Can Israel develop its own stealth fighter jet

icecoolben

New Member
israel is good in avionics and they are producing UAVs, its just a matter of time they produced stealth UAVs. If they badly need a manned fighter aircraft, then they can make use of active-cancellation using F-16I sufa as testbed, then implement it on KFX, tejas or gripen NG and use it as a low cost comliment to F-35
 

jgarbuz

New Member
It probably could, but what for?

Hello guys, I was discussing this very issue with some friends of mine, and got to the conclusion that if Israel can make some state of the art main battle thanks like the MK-IV, or some advanced ballistic missiles like the arrow it could also make its own stealth planes and be more independent from the US aid, in fact there was a project in the 80´s called the Lavi and it was supposed to be better than the F-15 and was shoot down by the US.

So what do u think? Can Israel develop its own stealth fighter jet?

PD. sorry for the writing I’m not from the US.
It could develop anything, if it brought back up its tax rates to where they were in the 1970s. But Israel probably has no need for them. The neighboring air forces are no match for Israel today, and Israel has Jericho II missiles to deal with Iran if it has to. Israel only reluctantly accepted to take about 19 F-35s for free because turning them down would be bad for Lockheed-Martin and for US sales to other countries as well. What Israel really needs is "boomers" or nuclear subs with SBLMs, but the US won't supply Israel with those. Also, Israel's turning down the F-35s might jeopardize large sales to the Saudis and other cash-paying countries who are enemies of Israel in the Congress. But I see little use or need for them by Israel.
 

the road runner

Active Member
It could develop anything, if it brought back up its tax rates to where they were in the 1970s. But Israel probably has no need for them. The neighboring air forces are no match for Israel today, and Israel has Jericho II missiles to deal with Iran if it has to. Israel only reluctantly accepted to take about 19 F-35s for free because turning them down would be bad for Lockheed-Martin and for US sales to other countries as well. What Israel really needs is "boomers" or nuclear subs with SBLMs, but the US won't supply Israel with those. Also, Israel's turning down the F-35s might jeopardize large sales to the Saudis and other cash-paying countries who are enemies of Israel in the Congress. But I see little use or need for them by Israel.
You do realise Israel has Dolphin class subs that suite their need very well.Why would Israel need Boomers? It has no reason to patrol the worlds oceans.It just needs a sub to patrol its area of interest.

As for JSF Israel did NOT reluctantly accept JSF, it asked for JSF as its AF have always been cutting edge with a professional force.JSF will ensure Israel AF continues to be an advanced air force in its region.
 

jgarbuz

New Member
You do realise Israel has Dolphin class subs that suite their need very well.Why would Israel need Boomers? It has no reason to patrol the worlds oceans.It just needs a sub to patrol its area of interest.

As for JSF Israel did NOT reluctantly accept JSF, it asked for JSF as its AF have always been cutting edge with a professional force.JSF will ensure Israel AF continues to be an advanced air force in its region.
The Dolphins can only carry cruse missiles that can easily be shot down. Iran is a huge country compared to Israel, about 65 times Israel's physical size, and ten times its population.

And Israel would need Boomers for the same reason the US needed them: to put its nuclear deterrent deep underwater to mitigate a massive first strike on its land based Jerichos,and air force. It only takes 6 minutes for an Iranian missile fired from Iran to hit Israel in a first strike.

And again, Israel has no major AF opposition in the region, and F-35's are now $200 million a copy and not worth a damn. I don't think they could even reach Iran and get back. I don't think Israel should take them for free. I'd ask for a Boomer instead of a flying fleet of white elephants. For the cost of 20 F-35's you can get a Boomer if the US would permit it. And far more useful for a second deterrence.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The Dolphins can only carry cruse missiles that can easily be shot down. Iran is a huge country compared to Israel, about 65 times Israel's physical size, and ten times its population.

And Israel would need Boomers for the same reason the US needed them: to put its nuclear deterrent deep underwater to mitigate a massive first strike on its land based Jerichos,and air force. It only takes 6 minutes for an Iranian missile fired from Iran to hit Israel in a first strike.

