Israel never had control of the seas. First Britain had it now America has it. The country with the second largest population of

Jews and the largest population of philos. That is not all that bad for naval security. And Israel can count on it's commerce being protected by default of US naval hegemony. Every nation has to rely on others for some things.

As for the Persian/ Greek wars showing that loseing control of the seas gets you Greeks with pointy things, by Alexander's time it was the Greeks who lost control of the sea. He solved that problem simply by marching along the coast Eastward subjugating cities one by one. 

The thing is a real navy is expensive. Far more expensive then a regional power can put up. There are only a few countries who made themselves known as naval powers. Even before the "floating-death-star" warships we have now. The old argument that the IAF doubles as a navy is still valid. The IAF can reach hundreds of miles out to sea. While the IAF can't do ASW the Arabs don't have subs. And the IAF can do anti-surface well enough.

 

 

 

The Dutch, the British, the Portugese, were all examples of small nations that had powerful navies...

The question of geographical size seems irrelevant when one looks at the histories of navies. Israel is small yes, but does that mean it can't have a navy that can project power, and be a strategic arm of the Israeli military machine...no.

 

The Dutch in particular is an example of a small nation exerting great naval power. They were the traders, the middlemen and with wealth it brought with it great military might. These examples are to only highlight that bigness doesn't make greatness. Israel has great entrepeneurial/brain resources, which in my opinion is the most valuable resource available to a nation. Israel is also situated smack bang in the crossroads of East meeting west, providing it the perfect place to be the global middlemen. Point here is if Israel was to shed its socialist upbringing, embrace the market, deregulate its banking sector and curb its constant terror threat (tourism) there is a great capacity for it to have the budgets necessary to support a world class navy.

 

As for the reasons why Israel would ever need a blue water navy, a Navy which has strategic capabilities, there are three main reasons for such a need;

 

First, Israel is the Jewish State, it is therefore a guardian of all Jews that may find themselves persecuted in their host country. You may chalk this up to some bizarre paranoia, but history would say otherwise, inevitably there will be some institutionalized Jew hate, and Israel's Navy should be able to project power at the very least to execute a plausible evacuation of the threatened jewish population abroad.

 

2nd, part of Israeli military doctrine is defensive strategy, offensive tactics. This means that Israel should in every part of its war making strategy be able to take the battle from its shores and bring the threat to the enemy. Why should Israel's Navy be excluded from having such a capacity.

 

3rd, Israel relies to a great degree on deterrence in order for it not to be plunged into war every other day. This means that the enemy will back off b/c he knows if there is a fight he will get mauled or at least badly injured. Having a Navy that can deploy troops, a Navy that has a good submarine threat and can provide firepower is a great deterrence factor with the cost-benefit analysis.

 

I am of the opinion, that the only thing limiting the growth and strength of Israel's Navy, is Israel. I for one have been a long advocate of mimicking the Australian naval procurement of the last few years, especially with its canberra and hobart classes. I also regard the need for Israel to build its own indiginous attack submarine. Israel would obviously need to drastically increase its defense budget, which in itself will demand a government that limits its welfare program, increase its revenues and encorporates its brain power assets in a competitive marketplace. Currently Israel spends 10% of its gdp on its defense, in the 80's it was close to 25% of its gdp. Israel is today one of the top economies in the world, and has shown quite adaptive resilience in the face of intractable conflict, Israel should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

This Naval increase would demand of Israel much forward thinking, and changes in economic policies to support such procurement projects, but it can be done!

 

 

 

 

 

A small qualification on historical example I provided above 

 

How they garnered the cash to pay for their toys was not the point I was making, the point was that a small nation by successfully exploiting the given market system of the time, (then colonialism was a legitimate tool for wealth accumulation) is able to accumulate the wealth required to have the instrumentalities of war that define actual power. "Bigness doesn't necessarily mean greatness" was the point being reinforced here. Just because colonialism is off the table doesn't mean that there are not economies to be exploited, niches to be found, products of immense value invented, technological breakthrough etc. In this way there have been small nations in history that have been able  to accomplish so much transcending there smallness. Different context (not a colonialist age) but same rules apply....

