Israel has not the capacity to fund one of these mega machines....the best for Israel would be the LHC's that australia purchased from spain last week. it can launch VSTOL, UAV and helicopters, and an amphibious assualt group, this is far more pragmatic. Israel can purchase the F-35B variant in 10 years. The Israeli LHC will give it the force projection needed with far less cost and give it the added deterrence of credible amphibious assaults farther away from its borders. Israel like Australia has done, would incorporate its own stuff in the interior of the ship. This is far as Israel can go with its current budget and needs.

The LHC you feel would be a cheaper solution would in fact cost about the same as three small nuclear submarines. With the LHC comes your wing of F-35's, a set of heavier destroyers/frigates than the Israeli's currently  use  for ASW & SAM support, all tied together in a single battle group that is highly visible and must be staffed by crews numbering in the thousands.

 

Israel does not need a carrier. Whether nuclear powered subs would be worth the investment is a debateable point with pros and cons to be weighed. The carrier is a very bad idea IMHO.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Option
4:
Substitute Hydra
Hydra is the most revolutionary sea-launched missile system.
Submarines
(including SUM) and/or surface ships in any combination desired mount
ballistic missiles internally or externally, either in canisters or modified
to waterproof and improve bare missile buoyancy. Crews release those packets
to float free in times of crises, far from the carriers and each other.
Firings are triggered on call from remote positions at sea or ashore.
All
components could be recovered if Zhreats recede and
requirements
to launch
disappear,
according to the concept, which Navy personnel tested in part in
the early 1960s.
Hydra missiles theoretically could be affixed to all sorts of carriers
with collateral functions (some ships, for example, might also transport
cargo). Serious conflicts between
'
main and secondary missio

What does it take to operate a mini carrier?

 Well firstly you want it avalible all of the time or just some of the time. If its all of the time your looking at two ships.

 

 So there is $2-3 billion gone.

 

 How about some escorts, two AGEIS class (or simular) for each ship, four in total, $7-9 billion. Do you have enough submarines to secure the waters around it? If not get a few more, another billion (collins cost half a billion each). Do you have SM-2 and SM-3? SM-6 on the to buy list? Get your cheque book out because this is going to be expensive.

 

 F-35B is not going to cost any less than $50 million each, add supporting costs your about $100 million at least. You would want around 24 to 36 to provide each carrier with a useable airwing with a few left over for spares, training etc. Around $2.4 billion to $3.6 billion. What about a few helicopters for radar and search/rescue stuff?

 

  Another billion in training, recruiting, port facilities, landing craft, commissioning etc. Okay, we are now getting around $15-$20 billion dollars. Thats just the purchase price. If there are no cost overruns. If you just want one, avalible some of the time then yes, you can halve your costs.

 

 There is *NO* way Israel can afford that. Infact very few countries can. Spain, Italy and Australia are realistically the only countries that are able to reliably do so. France and UK are stepping up to even more serious costs, atleast twice the cost for the airwing and ships and a few more escorts. US runs a dozen supersized groups, then again there military budget could buy and sell Africa, south america and eastern europe combined.

 

 When the Australian strike group is sailing thats going to be over 10 billion bucks in ships alone. Add planes, tanks, personel training, etc Its a super expensive "show of force". Spain has one becuase it has some territories disputed with the UK and several other countries it wants to hold onto not to mention secure its sea rights. Italy has one because it is basically the keeper of the Mediterrainian, and is upgrading its coldwar stuff. Spain has not even commited aircraft for its BPE, Italy is still trying to get funding for the Cavours airwing.

 

 Australia is getting one because it has territorial claims over 12-18% (if inc antartic claims, EEZ claims) of the entire planet and intends to protect Oceania and south east asia from China as well as keeping the worlds most populated islamic nation under control. Single handedly I might add. It is also a replacement for its F-111's... It too has not commited aircraft for its ships, yet.

 

 Unless Israel is intending to randomly strike arab nations from the sea they have no use for one.

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.

Isn't everybody?

Just returning JJ junk mail, addressed; TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.

Herald