And again, Israel has no major AF opposition in the region, and F-35's are now $200 million a copy and not worth a damn. I don't think they could even reach Iran and get back. I don't think Israel should take them for free. I'd ask for a Boomer instead of a flying fleet of white elephants. For the cost of 20 F-35's you can get a Boomer if the US would permit it. And far more useful for a second deterrence.
Aside from the cost numbers for the F-35 being 'questionable' at best... Since most of the #'s shown for the F-35 have been in the ~$80 mil. - 130 mil. depending on just when in the production cycle it was ordered (LRIP, full scale production, year of production, etc...)

Why would the US violate a number of non-proliferation treaties selling a SSBN, or the SLBM's which would be required to for the SSBN to be useful? Also, could Israel/the IDF afford to spend more than $3 bil. per sub, especially since the minimum # required to provide a constant deterance capability would be 3 SSBN's?

Going even further with this, could Israel afford to setup all the infrastructure which would be required to maintain and operate nuclear subs?

How about maintaining the SLBM's and their presumably nuclear warheads? The design requirements for a SLBM warhead are somewhat different from those of cruise missle and bomb warheads.

So far, it seems like arguments have been put forward for the IDF to get something which while it would have a strategic place within the IDF, the costs for either acquisition or support, nevermind both, are too great for Israel to bear, and apart from strategic deterence, many other taskings the IDF would have could not reasonably be done.
 

jgarbuz

New Member
If we really had Israel's survival at heart....

Aside from the cost numbers for the F-35 being 'questionable' at best... Since most of the #'s shown for the F-35 have been in the ~$80 mil. - 130 mil. depending on just when in the production cycle it was ordered (LRIP, full scale production, year of production, etc...)

Why would the US violate a number of non-proliferation treaties selling a SSBN, or the SLBM's which would be required to for the SSBN to be useful? Also, could Israel/the IDF afford to spend more than $3 bil. per sub, especially since the minimum # required to provide a constant deterance capability would be 3 SSBN's?

Going even further with this, could Israel afford to setup all the infrastructure which would be required to maintain and operate nuclear subs?

How about maintaining the SLBM's and their presumably nuclear warheads? The design requirements for a SLBM warhead are somewhat different from those of cruise missle and bomb warheads.

So far, it seems like arguments have been put forward for the IDF to get something which while it would have a strategic place within the IDF, the costs for either acquisition or support, nevermind both, are too great for Israel to bear, and apart from strategic deterence, many other taskings the IDF would have could not reasonably be done.
Well, putting the proliferation legalities aside for a moment, yes it would be better for Israel to spend $9 billion for 3 Boomers than anything at all for planes that have no usefulness. What good are planes that can be destroyed before they even get off the runway in a 6 minute attack by 1000 Iranian missiles, each with a 2000 lb warhead, if not a nuclear warhead? And Israel could probably develop SBLMs themselves to launch from them.

Don't worry about costs. In Israel it is survival that matters, not cost. I remember Israel in the 1970s when it was spending 25% of its GDP on the military. That was proportionately what the US was spending for WWII. During Vietnam the US was spending about 9% and today only about 4%. Israel now spends only 8% with US aid bringing it down to about 6%. But now the US aid is just forcing Israel to accept things it does not really need, such as these F-35s, just so that Boeing and Lockheed can also sell Saudi Arabia another 75 F-15s, and that is a treadmill that starting to make no sense for Israel. It makes lots of dollars and sense to Boeing and Lockheed, as they get subsidized for building the planes for Israel while also garnering vast arms sales to its Arab adversaries. But for Israel, the whole setup is no longer adding to its real survivability needs.

