TF2000 are not just for defending the Anadolu though, they will provide area defence for entire rest of fleet, including Istif
You cannot provide area defence to other ships because AShM are super sea-skimming. (Unless Istif ships are deployed very close the TF-2000, which would have little to no operational value. The point of having multiple surface combatants is to spread them strategically to maximise the operational effectiveness)
if you are talking about providing area defence against enemy fighters carrying AShM, then again, i would argue that it does not worth effort either. Because vast majority of AShM are stand off weapons. (250-500km)
Also, keep in mind that enemy Fighters also can perform sea skimming beneath the envelop of TF-2000 powerful radar and SIPER interceptor anyway.
However, i agree with the effectiveness of ABM role, as well as carrying loads of weapon including Long range land attack cruise missiles (Gegzin) for power projection and tactical surprise. additionally, the ability to command and control for theatre operation is also a plus point.
Nonetheless, I still think what
@Yasar said is right on the point. In my opinion, having taken into account all the pros and benefit of such large combatants, if we do a cost benefit analysis, (prioritising defensive posture over expeditionary ambitions) then maybe, such large surface combatants are not the best strategy.
As
@Yasar said-
For a country like Turkey where finances are dire and the effect of loss of an asset like a destroyer or an LHD is just too painful to bear
because, even with the finest equipments, in a full blown war with near-peer adversary loss is not avoidable.
And most important of all, the biggest vulnerability of TF-2000 or (for that matter) any other big surface combatant, is not related to surface or areal threat. It comes from underneath. Where no matter how advance your surface combatant is, enemy submarine still enjoy the asymmetrical advantage to seize, retain and exploit the initiative.
Note- It is important to keep In mind, all of this is based on the premise of 'prioritising defence posture over expeditionary force design or blue water ambition' and the assumption that 'it is the best course of strategy for Turkey’s condition in the near future.'
Edit- Of course, this is my personal opinion only. There are more esteemed members here in this forum, who have far deeper insights in the subject then me.
@Anmdt