomes more assertive with it policies thanks to the ever increasing level of indigenisation.

So, in current situation it may looks like West hold the leverage in this negotiation, but they probably don’t, not decisively.

 

[Spitfire9]

I find it funny that in your mind it is always Türkiye that is the problem, not our supposed "allies" that blackmail us by keeping our own security as hostage to further their agendas.

I don't follow NATO matters closely but when I do hear of problems with a member, it is often Turkiye rather than any other member. I guess there are probably some reports of problems with Hungary - apart from Sweden joining NATO - that I have not read. Does NATO have significant problems with any other members?

 

[TheInsider]

Yes, Turkiye and Hungary are a problem for NATO. Is this US-Sweden defence accord an effective workaround to mitigate the problem?

I am interested in the 5G projects of various countries. TuAF needs fighters. KAAN needs F110 engines. Given that the chances of F-16 or Eurofighter being cleared for export look extremely poor, how careful does the Turkish government need to be with its policies to avoid a deterioration in relations with the US to the point where F110 supply is refused, too? Perhaps a multi-year delay in KAAN being delivered would be a price Erdogan would be prepared to pay.

Lol the US has more to lose in that bargain. There is an economic and later will be a military fight between the US and China that will decide who will be the top dog. Can the US win that fight by turning Turkiye into an enemy? EU has done nothing against Russia and surely has no appetite to fight China. Once the US loses its number one status there will be a long queue to kick the US in the balls. This is not the 90s when the US reigns supreme, stakes are getting higher and the US has everything to lose.

 

[Ryder]

Yes, Turkiye and Hungary are a problem for NATO. Is this US-Sweden defence accord an effective workaround to mitigate the problem?

I am interested in the 5G projects of various countries. TuAF needs fighters. KAAN needs F110 engines. Given that the chances of F-16 or Eurofighter being cleared for export look extremely poor, how careful does the Turkish government need to be with its policies to avoid a deterioration in relations with the US to the point where F110 supply is refused, too? Perhaps a multi-year delay in KAAN being delivered would be a price Erdogan would be prepared to pay.

Turkish defence industry is working 24/7 in leaving both American and European dependance.

If Turkiye is going to do go with an independant destiny it will not lean on any camp.

I do wish Turkiye joined the Non aligned movement rather than Nato.

Turkiye would have got nuclear weapons by now just like Pakistan and India got it.

 

[Spitfire9]

Lol the US has more to lose in that bargain. There is an economic and later will be a military fight between the US and China that will decide who will be the top dog. Can the US win that fight by turning Turkiye into an enemy? EU has done nothing against Russia and surely has no appetite to fight China. Once the US loses its number one status there will be a long queue to kick the US in the balls. This is not the 90s when the US reigns supreme, stakes are getting higher and the US has everything to lose.

You are quite wrong about the EU. It has provided tens of billions of dollars in military aid, along with UK and Norway. It was EU countries that were pressing the US to allow US kit that the European countries owned to be supplied to Ukraine, only for that to be delayed by the US. You are doubtless aware that the EU has proposed a package of aid of $50 billion plus, currently blocked by Hungary.

I agree with you about China. I can't see the EU getting much involved militarily if China attacks Taiwan. How many carriers do the Europeans have? Three 'proper' carriers, I think.

The US will be eclipsed economically in the next few decades, I agree. Militarily not for a very long time, I think. It has the best technology and spends a high proportion of GDP on defence.