Incidentally, the Iranians are building subs and also have an old Russian sub that I believe was used for launching missiles, but it might have been obsolete so it slipped under the radar. I agree it would be legally questionable to transfer a Boomer to Israel, but if we genuinely had Israel's survival at heart, we'd genuinely want it to have what it really needs to survive, rather than just pushing stuff just to keep employment up on old planes like the F-16s and F-15s. The fact is, planes are at the verge of obsolescence, like battleships in WWII. They are just flying ducks for target practice. Missiles, UAV's and subs are where it's at,
 

the road runner

Active Member
And Israel would need Boomers for the same reason the US needed them: to put its nuclear deterrent deep underwater to mitigate a massive first strike on its land based Jerichos,and air force. It only takes 6 minutes for an Iranian missile fired from Iran to hit Israel in a first strike.
As Todjaeger has stated cost for a Nuke industry would be very prohibitive.
Israel has shown great success shooting down rockets/missiles with Iron dome AD systems.

And again, Israel has no major AF opposition in the region, and F-35's are now $200 million a copy and not worth a damn. I don't think they could even reach Iran and get back. I don't think Israel should take them for free. I'd ask for a Boomer instead of a flying fleet of white elephants. For the cost of 20 F-35's you can get a Boomer if the US would permit it. And far more useful for a second deterrence.
You should read the JSF thread here ,might change your mind.You seem very negative on JSF calling them a white elephant.As to you stating JSF costing $200 million a piece you are ill informed.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Well, putting the proliferation legalities aside for a moment, yes it would be better for Israel to spend $9 billion for 3 Boomers than anything at all for planes that have no usefulness. What good are planes that can be destroyed before they even get off the runway in a 6 minute attack by 1000 Iranian missiles, each with a 2000 lb warhead, if not a nuclear warhead? And Israel could probably develop SBLMs themselves to launch from them.

Don't worry about costs. In Israel it is survival that matters, not cost. I remember Israel in the 1970s when it was spending 25% of its GDP on the military. That was proportionately what the US was spending for WWII. During Vietnam the US was spending about 9% and today only about 4%. Israel now spends only 8% with US aid bringing it down to about 6%. But now the US aid is just forcing Israel to accept things it does not really need, such as these F-35s, just so that Boeing and Lockheed can also sell Saudi Arabia another 75 F-15s, and that is a treadmill that starting to make no sense for Israel. It makes lots of dollars and sense to Boeing and Lockheed, as they get subsidized for building the planes for Israel while also garnering vast arms sales to its Arab adversaries. But for Israel, the whole setup is no longer adding to its real survivability needs.

Incidentally, the Iranians are building subs and also have an old Russian sub that I believe was used for launching missiles, but it might have been obsolete so it slipped under the radar. I agree it would be legally questionable to transfer a Boomer to Israel, but if we genuinely had Israel's survival at heart, we'd genuinely want it to have what it really needs to survive, rather than just pushing stuff just to keep employment up on old planes like the F-16s and F-15s. The fact is, planes are at the verge of obsolescence, like battleships in WWII. They are just flying ducks for target practice. Missiles, UAV's and subs are where it's at,
I do not wish for this thread to become political, the nation that has primary responsibility for the safety/security of Israel is Israel, the US being a different nation, has different priorities.

Secondly, the sale of certain nuclear technologies, and the sale of certain missile technologies, particularly ballistic missile technologies, is prohibited by non-proliferation treaties which the US is signatory to. If the US were to now decide to opt of some/all of those treaties (as would be required for a sale to Israel of SSBN and/or SLBM systems & technologies to be legally permissible) then the chances for the non-proliferation treaties to collapse and cause widespread tranfer of nuclear and ballistic technologies and a potential international arms race, would be greatly increased.

Now, onto costs for SSBN's... The Ohio-class SSBN build programme as of 1996 had a per sub cost of ~$2 bil. once production was well underway. If new construction Ohio-class subs were to be commissioned for Israel, and that same per sub cost could be done but adjusted for inflation, a fleet of 3 such SSBN's would cost ~$10 bil. Realistically though, since there is not currently a shipyard where the Ohio-class then there would be initial startup costs which would raise the total fleet. The Ohio-class production for the USN was a production run of 18 subs, and by the end of the run, the averaged per sub cost of $2 bil.(in 1996, production ended in 1997) since a 3 sub run for Israel is so much smaller, then I would not be surprised if the total production cost would be greater than ~$14 bil. This is also just the production costs for the sub. This does not include any infrastructure costs for maintenance, modification or repair capabilities, crew training costs (keeping in mind nuclear trained sub personnel are required) where a single Ohio-class SSBN has a crew of 155 vs. the Dolphin-class SSG's ~45 crew.