 

vision mixed with pragmatism = wealth

 

Good to have you back.

Your ideas about Israel's naval power are nonetheless very wrongheaded.

I do take offense at the suggestion that we again put our economy on a war footage. There is no indication that we'd be better off, and that our deterrent would improve, if we'd increase defense spending to the level you're talking about. If there's a need for an increase of public expenditure, it should go first to civilian strategic matters, such as reversing the brain drain, developing water and energy resources, restoring the citizens' freedom of movement with modern transportation infrastructures, making this country livable by addressing the pressing environmental issues, and, last but not least, bringing back the Public Service to the level that taxpayers in other democratic countries can expect for their tax money, after the Bibi and his klepto-Thatcherite successors have so gallantly done away with it. Charities should be no longer be a substitute for the State's social safety net, and private security guards everywhere along with accommodation with criminal behaviors, should no longer palliate the State's duty to enforce the law and protect the citizens.

 

Your excuse for advocating an amphibious force-projection capability also does not hold much water. Critically-endangered Jewish communities have been rescued before, twice (Yemen and Ethiopia), using airlifts and without firing a shot. This doesn't mean, of course, that such possibilities will always be available in the future, but there's also no guarantee that a limited naval-amphibious operation will be the way to go the next time around.

 

What Israel needs is to be able to protect its shores from aggressions, and the current force structure adequately enables it to do just that. In order to face the more dangerous strategic threats in the near future, a robust air-defense capability is also called for. Some offensive naval capabilities would be nice to have, like being able to perform, and survive, shore bombardment with something a little bit more convincing than the puny little Oto-Melara 76 mm cannon. There's little evidence, however, that anything like that is in the works, and it rather looks as if the IN is struggling to get the funds to replace its obsolescent assets with newer units, while mostly retaining its size and structure.

It won't be easy, since the Air Force and the Land Forces are tugging hard at a shrunken budgetary  blanket (weak US$), and the Navy's prestige and popularity has never been lower since their July '06 balls-up offshore Beyrouth.

The Navy will need a concerted PR effort, and fast, before their LCS is sunk by an F-35b or a Merkava, and I'm more than willing to do whatever I can to help!

 

 

Shirrush,

 

I do enjoy our disagreements, it shows the diversity of though when approaching, the composition, purposes and and values seen in the Jewish State. I have noticed though that in our exchanges, you conveniently stop posting when the argument demands a further qualification,clarification or begs the question on your part (if you like I will cite the threads).

 

As for this argument on the need and possibility of an Israeli navy that can project force and engage other naval/military forces far from its borders...there is plenty to argue about. I'm just reticent to get into another debate with you when on previous occassions they have left me wanting. I will wait for your reply or another posters reply (if another poster is interested in this disagreement then I will move forward with my opinion)

Well Hatzkel, I don't think you're being too fair to me here. I don't "conveniently stop posting", it is just that some threads do die an early death. Why? Kakha! I do confess, however, that much in the same way as most veteran board members here, I have been markedly less assiduous lately. Face it, these fora have been awfully quiet for quite some time, and the jury's still out on why this is happening. I might be part of the problem, but please do not single me out for blame. Where's Swithebull? Whatever happened to my team-mate Scholar? Where are aceofw and and all the Izzies? Only Battar and I are left, and yes, we're getting increasingly sporadic.

 

As to the debate on what Israel should do to improve its defense credibility, I think that you should first consider hauling ass over here for a few weeks, and get a grasp of what Israel really is, and how its people really live their lives. I know you're one of these ardent diaspora Zionist supporters, and you have all my respect and gratitude for that. What you do not seem to grasp is the fact that we're a very small developing country, with most of its hyperdense population concentrated in just one conurbation the size of a medium american city, that compose a society crisscrossed by almost as many fault lines than it has people.

