Considering the cost involved, I think it would be easier for Isreal to rely on landbased aircraft and small fast boats in order to take on anything coming at its shores. A decent sized helo carrier would really be nothing more then a target. Utilizing corvettes and possibly a frigate sized ship as a refueling and rearming asset for helicopters would help Isreali helos stick with the fleet and patrol for enemy boats a little better. The IDFs' three Saar 5 corvettes can currently cary 2 helos, usually of the ASW and SAR variety, if the extra effort was added to allow the ships to carry cobra gunships, those helos could act quite effectively to patrol and interdict against enemy surface threats and enemy helos. If the boats can handle AH-64 Apaches, that would be even better.

 

It is aburd for Israel to  invest money in a carrier while plane can hit naval forces with air refueling in a radius of 5000 km.

The only ships Israel need are SSK, some landing ships and small patrol boats.

I agree with FS, Israel really needs SSKs most, and a carrier would detract from this. At most, a flat-decked landing ship, more akin to the Aussie LPAs would make sense, simply to carry helicopter gunships and transport helos. For the cost of running a small carrier like the Chakri Naruebet, Israel could operate six or seven submarines, and the subs would have far more deterrent value!

i believe a small israeli aircraft carrier operating in the red sea would keep the sea lanes open.  if i remember right the egyptians had a sea blockade and closed the red sea for tankers carrying israeli oil.  an aircraft carrier would be a show of strength to israels enemies

 

A couple of SSN's would help by giving Israel the persistence needed to operate in the Persian Gulf area without the logistical tail required of her SSK's presently. A Rubis size boat with the ability to carry a dozen sub launched nuclear capable cruise missiles would really enhance Israel's deterrence and ability to slap down an opponent.

 

A carrier is a singularly bad idea I think. A hard asset to protect in the confines of the Med or Gulf and any op's it might conduct can be carried out by other asset types.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

I disagree, an SSN would pose a lot of problems - politically it would be very difficult to justify selling to Israel, and in the littoral environment, it wouldn't have many benefits. The reality is that Israel's new SSKs are more than capable, and each cost less than one third as much as an SSN, and the running costs are less than a third as high. As such, instead of buying just two SSNs, they could buy and operate at least six subs, which would be more than enough. The subs basically just sit off in the Indian Ocean, hardly moving, since they are deterrent subs, and wait for orders to fire some missiles. They probably carry a couple of nuclear missiles at most - probably four max.

The ability to transit to the Indian Ocean and stand a deterent patrol (maybe even stay a extra 30 days in an emergency) without refuel justifies their existance. Weapons load for a Popeye Nuclear missle ship would be allot more than four. SSK's are simply not up to the task. You would need cooperation from an ally or a support ship. Both are directly in opposition to stealthy nuclear deterence.

 

Politics are nice when you have a country to debate policy about. Israel's enemies are increasingly able to extinguish her fire in an instant. SSN's balance the equation. In my humble opinion.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

We could build them a couple 'o Collins boats if they ask us nicely.

 

There is no way in Hades that the USN and RAN would allow some of the sensor gear and the sig management tech to be released.  The USG is still irritated with some tech leak from the Israeli end that was viewed as going to china.

Collins has been rejected as a pass on build opportunity to a number of countries due to intel leakage concerns.  Israel would in all likelihood be in that cohort of countries where leakage is a problem.

 

AustGov is pro Israel, but that would never happen.

 

 

 

If israel would buy the royal thais so called patrol helicopter carrier it would protect israels coastline in the mediterranean and maybe one similiar to place in the red sea in eliat.

Israel made a concious decision to stay with a small green water capability - that was reinforced by the Eilat incident.  They are a pro small vessel navy because it provides them with funding and platform flexibility - interestingly enough, the Singaporeans have taken the same view - and Israel provided (and still provides) critical input into some of their force development.  In fact Singapores military is based on the small, fluid, techno superior model espounded by the Israelis.  The lack of a major physically large surface combatant is for a reason - and its not cost.