Such a capability would also take years to deliver. If an order was placed now, construction could not start before the later part of 2013 at the earliest, and given past history, the delivery of the first SSBN would not occur until 2019 assuming the required crew had completed training to accept delivery. Again, this is assuming that an order was signed today and that Electric Boat does not sign any additional Virigina-class SSN orders for the USN which would require production slots ahead of any Israeli order. This is also assuming that the US is willing to go through the time consuming political and diplomatic processes to exit the various treaties signed to prevent dissemination of such technologies.

Also worth noting, IIRC the annual cost to operate an Ohio-class SSBN is ~$100 mil. per sub for the USN. Given that Israel would not have the same economies of scale which the US can reach, it would not surprise me if the per sub annual operating cost was more than $100 mil.

I now have to ask, could Israel realistically afford to spend over $14 bil. to purchase three SSBN's, declare itself a nuclear-armed state, spend the billions required on infrastructure to support SSBN operations, the billions required for SLBM's and their warheads, and commit itself to hundreds of millions of dollars in annual operating costs for such a niche capability?

Could the US realistically afford to back out of the non-proliferation treaties which were signed to prevent dissemination of such technologies, given the impact on international security?

IMO an answer of "Yes," to either or both questions is unrealistic.

Now for the cost of $200 mil. for the F-35, where on earth is that number coming from? LRIP orders placed ~2010 had a per aircraft cost of roughly $130 mil. and once full rate production commences, that average per aircraft cost is projected to be somewhere between $67 - 80 mil. The only way I can see a figure of $200 mil. being reached, is via shenanigans with the numbers. By that I mean someone taking the LRIP figure of $130 mil. in 2010 dollars, then adjusting for inflation to determine what the LRIP cost was using 2025 dollars.

Lastly, if the US aid is getting Israel things which is does not want/need, then perhaps it would be better for that aid to be applied to US needs and not benefit Israel. Billions of dollars are still required to repair and rebuild portions of the eastern and northeastern US after Hurricane Sandy hit in late October.
 

jack412

Active Member
israel is good in avionics and they are producing UAVs, its just a matter of time they produced stealth UAVs. If they badly need a manned fighter aircraft, then they can make use of active-cancellation using F-16I sufa as testbed, then implement it on KFX, tejas or gripen NG and use it as a low cost comliment to F-35
Do you mind if I ask you either retract x-band active cancellation or give a credable link to it's use with anyone or anything.

Well, putting the proliferation legalities aside for a moment, ......,
You can't put it aside, it's reality


..................

Listen Guys, making nonsense claims and suppositions will only upset the mods and they wont be gentle
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Listen Guys, making nonsense claims and suppositions will only upset the mods and they wont be gentle
^^^^^^^^^^ This

If to make a point work you have to just 'ignore' the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons then it must be blindingly obvious that the point is a non-starter. I can't even believe the idea that in order for the discussion to be done you've gotta ignore it has been thrown out, to be honest.

I suggest jgarbuz that you need to step up your game, by a long shot.

EDIT: Bear in mind this thread IS on our radar
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
In direct reference to the original topic, practically speaking, no, I don't believe Israel could develop it's own stealth fighter jet, or at least not without considerable input from the US or a similarly advanced partner. They've got a good industrial capacity for making components and systems but they've no experience in building an entire aircraft since the LAVI, no domestic GT production, the list goes on.

The main trick is of course that a lot of Israel's defence purchasing power is levered off the back of US aid. I can't see the US willingly underwriting that kind of expense for a competing aircraft. Given the kind of money you'd be talking about, the cost of such a project would be a total drain on the Israeli defence budget as well.

