TR Industry, Science and Technology

[TR_123456]

Bro, we haven’t been helping anyone, tbh. And Turkey, on the contrary, should always do the maximum as we’re always carry the burden of proving our ‘worth’, a fact I personally abhor.
We had to be in NATO. It sheltered us (well, theUS, to be precise). It was good.
We gonna need to be in the next thing whether we like it or not.
Turkey can not afford isolation from a neighboring EU military structure.

And what if the US leaves NATO,then what?

 

[boredaf]

And what if the US leaves NATO,then what?

We plop our balls down on the table and ask the Europeans to get in line

 

[Turkic]

And what if the US leaves NATO,then what?

We plop our balls down on the table and ask the Europeans to get in line

Let's just form Turan . No?

 

[CAN_TR]

We have to exploit European desperation ruthlessly for our own interests. Joint projects, investments, upgrading the custom union, visa-free travel, SAFE maybe not today but tomorrow...

 

[Ripley]

And what if the US leaves NATO,then what?

OK, a NATO where the US is the top dog, not only gives a security umbrella, a sense of security but tags you a huge label that reads ‘untouchable‘.
When the top dog vacates the shelter, it won’t be the same. The only title contender for the position I can think of would be France, which i must admit, won’t be fun as they’re eternal Turkish haters. But I’d stay in there.

If, on the other hand, the NATO dissolves itself, well then I’d sniff around and look for a way to join the next pack, preferably as the Alpha or as a contender because seriously Turkey cannot afford any form isolation.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

If it was up to people like you we would be the next North Korea, you really can't see farther away than the end of your own nose.

Those NATO missions and multinational exercises provide us with invaluable experience in different areas and situations, they allow us to work with and against systems we do not own or operate. It allows our soldiers to get some experience with the systems they use under different conditions, instead of sitting on their arses or just going to same spots and doing the same things over and over again. Doing as much as we can helps us more than NATO.

And Baykar-Leonardo joint venture will easing them into European markets and also allowing them to utilize Leonardo sensors for potential customers who might get hang up on "made in EU" stuff. Either through this joint venture or through Piaggio, Baykar have a chance to make a lot of money, especially when you consider how weak the drone sector is in Europe.

Us being integrated into NATO and its systems only helps us, it doesn't hinder us.

What is sold as “cooperation” and “market access” is, in reality, nothing more than a targeted, one-way transfer of technology. Whilst the European side speaks of partnership, what is actually at stake is siphoning off know-how, operational data and development experience from Turkey – things they themselves lack.
The crux of the problem is clear:
Most European NATO states lack genuine combat data and reliable metadata from modern conflicts that is a fact. This is precisely why they seek this cooperation – not out of strength, but because of a structural gap.
In crucial areas such as:

semi-autonomous systems
electronic warfare (EW/ECM)
cyber resilience
smart munitions
Edge and Cloud AI Hard & Software
C4ISR capabilities in real Combat situation

many of these countries are not leading the way, but lagging behind. Exceptions prove the rule – such as systems like the Meteor missile or the Taurus KEPD 350 – but this does not alter the overall picture.
The real shortcoming runs deeper:
These systems are often designed for ideal conditions, not for the reality of modern battlefields. Under constant:

jamming
GPS spoofing
cyberattacks
electronic interference
constant fire

many theoretical assumptions simply fall apart. What works on paper fails under real pressure.
It is therefore no coincidence that only NATO states such as the USA, Turkey, the United Kingdom and France possess truly in-depth operational data – and treat this as a strategic asset that is not to be shared.
Air defence also speaks for itself:
Germany relies on the Patriot missile system, Arrow 3 and, in the future maybe David’s Sling for good reason.
This is an implicit admission that systems such as SAMP/T or IRIS-T SLM may aim to keep pace technologically, but have not been validated to the same extent under real-world threat scenarios – particularly in the case of complex ballistic attacks or constant fire with Cruise Missiles, Kamikaze UAV & Co.
Ultimately, a clear pattern emerges:
Europe frequently develops highly complex systems on paper, but there is a lack of consistent, battle-tested capability under real-world conditions.
Yes, there are exceptions – such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Leopard 2 or German submarines. Yet these are islands of strength, not indicative of a consistently resilient system.
The reality is uncomfortable, but clear:
Those who lack their own continuous combat data develop more slowly, iterate less effectively and remain dependent. This is precisely why this ‘cooperation’ arises – not out of balance, but out of necessity.
I would have kept my mouth shut, but after such a European decision... it really couldn’t be any more anti-Turkish.

We have to help countries like that in the event of a NATO alliance crisis – it’s just mad… in past Syria attack us with missiles, only Spain came to our aid with long term PATRIOT Systems; the rest withdrew after a few weeks or months...

