This article was automatically translated from the original Turkish version.
Today, the defense industry has become a major global trend. Even European states, which after World War II adopted a cautious stance toward armament, have gradually changed their positions. It is difficult to predict where these evolving policies will lead the world, but it is certain that this arms race does not aim to extend an “olive branch” at its conclusion.
Is armament this simple? Can a state easily produce the weapons and military technologies it needs, or must it rely on imports from other countries? The answer to this question varies significantly depending on which country is involved. Let us consider the example of Türkiye.
One of the turning points in Türkiye’s military technology development was the 1974 Cyprus Operation. At that time, we all remember how countries we regarded as “allies”—European and American nations—imposed military embargoes on Türkiye when their interests conflicted with ours. This event became a profound lesson for us. The foundation of our transformation from a country struggling even to produce its own military needles to one now aiming for a 100% domestic and national defense industry lies in these experiences.
What does it mean to “capture technology”? Does it mean producing systems equivalent to American aircraft, German tanks, Russian missile systems, or British naval forces? If your answer is yes, let me add this question: When we produce our own version of the American F-22 or the German Panzer tank, what will they do? Will they simply trust their existing weapons and wait for us amiably? Of course not! The issue here is not merely copying the same technology. Producing an aircraft like the F-22 or a tank like the Panzer is important, but in today’s world, the decisive factor is “originality.” Because producing the same technology will not place you ahead of your rivals—it will at best place you alongside them.
To make this clearer, let us recall some examples:
These examples show us that states and companies that correctly analyzed technological revolutions have become global brands. Success has come to those who did not ignore innovation and continuously monitored their sectors.
We can also evaluate electric vehicle technology within this context. One reason our national automobile project (TOGG) was designed as electric is precisely this: the goal is to claim a share of the new market. It is far more important to enter a race where everyone starts on the same line than to compete against established giants like Toyota and Honda in the domain of internal combustion engines.
Today, artificial intelligence is creating a new revolution. AI has already begun to serve as our assistant, our doctor, and our psychological counselor. This is merely the visible tip of the iceberg. It is difficult to predict what else the future holds for us.
So far, we have discussed the necessity of correctly analyzing, capturing, and producing technology at the forefront of these revolutions. But these revolutions are not events that occur every year. Should we therefore sit idle for 10 to 20 years and wait for the next technological revolution?
Of course not!
While we will certainly strive to produce our own version of the F-22 where it was originally developed, we will do so with one crucial difference: we will integrate our own original innovations into the system. We will produce unmanned aerial vehicles, but we will develop our own drones capable of autonomous landing. Unlike rival drones in the same class, we will produce drones capable of operating from amphibious assault ships. We will develop military systems with costs many times lower than those of our counterparts.
In summary, capturing technology is only possible by adding innovation to it. We will monitor the sector, then guide the direction of technology itself.