With respect to the other suggestion that US should sell/gift/fund SSBN's to the Israelis, that's a total non-starter - the US has traditionally taken a non-proliferation stance in the middle east and stepping away from this won't fly. It's a non-starter, fantasy suggestion, unfounded in anything close to reality. I'd suggest moving this thread to StrategyPage...
 

swerve

Super Moderator
No experience since the Lavi, & that was very dependent on US technology & financing. A substantial part of the development was done by US firms, in the USA, & paid for by US taxpayers. Lavi was cancelled soon after US funding was terminated.
 

jgarbuz

New Member
Possible Israeli options...

I do not wish for this thread to become political, the nation that has primary responsibility for the safety/security of Israel is Israel, the US being a different nation, has different priorities.

Secondly, the sale of certain nuclear technologies, and the sale of certain missile technologies, particularly ballistic missile technologies, is prohibited by non-proliferation treaties which the US is signatory to. If the US were to now decide to opt of some/all of those treaties (as would be required for a sale to Israel of SSBN and/or SLBM systems & technologies to be legally permissible) then the chances for the non-proliferation treaties to collapse and cause widespread tranfer of nuclear and ballistic technologies and a potential international arms race, would be greatly increased.

Now, onto costs for SSBN's... The Ohio-class SSBN build programme as of 1996 had a per sub cost of ~$2 bil. once production was well underway. If new construction Ohio-class subs were to be commissioned for Israel, and that same per sub cost could be done but adjusted for inflation, a fleet of 3 such SSBN's would cost ~$10 bil. Realistically though, since there is not currently a shipyard where the Ohio-class then there would be initial startup costs which would raise the total fleet. The Ohio-class production for the USN was a production run of 18 subs, and by the end of the run, the averaged per sub cost of $2 bil.(in 1996, production ended in 1997) since a 3 sub run for Israel is so much smaller, then I would not be surprised if the total production cost would be greater than ~$14 bil. This is also just the production costs for the sub. This does not include any infrastructure costs for maintenance, modification or repair capabilities, crew training costs (keeping in mind nuclear trained sub personnel are required) where a single Ohio-class SSBN has a crew of 155 vs. the Dolphin-class SSG's ~45 crew.

Such a capability would also take years to deliver. If an order was placed now, construction could not start before the later part of 2013 at the earliest, and given past history, the delivery of the first SSBN would not occur until 2019 assuming the required crew had completed training to accept delivery. Again, this is assuming that an order was signed today and that Electric Boat does not sign any additional Virigina-class SSN orders for the USN which would require production slots ahead of any Israeli order. This is also assuming that the US is willing to go through the time consuming political and diplomatic processes to exit the various treaties signed to prevent dissemination of such technologies.

Also worth noting, IIRC the annual cost to operate an Ohio-class SSBN is ~$100 mil. per sub for the USN. Given that Israel would not have the same economies of scale which the US can reach, it would not surprise me if the per sub annual operating cost was more than $100 mil.

I now have to ask, could Israel realistically afford to spend over $14 bil. to purchase three SSBN's, declare itself a nuclear-armed state, spend the billions required on infrastructure to support SSBN operations, the billions required for SLBM's and their warheads, and commit itself to hundreds of millions of dollars in annual operating costs for such a niche capability?

Could the US realistically afford to back out of the non-proliferation treaties which were signed to prevent dissemination of such technologies, given the impact on international security?

IMO an answer of "Yes," to either or both questions is unrealistic.

Now for the cost of $200 mil. for the F-35, where on earth is that number coming from? LRIP orders placed ~2010 had a per aircraft cost of roughly $130 mil. and once full rate production commences, that average per aircraft cost is projected to be somewhere between $67 - 80 mil. The only way I can see a figure of $200 mil. being reached, is via shenanigans with the numbers. By that I mean someone taking the LRIP figure of $130 mil. in 2010 dollars, then adjusting for inflation to determine what the LRIP cost was using 2025 dollars.

