Definitely as you said especially on airforce, without a strong air force what is the point of land force. I could always bomb you from the air. The only exception is if we had a very very strong air defence which we don't also. We should cut the land force budget by half and transfer to air force.
It's hard to agree with this. As U.S. and NATO have found out, there is a severe limit on the "non-contact" and otherwise air warfare, as well as on what UAV's can do. At the end of the day, power of any state and nation depends on its sovereignty over territory - preferably as large territory as possible and as fertile or otherwise rich in resources as possible. It is no accident than such large states as U.S., China, Russia, Canada, Brazil, Japan, Australia, France, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Kazakhstan and a few others are geopolitically more important than others, have larger economies, and large armies.
It's also no accident than in both invasions, of Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO had to rely on up to 100,000 or more boots on the ground if we count all contractors. This is despite overwhelming superiority in the air as well as in special forces that could be parachuted anywhere for a short-term mission.
It is the reason that NATO or U.S. are not taking more aggressive steps towards Syria and Iran, for example, as it means committing troops, which means casualties - as domination in the sky is not enough, plus never assured - let's remember Serbia war when 30-year old Soviet anti-aircraft systems downed the "stealth" F-117 and other planes, the 2008 war in Georgia when Georgians downed multiple Russian jet fighters including the strategic bomber Tu-95MS,
Turkey's power are its land forces, its army. The day Turkey decides to "save" money on its soldiers and instead get more airplanes or more frigates, would be the day when Turkish security would decrease, and the nation would start suffering a downfall.