Türkiye Deploys Autonomous POYRAZ Drone Swarm as Havelsan Demonstrates Live Kamikaze Attacks.

HAVELSAN this week conducted a live field demonstration of its Digital Troops concept, deploying a swarm of POYRAZ quadcopter drones in an operationally realistic scenario. The event signals that Türkiye’s swarm-enabled unmanned warfare architecture is moving beyond the lab and toward deployable combat use.

Türkiye’s defense software firm HAVELSAN has taken a significant step toward operationalizing autonomous warfare, unveiling a live field demonstration of its Digital Troops concept using a coordinated swarm of POYRAZ quadcopter drones. Conducted in front of senior civilian and military officials, the exercise focused on autonomous mission execution, kamikaze-style attack profiles, and simultaneous multi-target engagement, underscoring HAVELSAN’s claim that its distributed swarm architecture is now resilient enough for real-world combat conditions rather than controlled test environments.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

HAVELSAN showcases a live POYRAZ drone swarm, signaling Türkiye’s move toward deployable autonomous Digital Troops combat systems.(Picture source: Havelsan)

In a live field activity reported this week by HAVELSAN, Türkiye’s defense software and systems house showcased an operationally oriented demonstration of its “Digital Troops” concept, deploying a swarm of POYRAZ quadcopter drones in a realistic scenario designed to validate autonomous mission execution, kamikaze attack profiles, and multi-target engagement. Conducted in front of senior civilian and military officials, the event aims to show that HAVELSAN’s distributed swarm architecture is no longer limited to controlled laboratory settings, but is now presented as a deployable combat capability for future operational concepts, with resilience under communications stress and interoperability with other unmanned platforms.

At the center of the demonstration is HAVELSAN’s distributed swarm control approach, built specifically to avoid reliance on a central decision maker. In practical terms, this means the swarm continues operating even when parts of the network are degraded or disrupted, a point deliberately tested during the mission through simulated communication interruptions and network losses. HAVELSAN states that the swarm maintains operational continuity throughout the activity, suggesting that mission logic and coordination mechanisms remain stable even when data links are contested or temporarily denied. For armed forces planning for high-intensity environments, this is the difference between a swarm as a technology display and a swarm as a wartime tool.

The scenario is structured around a multi-target problem set, where the swarm autonomously divides into sub-swarms, each assigned to separate targets. Rather than following a rigid pre-scripted choreography, the drones reportedly execute synchronized dive maneuvers on their designated objectives, reflecting a concept of distributed tasking and synchronized terminal behavior. The architecture is also described as self-reconfiguring and fault tolerant: malfunctioning elements disengage from the swarm without operator intervention, while the remaining drones preserve mission execution. This type of behavior is critical because attrition, malfunctions, and electronic warfare effects are expected in real operations, and a swarm that collapses after losing a few nodes has little value beyond peacetime demonstrations.

While HAVELSAN emphasizes platform independence, the activity also highlights the company’s broader focus on multi-platform integration. Target data obtained from surveillance unmanned aerial vehicles and other sensors is processed autonomously by the swarm intelligence, enabling mission execution based on fused inputs rather than a single organic sensor. This architecture reflects a growing defense trend toward modular kill chains, where detection and engagement are distributed across multiple systems, reducing the vulnerability created when one platform must carry every function. HAVELSAN underlines that approach, formation keeping, and engagement sequences proceed without operator intervention, while munitions activation remains constrained by predefined mission rules and safety conditions. Mission completion data is then shared across the swarm and transmitted upward to higher-level mission management systems, pointing to an intent to integrate swarm operations into broader command-and-control structures rather than treating them as standalone “special” assets.

The equipment displayed provides a few concrete technical anchors. First, the swarm is built around the POYRAZ quadcopter drone, a rotary-wing configuration typically chosen for short-range precision navigation, rapid maneuvering in the terminal phase, and launch flexibility close to the forward edge. Second, HAVELSAN also presents BULUT, an autonomous vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) UAV, which supports the scenario by providing real-time imagery. Third, BULUT is equipped with the GIMBAL 275 electro-optical system, enabling stabilized surveillance and target observation to feed the swarm’s engagement process. These details matter because they indicate an operational logic: a VTOL UAV with an electro-optical payload can act as a persistent local sensor node, while expendable quadcopters can be used as the massed effectors that saturate defenses or prosecute multiple targets quickly.

Beyond the hardware, the key deliverable is the software-defined architecture that governs coordination, task allocation, and continuity under disruption. HAVELSAN explicitly frames the activity as an end-to-end validation, meaning the company is not only testing flight behaviors but also the full chain from sensor input to engagement decision logic and mission reporting. The emphasis on distributed decision-making is also a direct response to the vulnerabilities of centralized swarm control, where jamming or disruption of the primary controller can neutralize the entire formation.

The demonstrated model points toward several operational uses. A swarm capable of splitting into sub-swarms and executing synchronized dives can overwhelm point defenses by forcing multiple simultaneous engagements, compressing reaction time and increasing the likelihood of leakage. In a contested environment, the ability to keep operating through network losses suggests resilience against electronic warfare, although such claims will ultimately depend on spectrum conditions, the robustness of the underlying communications, and the quality of onboard autonomy when cut off from external inputs. The integration of surveillance UAV feeds also implies a modular approach to targeting: a sensor platform can remain outside the densest threat zone while expendable drones push forward, allowing commanders to trade low-cost systems for high-value effects. Constraints remain inherent to quadcopter-based effectors, including endurance limits, weather sensitivity, and reduced performance in high winds, but their utility in short-range tactical envelopes is clear when combined with rapid tasking and coordinated terminal attack.

HAVELSAN’s “Digital Troops” demonstration fits into Türkiye’s wider strategy of pairing domestically produced platforms with increasingly sophisticated mission software, building exportable operational concepts rather than selling airframes alone. As swarm warfare becomes a defining feature of contemporary conflict, states that can field resilient autonomous systems and counter-swarm tools gain leverage both on the battlefield and in defense partnerships. For regional security, the spread of distributed swarm architectures increases pressure on air defense modernization, electronic warfare investment, and layered counter-UAS procurement, particularly for countries facing dense drone threats near borders or in maritime chokepoints. More broadly, the normalization of multi-target autonomous strike swarms raises escalation and attribution challenges, and it accelerates an international race toward tighter integration of sensors, unmanned platforms, and command systems across NATO and non-NATO defense ecosystems alike.

Written By Erwan Halna du Fretay - Defense Analyst, Army Recognition Group
Erwan Halna du Fretay is a graduate of a Master’s degree in International Relations and has experience in the study of conflicts and global arms transfers. His research interests lie in security and strategic studies, particularly the dynamics of the defense industry, the evolution of military technologies, and the strategic transformation of armed forces.