Lastly, if the US aid is getting Israel things which is does not want/need, then perhaps it would be better for that aid to be applied to US needs and not benefit Israel. Billions of dollars are still required to repair and rebuild portions of the eastern and northeastern US after Hurricane Sandy hit in late October.
That's a pretty long post so I cannot reply to every point you raise. So I'll have to be concise. First of all, thanks for your breakdown of possible economic costs in obtaining and running such beasts.

Yes, the US and Israel have different priorities, for sure. And certainly if Iran can genuinely be persuaded NOT to produce nuclear warheads, then most of this discussion becomes immaterial and irrelevant. My concern is if Iran does choose to become a nuclear armed state and what Israel would have to do from its own defensive and deterrence POV, as it cannot count on anyone else,including the US, to defend itself because you say, they have very different interests. For example, the US would think twice about destroying oil fields, whereas could care less.

Israel's population is very concentrated in a very tiny space, mostly along the coast. So one or two nukes would pretty much finish the country off completely.
While Israel has done a yeoman job in developing, with considerable US investment, some impressive ABM capabilities, they nonetheless could be overwhelmed by the massive numbers of accurate missiles that Iran is developing and stockpiling and emplacing in hardened silos. And if only among one of those hundreds of missiles, one or two with a nuke warhead gets through, it is game over for Israel.

But Iran also has to worry about Israel's Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads, and it would have to take those out in a first strike as well, unless it was only seeking martyrdom and a pyrrhic victory. So it would have to take those 100 or so Israeli ICBMs out in a first strike as well. Difficult but doable.

Now I have thought of two possible solutions to this problem. One is the acquisition of Boomers that would have to make the regime in Qom really know they could not get away with a first strike option without suffering unacceptable total destruction themselves afterwards.

Another possible solution is moving a million or so Israelis into the West Bank and Gaza so that any strike would have to kill as many Arabs as it does Israelis. And/or moving Israeli missiles close to Arab population centers so that again, the Iranians would have to calculate killing very many Palestinian Arabs along with their Jewish enemies. But these solutions are just costly as obtaining Boomers if one considers the construction costs.

Regarding the proliferation issue, I am not suggesting the US sell or give Israel SLBMs or nuclear warheads, but only the subs themselves sans missiles and warheads.

Now regarding hurricane Sandy, since I live in the affected zone and was cut off from light, power, telephone and heat for over two weeks, I fully understand the sentiment. Now if the US wants to cut off aid to Israel, I can understand that as long as it cuts off arms sales to Israel's enemies as well. Unless the US wants to be seen as fully allied to Israel's enemies, just as if the US were selling arms to Nazi Germany while Britain was under the Blitz. I have no problem with the US cutting off aid as long as it cuts off arms sales to Israel's adversaries as well. And aid to Egypt too, of course. Otherwise, it is taking sides in the conflict. And that changes everything.
 

jgarbuz

New Member
Stealth planes vs.Boomers for Israel

In direct reference to the original topic, practically speaking, no, I don't believe Israel could develop it's own stealth fighter jet, or at least not without considerable input from the US or a similarly advanced partner. They've got a good industrial capacity for making components and systems but they've no experience in building an entire aircraft since the LAVI, no domestic GT production, the list goes on.

The main trick is of course that a lot of Israel's defence purchasing power is levered off the back of US aid. I can't see the US willingly underwriting that kind of expense for a competing aircraft. Given the kind of money you'd be talking about, the cost of such a project would be a total drain on the Israeli defence budget as well.

With respect to the other suggestion that US should sell/gift/fund SSBN's to the Israelis, that's a total non-starter - the US has traditionally taken a non-proliferation stance in the middle east and stepping away from this won't fly. It's a non-starter, fantasy suggestion, unfounded in anything close to reality. I'd suggest moving this thread to StrategyPage...
I lived and worked in Israel hi-tech during the early and mid-1980s and would argue with Israeli engineers who were enthusiastic about the Lavi, telling them that while Congress might throw Israel a few hundred millions to develop the Lavi, the Pentagon would never allow Israel to actually produce a competitor to the F-16. And of course, in the end I proved to be correct. They produced a few prototypes and flew them, and then wrapped the project up, laying off thousand of engineers and workers from IAI with overly generous compensation packages, which I think is where the bulk of the aid money went. Probably some of those engineers might have passed along the designs to China, but that is all hearsay.