We are traversing a political crisis of biblically unprecedented proportions, the bottom line of which being that we might pretty soon find ourselves, all of us, in a very long queue to the Pearly Gates, owing to our enemies' implacable hatred and enormous power, and to our own extreme weakness and vulnerability.

 

So you will pardon me for holding the view that a couple of US$ 1.5 B-apiece amphibs and their accompanying US$ 500 M escorts are not exactly a priority, given that the State still has to find a way to provide enough gas-masks and shelters, and possibly rifles, to the population for the near-certainty of a not-too distant NBC last stand.

 

Moreover, taking the fight to the sea is not exactly a realistic proposition for a nation of little maritime tradition. Whatever little was left, after the Holocaust, of the Thessaloniki community, was barely enough to establish the dreaded Haifa port docker's union, and the formerly seafaring Basrawi Jews had mostly abandoned this line of business more than three centuries ago, leaving the Ivory and Spices trade to their Portuguese competitors and moving on to more earthbound endeavours such as London advertising agencies... 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, well, I overheard somewhere that one of the 3 Dolphin class subs has already been decommissioned.

That leaves us with two, pending the delivery of the two new AIP green bottles in 2010 or so. 

That will be (according to foreign publications) 8 tubes for the alleged strategic, second strike cruise missiles.

A large enemy country with sophisticated IADS, such as Iran when it gets the S-300PMU2, can take a chance with that. If Turkey really gets religion, and there are indeed disturbing signs this is happening, they have a potent Navy against which our 2 subs will not outlast the first day of the war.

It's interesting to see where this thread is bearing, considering what it was its initial subject.

 

In any case, speculaing about an Israeli blue navy, I think it would be necessary to frame the strategic problem as a firs step.

It is not very probable that in the forseable future Israel would be confronted with the necessity of displaying a huge sea denial capability, because it is unprobable that it will have any big maritime dependant country as a potential adversary. On the other hand, an instrument to guarantee the continuity and the functionality of the far sea lanes could become a necessity for the Jewish state in the future. What if the future challanges for Israel don't come only from its borders on land but also from its distant, and presently undefendable, sae borders ? I don't think, but that's just an opinion, that the Israelians would like to leave their defence completely in the hands of someone else. Cooperation yes, support yes, but it seems to me that so far, the Israeli strategic minds have always liked to have the proper operations in their own hands and not in someone else's.

The fact that Israel has been fighting low intensity battles in the last 3 decades, does not allow, like it doesn't allow any western power for the matter, to think that any conventional threat is gone forever.

From the practical point of view, I don't think that Israel would have any unsurmontable problems to understand, concieve and operate a high sea fleet balanced in all its components, including  SSNs and even SSBNs if necessary. Some sources in Italy  give already Israel working on a SSBN project, If these claims were correct, I wouldn't be surprised, given the challenges that the jewish state might be called to face in the future.

 As for the SSNs, let us not forget that the best job for a SSN is to hunt other SSNs, so it doesn't have to be a sea denial platform at all costs.

One could argue that the Israelis don't have the experience. They would learn and learn fast, as Liddle Hart always claimed tham to be his fastest learning students. Someone raised the economic problem. I think it's smoke in the eyes. If a ridicoulus military spender like Italy has a decent - not good but decent - blueish navy, I think that Israel can have balanced good fleet. A bigger problem would be the creation of a true interoperability between Navy and Airforce on the sea, but here I don't adventure myself into any evaluations, because I don't have any idea about the institutional realtionship among the different Israeli armed forces. I know for sure that even a country with a fair naval tradition like mine, still has problems with that and has is a lot to do yet on that peculiar field. 

 

respectfully

luigi.delta

I guess what you are saying is that in the heat of our verbal battle your arguments die....That's fine, i'll accept defeat. I'll also accept the perfect israeli answer to all problems, your "kacha." Maybe next time you will answer with another native rejoinder like "yehiyeh be'seder" or my favorite "ma la'asot."