 

[Ripley]

What is sold as “cooperation” and “market access” is, in reality, nothing more than a targeted, one-way transfer of technology. Whilst the European side speaks of partnership, what is actually at stake is siphoning off know-how, operational data and development experience from Turkey – things they themselves lack.
The crux of the problem is clear:
Most European NATO states lack genuine combat data and reliable metadata from modern conflicts that is a fact. This is precisely why they seek this cooperation – not out of strength, but because of a structural gap.
In crucial areas such as:

semi-autonomous systems
electronic warfare (EW/ECM)
cyber resilience
smart munitions

many of these countries are not leading the way, but lagging behind. Exceptions prove the rule – such as systems like the Meteor missile or the Taurus KEPD 350 – but this does not alter the overall picture.
The real shortcoming runs deeper:
These systems are often designed for ideal conditions, not for the reality of modern battlefields. Under constant:

jamming
GPS spoofing
cyberattacks
electronic interference
constant fire

many theoretical assumptions simply fall apart. What works on paper fails under real pressure.
It is therefore no coincidence that only NATO states such as the USA, Turkey, the United Kingdom and France possess truly in-depth operational data – and treat this as a strategic asset that is not to be shared.
Air defence also speaks for itself:
Germany relies on the Patriot missile system, Arrow 3 and, in the future maybe David’s Sling for good reason.
This is an implicit admission that systems such as SAMP/T or IRIS-T SLM may aim to keep pace technologically, but have not been validated to the same extent under real-world threat scenarios – particularly in the case of complex ballistic attacks or constant fire with Cruise Missiles, Kamikaze UAV & Co.
Ultimately, a clear pattern emerges:
Europe frequently develops highly complex systems on paper, but there is a lack of consistent, battle-tested capability under real-world conditions.
Yes, there are exceptions – such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Leopard 2 or German submarines. Yet these are islands of strength, not indicative of a consistently resilient system.
The reality is uncomfortable, but clear:
Those who lack their own continuous combat data develop more slowly, iterate less effectively and remain dependent. This is precisely why this ‘cooperation’ arises – not out of balance, but out of necessity.
I would have kept my mouth shut, but after such a European decision... it really couldn’t be any more anti-Turkish.

I understand your concern and must agree with you but like @boredaf pointed, we for decades have obtained, collected stuff we even didn’t possess. NATO is not only an alliance but a pact of cooperation. It’s a two way street. It works both ways. Plus they’re not exactly backwater ignorant rednecks. I don’t think they’d gain so much from our tech achievements

 

[boredaf]

What is sold as “cooperation” and “market access” is, in reality, nothing more than a targeted, one-way transfer of technology. Whilst the European side speaks of partnership, what is actually at stake is siphoning off know-how, operational data and development experience from Turkey – things they themselves lack.
The crux of the problem is clear:
Most European NATO states lack genuine combat data and reliable metadata from modern conflicts that is a fact. This is precisely why they seek this cooperation – not out of strength, but because of a structural gap.
In crucial areas such as:

semi-autonomous systems
electronic warfare (EW/ECM)
cyber resilience
smart munitions
Edge and Cloud AI Hard & Software
C4ISR capabilities in real Combat situation

many of these countries are not leading the way, but lagging behind. Exceptions prove the rule – such as systems like the Meteor missile or the Taurus KEPD 350 – but this does not alter the overall picture.
The real shortcoming runs deeper:
These systems are often designed for ideal conditions, not for the reality of modern battlefields. Under constant:

jamming
GPS spoofing
cyberattacks
electronic interference
constant fire

many theoretical assumptions simply fall apart. What works on paper fails under real pressure.
It is therefore no coincidence that only NATO states such as the USA, Turkey, the United Kingdom and France possess truly in-depth operational data – and treat this as a strategic asset that is not to be shared.
Air defence also speaks for itself:
Germany relies on the Patriot missile system, Arrow 3 and, in the future maybe David’s Sling for good reason.
This is an implicit admission that systems such as SAMP/T or IRIS-T SLM may aim to keep pace technologically, but have not been validated to the same extent under real-world threat scenarios – particularly in the case of complex ballistic attacks or constant fire with Cruise Missiles, Kamikaze UAV & Co.
Ultimately, a clear pattern emerges:
Europe frequently develops highly complex systems on paper, but there is a lack of consistent, battle-tested capability under real-world conditions.
Yes, there are exceptions – such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Leopard 2 or German submarines. Yet these are islands of strength, not indicative of a consistently resilient system.
The reality is uncomfortable, but clear:
Those who lack their own continuous combat data develop more slowly, iterate less effectively and remain dependent. This is precisely why this ‘cooperation’ arises – not out of balance, but out of necessity.
I would have kept my mouth shut, but after such a European decision... it really couldn’t be any more anti-Turkish.

