Single unmanned aerial vehicles are increasingly failing to achieve reliable penetration against defended airspace. As counter-UAS systems mature, operational effectiveness is shifting away from individual platform performance toward coordination, timing and saturation. A recent live-ammunition swarm UAV test conducted by STM in Polatlı illustrates this transition in practical terms.
During Türkiye’s first recorded live-fire swarm UAV trial, 20 KARGU loitering munitions struck designated targets with direct hits at the General Nahit Şenoğul Firing and Training Range. The activity was conducted under real detonation conditions rather than simulated environments, with the focus placed on mission execution.
Following take-off, the KARGU formation autonomously navigated to the mission area under the supervision of a single operator. Upon arrival, the swarm divided into three sub-groups and carried out a simultaneous attack against multiple targets. The test centred on collective task execution rather than individual UAV performance.
The swarm architecture demonstrated during the trial is consistent with a leaderless structure rather than a traditional leader–follower model. In contemporary operational environments, such architectures are increasingly favoured as they remove single points of failure and are designed to allow mission continuation even when individual platforms are lost. At the same time, this does not exclude the use of embedded coordination logic within the swarm, achieved through shared situational awareness rather than explicit hierarchical control.
Task assignment and target prioritisation are understood to take place within the swarm itself, in line with commonly applied swarm operation concepts. Rather than relying on rigid, pre-defined tasking, such systems typically distribute roles based on situational awareness and mission conditions, although the precise balance between dynamic and pre-programmed logic has not been publicly detailed.
In-mission re-tasking would be expected in such a system, particularly under conditions of attrition. In line with widely used swarm protocols, remaining UAVs would be expected to adjust task distribution and continue the mission rather than halt execution. Whether such re-tasking is entirely autonomous or partially influenced by operator input has not been specified, a distinction that is often not publicly disclosed in operational demonstrations.
In such decentralised swarm systems, continuous connectivity with the ground control station under normal operating conditions would be expected, and the architecture demonstrated during the trial is consistent with this approach. In the event of a loss of communication after launch, such architectures would be expected to continue executing the last assigned mission parameters rather than aborting outright, although the operational boundaries of this behaviour have not been disclosed.
From an operational standpoint, the Polatlı test points to a broader direction rather than a definitive endpoint. As counter-drone measures harden, the challenge increasingly lies in responding to coordinated groups of UAVs rather than isolated platforms. How far autonomy, task allocation and decision-making extend within such swarms remains one of the key variables shaping their future operational use.
Another important side of this test is the fact that it forms the basis for STM's other UAVs in terms of swarm capabilities, such as the tube-launched ALPAGU loitering munition which can be launched in large numbers far quicker or the munition-dropping BOYGA UAV. Other than a swarm of single UAV type, swarms with multi-tasking where different UAV types operate together is another subject in this context.
Beyond its technical implications, the test also carries relevance for exportability and international use frameworks. The configuration demonstrated aligns with a man-on-the-loop approach, in which a human operator defines and supervises the mission without being required to approve each individual engagement in real time. This avoids placing the system fully outside human oversight, while still allowing the level of autonomy required for effective swarm operations. As such, the concept remains broadly compatible with prevailing international discussions on autonomous weapons and provides a more defensible posture for international use and export than fully human-out-of-the-loop systems.
Authors: Özgür Ekşi and Kaan Azman