As for my status in terms of Israel and myself, just let me say this...There is much you do not know. But what I can tell you is that I have a deep, diverse and first hand knowledge of Israel....and my sacrifices made for Israel has not only been the proverbial diasporah dollar. I'm not saying this b/c i want to be elusive or mysterious, but so that you understand that the consumate Israeli barb thrown at the diasporah brethren of; "you're there, I am here, so just shut up" does not apply to me. If you would like to test my grass roots knowledge of Israel feel free to make sure I am not being dishonest.

 

As for our disagreement about Israel's Navy, your attitude is very Israeli..."What you do not seem to grasp is the fact that we're a very small developing country, with most of its hyperdense population concentrated in just one conurbation the size of a medium american city, that compose a society crisscrossed by almost as many fault lines than it has people."

 

If you think small, you will be small, and you will be treated as such. America was only the 13 colonies in the beginning, but they dreamt big (manifest destiny) The British and their empire, the DUtch and theirs. As I mentioned in above posts being small is no indication of influence. As for Israel as developing, Israel and its problems, if you read my above posts, I recognize that there is issues, that government composition needs to change, economic policies need to change. But there is enough in an Israeli economy that provides an observer that Israel is only just getting started, and already look how much they've accomplished (with a sword in one hand mind you). If Israel were to embark on a naval procurement plan that would provide it strategic capacites, the Israeli economy and military would in my opinion be up to the challenge.

 

As to the why?

 

Taking the fight to the enemy: A strategic navy provides the crucial platforms that can bring troops and tanks to the enemy shores, Israel because of its tiny land mass, should always try to find ways to do just that, put the theatre of war on another territory, or at least provide a plausible threat of rear guard action, so they don't put all their forces into your territory.

 

Deterrence: The prestige found in a navy that has these capacities are immense in the geo-political diplomatic game, it has immeasurable influence.....why do you think american diplomacy is often labeled "gunboat diplomacy" This is to me one of the great advantages of a great navy, the idea that ones forces can be brought to bare in any location on the globe is a credible threat that every leader must recognize and digest in his decision to go to war. Israel depends on its deterrence, using its airforce to its maximum to make sure the message gets across, why should the navy not be considered in such a calculation as well?

 

Power: Navy means power, having a navy ups the ante in any war and as it stands today, Israel's Navy would have a hard time dealing w/ the Egyptian Navy. The sea is another platform for Israel to maximize control over its enemies, whether by disrupting enemy shipping lanes, blockade or transporting its military resources in far off locations. The point is, that A world class Navy would open far more strategic and tactical doors for Israel in any military campaign then it closes that is for sure.

There is no real reason "why" for Israel to create a major navy.  Focus more on the why not.

1)  Israel has some very real, very dangerous enemies.  Unlike 18th century Britain, these have easy land routes to Israel.  A major naval force could do nothing that the same amount of money spent on land and air forces could not, in the event of an attack across Israel's borders.

 

2)  Warships today provide mobile platforms for aircraft, sensors, and missiles.  Only in the most unusual of circumstances does a warship actually enter a fight.  It's purpose is to carry those aircraft, sensors, and missiles across the ocean to a place where they are needed.  Israel already has a perfectly positioned platform for aircraft, sensors, and missiles, it's called Israel, and it's unsinkable.

 

3)  The ocean trade protection idea makes no sense.  Israel's merchant shipping beyond Israeli territorial water is already protected by default, by the US and NATO.  Merchant ships today don't belong to one nation and act in support of one nation like they used to.  Israel's biggest merchant carrier is Zim.  It owns about 100 ships.   Israel's ENTIRE merchant marine is officially, 18 ships.  So when  a Zim ship is carrying containers from 12 African nations to Europe, and is flying the Panamanian flag with a Greek-Russian-Philipino crew, is it an Israeli ship?  Who is securing it's freedom?  We are.  The US, and its allies, are the police force of the oceans.