Have you been asleep for the last 4 years? They are getting all the data they need about modern battlefields from Ukraine, a lot of their systems have been in Ukraine, their biggest problem right now is their production capabilities not their technology. They have had both Iris and Samp-T in Ukraine, for example.

 

[TR_123456]

I would have kept my mouth shut, but after such a European decision... it really couldn’t be any more anti-Turkish.

There is no decision,this is just a committee and if the EU parliament would have decided it we would still be working with Italy Spain and GB,even Germany.
And since when do we care about a known fact(anti-Turkish)?
We dont need to be liked,we need to be respected or feared and they all either respect or fear us.
The rest is really not important.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

They haven’t done a damn thing; otherwise, Hellsing Systems and the like would have been way ahead by now, and we’d already have European drones, cluster munitions and kamikaze drones that were more advanced than ours.

 

[TR_123456]

They haven’t done a damn thing; otherwise, Hellsing Systems and the like would have been way ahead by now, and we’d already have European drones, cluster munitions and kamikaze drones that were more advanced than ours.

You know Germany cant produce cost effective anymore,not just defence equipment but everything?
So,they came to our country for cheap production capabilities.

 

[Ripley]

They haven’t done a damn thing; otherwise, Hellsing Systems and the like would have been way ahead by now, and we’d already have European drones, cluster munitions and kamikaze drones that were more advanced than ours.

And I can count things where Europe light years ahead of us.
Bro, again, I can understand your hesitation but the point of the last two pages were not about being taken advantage of in any way.
It’s about road plan for a probable partnership with a future security structure where existence relies on mutual contribution. Like a symbiotic existence. Give some, take some.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Plus they’re not exactly backwater ignorant rednecks. I don’t think they’d gain so much from our tech achievements

Knowing how to make it doesn’t mean what they make is going to be good enough in battlefield. We saw what happened to their Leo 2a4s in ElBab.

“Battle-Tested” is a big advertisement for any weapon. If today a Germans built a super duper UCAV, I would think not many will buy it if it were running against a Baykar built UCAV.

There are certain things that happen in the battlefield that even TSK or Ukraine would not disclose to anyone. Type of EW capability that supports a UCAV may be the difference between success or failure of that UCAV.
The way the UCAV is flown may be vital for its survivability.
Europeans would want to have the country that knows how to use that UCAV in the right way, on their side.

 

[Sanchez]

Let's just form Turan . No?

Brotherly countries in the east are more interested in doing business with EU than we are.
-
We need a new topic to discuss this soon tectonic shift re Turkey/US/NATO relations.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

We’ll see when the war in Ukraine is over or a genuine ceasefire is reached.
Then half of Europe will change tack and view us as a strategic enemy (openly) because of the Aegean… and will want to contain us as much as possible.

 

[Zafer]

Turkish engineer secured 40 patents for emission reduction technology that can reduce emissions by 99.9%

Türk mühendisten dünya devlerini kıskandıran buluş: Egzoz dumanında karbonu sıfırladı

ABD’de yaşayan Türk mühendisin buluşunun içten yanmalı motorlar ve sanayideki sera gazı emisyonlarını rekor seviyede azalttığı bağımsız laboratuvar testleriyle kanıtlandı. Şaban Akyıldız’ın imzasını taşıyan sistem, temel emisyon oranlarında yüzde 99,9’a varan düşüş sağlıyor...

www.turkiyegazetesi.com.tr

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Any update about Turkish chip industry ?

 

[Zafer]

Turkish engineer secured 40 patents for emission reduction technology that can reduce emissions by 99.9%

Türk mühendisten dünya devlerini kıskandıran buluş: Egzoz dumanında karbonu sıfırladı

ABD’de yaşayan Türk mühendisin buluşunun içten yanmalı motorlar ve sanayideki sera gazı emisyonlarını rekor seviyede azalttığı bağımsız laboratuvar testleriyle kanıtlandı. Şaban Akyıldız’ın imzasını taşıyan sistem, temel emisyon oranlarında yüzde 99,9’a varan düşüş sağlıyor...

www.turkiyegazetesi.com.tr

If implemented nicely this can change the world for the better bringing coal back into the energy mix of nations.
Imagine no smoke comes out of the chimneys of ships', factories' ...

 

[Zafer]

Any update about Turkish chip industry ?

Nothing yet for production, all they are doing is design low to medium quality chips to be produced overseas.

 

[begturan]

If implemented nicely this can change the world for the better bringing coal back into the energy mix of nations.
Imagine no smoke comes out of the chimneys of ships', factories' ...

Cost is a crucial factor in such systems; many factories avoid these investments due to the high costs. How much does the system cost, how long does it last, and is maintenance inexpensive? These are the key questions.