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.
