A few days ago alone drone lashed out at the Kremlin, in an incident from which both belligerents distanced themselves, Russia And Ukraine.

During the current pre-election period in the neighboring Türkiye V Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) domestic defense industry (restructured under his son-in-law Recep Tayyip Erdogan) is rudely presented as a panacea for all the needs of the Turkish Armed Forces (TVS).

In its various phases Greek-Turkish crisis recent years (especially from 2020-21) to put pressure on Greek Armed Forcesin a more economical and safer way as the UAV has 12-36 hours of battery life with less fuel consumption as it is not a jet aircraft, without the fatigue and cost required for operator training.

Turkish as well as Iranian UAVs have been used in a number of recent conflicts (Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ethiopia) and have been described as war-turning weapons.

Not everyone agrees with this conclusion in the academic world, at least in that part of it that is connected with the latest achievements in the study of combat operations.

About a year ago, in a long scientific article in the journal International Security (vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 130-171), MIT researchers Antonio Calcara, Andrea Gilli, Mauro Gilli, Raffaele Marchetti, and Ivan Zaccanini argued in favor of the position that UAVs do not changed the facts in war (“Why drones haven’t revolutionized war”).

Contrary to conventional wisdom about drones, which were largely influenced by the publicity of the MES, the researchers concluded that UAVs cannot tip the scales of war in favor of the aggressor. And they looked at three conflicts where MPS has been used extensively, namely Syria, Libya, and Nagorno-Karabakh.

In general, the authors came to the conclusion that, firstly, the drones did not help the attackers. Indeed, a closer study of the conflict, for example, in Nagorno-Karabakh, shows that the Armenians lost to the Azerbaijanis not because of the UAVs, but because the latter invested heavily in modern conventional weapons systems in the previous twenty years.

Unlike the Armenians who fought on the basis of late Soviet weapons. In addition, UAVs do not seem to bridge the gap between strong and weak states. And, thirdly, they did not lead to the elimination of close combat.

In addition, it is assumed that drones can only be effective when integrated into larger formations with conventional weapons systems, for example, in combination with fighters and aircraft providing operational visualization, radar and electronic warfare systems, artillery and infantry.

They also believe that the deployment of air defense and electronic warfare systems by local or major powers has the potential to weaken or even completely end offensives that rely heavily on modern military drones. Typically, without superior weaponry in the conventional sector, drones can only provide a temporary and easily reversible advantage.

Questions and discussions like this usually go “out of sight” of the public dialogue, which is very often carried out through the “bombardment” of public opinion with news about the Turkish defense industry and its development in recent years.

This discussion did not leave him indifferent. Greek defense planning in these last years. Quietly, on the islands of the eastern Aegean, a system was installed last summer to combat Turkish UAVswhile efforts are being made to have Greece acquire its own systems (Israeli HERONs at Skyros and, in the future, US MQ-9s at Larissa).

However, the main efforts are aimed at strengthening the largely outdated air defense, consisting of outdated Russian or Eastern European technological systems (TOR-M1, OSA-AK, S-300). Air defense is completed with MANPADS HAWK, ASRAD and, of course, the Stinger type. Of the systems that are required to deal with threats, such as those coming from UAVs, Greece has some capabilities Electronic warfare (EW). In any case, these are opportunities that need to be further developed, and this is because Turkey has really strengthened significantly in this area.