We've debated this to the death,but I'll repeat my personal opinion,it's not that easy.
And let's just imagine the USA are only providing ammo,money and intelligence to Israelis and not actually taking part in a conflict.
Larger mass yes,that's one advantage the Turks have and a big disadvantage the Israelis have. However,the IAF has excelled in 2 things the 43 years:
- Flying to places thought almost impossible to reach,deep inside enemy territory and conducting strikes
- Taking out enemy air defences and radars with a combination of EW and modern weapons
They've developed a tradition for that.
Now,when it comes to the Navy,I still believe the Israelis can balance that with their small,but heavily-armed surface ships,coastal batteries and most of all pre-emptive strikes on Turkish Navy ships by the IAF. They have a smaller area to defend when it comes to Greece/Turkey.
Now on the land front,that's a whole different story. This is were Turkey has the massive advantage. But in order for Turkey to deploy massive forces to invade or attack the IDF heavily,they'd have to enter Syria. And I think that by the time big forces reach let's say Hama or Homs,they'd be pounded by the Israeli Air Force.
As for the ballistic missiles and all the so-called "superweapons" certain members brag about all the time here,Israelis can shoot down a big part of it,but I think their planning would be to counterattack fast or strike pre-emptively to avoid that. So unless it's an all-out surprise attack by Turkey,it would be tough to take out all their major air bases and neutralize their Air Force.
Now about the "Israeli build-up on Cyprus",that's TRT stuff.
In the late 90s or early 2000s,when they bought the S-300s,Turks went on the same tantrum "big radar,big reach,no install or war",same stuff,that's how S-300s ended up in Crete instead. Now they're afraid of Barak MX and "Israelis spying".
Germany and Turkey face major challenges in enhancing NATO's defense capabilities in Europe.