 

4)  Money is not infinite.  Even for Israel.  Money spent here isn't buying new tanks or aircraft- the proven defenders of Israel.

 

5)  Assume, just for a moment, that one of those Zim ships was hijacked.  It could be anywhere in the world.  Where is Israel's small blue water surface navy going to be?  A month away?  Two? 

 

6)  Supposing Israel did field one major battlegroup.  The obvious question, then: where would it be?  If it is far away, then it can't be sustained forever, and in the even of a major crisis theatening Israel, assuming it was "on station", the opponent would simply wait it out.  If there was an Israeli battle group off Iran's coast, for example, Iran would simply stall diplomatically long enough to for the battle group to return home.  To maintain a continuous presence, you need multiple rotations of battlegroups, and this is way beyond what they can afford.

 

7)  We don't want Israel to have it.  Think about it.  If Israel were to have a serious, blue water deployable battle group, then any enemy of Israel would have to assume that in the event of war, Israel would use it.  That means, just as the 200 mile zone around the Falklands and Argentina became a war zone in the Falklands war, the areas around any of Israel's enemies becomes a war zone.  Problem here.  While the Falklands was conveniently remote, the Persian Gulf is not.  If Israel had a fleet there, obviously it would try to be as elusive as possible.  Obviously, in war, the Iranians would try to counter it.  But unlike the Falklands War, this manuever and counter manuever is going on in a sea area crowded with ships of other nations.  Very likely, the first targets hit by Iranian missiles trying to sink Israeli warships would not be Israeli, odds are they wouldn't even be warships.  In that environment, the US and allies have a choice:  let the war close the Persian Gulf and accept the consequences, or keep the Gulf safe for maritime traffic, by force.  So, the existence of an Israeli surface battle group would almost certainly cause a scuffle between Israel and Iran to escalate into a general war against Iran.

 

And we don't want to get dragged into things.  We'll bomb Iran when WE want to, thank you very much.

 

No large surface warships for Israel.

 

SGTObvious 

Shirrush - The Dolphin subs are NOT decomissioned. However, when there are only three of them, and they are such complex little toys, there will always be one up on the jacks in the shop for an oil change. So it is unlikely that you will ever have more that 2 in operational readiness at any one time. It was the same with the Gal class subs.

 

Ezekial - Taking the fight to the enemy, deterrence, world power - yes indeed, but the IDF have chosen to do all that with the air-force, not the Navy. Becasue the air force can point north east and south but the Navy only goes west.

Switzerland always thought small and got along just fine. The thing that made Zionism different

from other Nationalist movements was that it thought of coersive power as a means, not an end.

To think of "becoming big" in that sense as a goal is to become like Balkans. Israel has always "thought

big". The creation of Israel was by definition,"thinking big". But military glory was an historical accident not a goal, and Israel was always ambiguous about it as is right and proper even though there is a certain atavistic pleasure in it that all have. Israel is warlike by necessity but it did not set out to be so and that is what makes it different.

Competing for military power is a zero-sum game. And to paraphrase Jesus(which I do not think He will take amiss), "after all these things do the Gentiles seek." Or to paraphrase Kipling, "Oh heathen heart that puts it's trust, in reeking tube and iron shard."

 If Israel seeks naval power it must be for a purpose and not as an end. To do otherwise is unworthy.

 Now I admit I am sounding sanctimonious. But there is a point to what I say.

As for the British and the Dutch, well, the Dutch got their empire by seeking wealth. The British got theirs by seeking wealth and seeking to stick it to the Frogs. America got it's empire by settlement. In all of these cases except possibly Britain's military glory was a by product not a goal. Israel is not  Napolean and it is certainly not  Kaiser  Bill and building a fleet just to "think big" is unworthy. There must be a reason. Israel thinks big enough in other areas of life.

And in any case, I should think it has enough glory already to satisfy anyone.