I fully agree that no nation today in its right mind, even the European nations, would find it economically worth their while to waste money on such a project, and least of all Israel. Even the US is cutting back on the F-22s and even the F-35s.

But could Israel build or develop its own scaled back Boomers? That might be a question more worthy of discussion.
 

Cailet

Member
They probably could create their own boomers but why bother? It would be an open admission of Nuclear capability, politically nightmarish given the Israeli-US stance on Iran's reactor projects.

Plus, the Israeli cruise missile arsenal, while sub-par for attacking a first-rate power will still be effective against the Iranian defences, not just now but for years to come. Short of a revolution in the military situation in the area SSBN would be an absolute waste (and I don't know what the Med is like for Boomer ops and I doubt anyone who knows much will be speaking openly on a public forum, there may be operational reasons why Israel would not find them to be useful).
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
They probably could create their own boomers but why bother? It would be an open admission of Nuclear capability, politically nightmarish given the Israeli-US stance on Iran's reactor projects.

Plus, the Israeli cruise missile arsenal, while sub-par for attacking a first-rate power will still be effective against the Iranian defences, not just now but for years to come. Short of a revolution in the military situation in the area SSBN would be an absolute waste (and I don't know what the Med is like for Boomer ops and I doubt anyone who knows much will be speaking openly on a public forum, there may be operational reasons why Israel would not find them to be useful).
Honestly, I think Israel would have a better chance of creating its own LO fighter/strike aircraft than designing and building a domestic SSBN. Israel at present does not have any design or modification facilities for subs of any sort. At least with aircraft, there are domestic subsystems and a skilled aircraft modification workforce.

As to the suggestion that the sale of an unarmed SSBN would not violate the NPT... Yeah it would. The sale of nuclear material for peaceful energy generation, research and medicine is permissible. The sale of a nuclear-powered war machine, especially since the onboard fuel core has undergone a fair amount of enrichment does not exactly meet that peaceful requirement.

Also, while I cannot recall the specific treaties which restrict the proliferation of missile systems, I am fairly certain one of the things which were banned was the sale of launch platforms for long-ranged ballistic missiles. In fact, restrictions were put in place on the sale of cruise missiles as well. The Tomahawk just managed to get past since the warhead was just under the restriction.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This thread is on short finals....

It needs to lift in quality real soon (ie debate based on reality constraints) if its going to survive the next 48 hrs....

 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Some posters in particular. There isn't going to be a lot of leeway given by moderators towards people making pseudofactual arguments about the merits of the F-35 while producing no accompanying sources, or suggesting something as preposterous as dismissing the non-proliferation treaty, and thus abandoning all sense of reality, for the sake of making some hypothetical point about the apparent "needs" of a nation.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
All discussion of Israel building its own submarines, of any kind, should refer to Israel's industrial capacity.

Israel has never built a submarine, not even assembled one under licence. Its current submarines are German-designed & built, & their predecessors were all designed & built in the UK. Nor have they ever built many of the subsystems needed, e.g. propulsion. I think Israel is probably a lot further away from building submarines than stealth aircraft.

Ballistic missile submarines would add another level of difficulty, as would nuclear propulsion.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
They'd have to license a PWR from someplace I'd have guessed as the technology of shoving a small and dense core together is challenging (and get it wrong, the whole thing lands in tiny pieces across a wide area)

It's a non starter, I don't think they've the welding expertise to put the hull together, let alone design one. There's so many different technologies they'd have to grasp...The UK's Successor program, using a leased ballistic missile, indigenous warheads, an established manufacturer of nuclear submarines and a native PWR capability is costed at £20-25 billion over the life of the program. If you're costing out building and testing an ICBM as well, it's just science fiction.
 
Top