I just saw that Israel is taking delivery of a fifth submarine (built in Germany). At the commissioning/handover ceremony, I saw two IN Admirals-a Rear Admiral and a Vice Admiral-in the 1970’s, they had only one flag officer (a RA).
Obviously, they feel a strong navy is necessary-are these subs equipped with nuclear weapons.
Well since Israel neither confirms or denies nuclear capacity at all, there is certainly neither going to be confirmation or denial as to whether or not these subs are being deployed with such weapons. Here’s a JPost article about it.
Of course it is in Israel’s perceived interest for other actors to believe theses subs have such capacity, whether they do or not, but for the little it is worth, I think the desire to build their Navy is more a function of the gas field discoveries.
Israel considers its most dangerous enemy, and this point in time, to be Iran - a country with which it does not share a border. Now, there are two ways to project force: air and sea. The Israeli Air force is already big and well-funded (and has become even more so in recent years); however, there are things an air force can’t do, Hence, a larger navy.
Bear in mind, though, that the Israeli Navy is still pretty small as these things go - the highest ranking officer is still a rear admiral (the equivalent of a two-star general). Also, it’s not a separate service like in most countries, but rather subordinate to the army’s high command.
A submarine with nuclear capability is a very nice ace in the hole. Iran likely has little or no ability to locate/attack those subs, which means they can’t prevent nuclear retaliation for a first strike on Israel’s land based nukes.
There is also the small point of Irans navy being far far far away.
Yea, I’m pretty sceptical Israel is boosting its naval capabilities because they’re envisioning dukeing it out with the Iranian navy. Nuclear weapons, intelligence gathering ships and confrontations with states that border the Med seem much more plausible.
Don’t forget that navies can also gather intelligence, land troops and intercept arms smugglers. Fighting other navies is just one possible role, and often one that is better filled by the air force.
Alessan, do you not think that protecting the gas fields, or at least reassuring potential investors that their investments will be protected, and signaling to other regional actors who may try to stake claims that Israel is prepared to defend its own claims, is a major, if not the major motivating force behind this showy but still, from the global defense budget perspective, fairly minor investment?
AK84, whether or not the subs carry nuclear they have, according to the link, the capacity to fire off cruise missiles that can travel 1500 km. That would get there even from Israeli waters. A point of subs is their ability to project longer range power.
So far as I know, though, there isn’t anyone in the Middle East who does have a particularly impressive Navy. (Turkey would be the closest thing to an exception - backbone of their fleet seems to be 17 fairly modern frigates, ex-USN and German-built. Though most wouldn’t call Turkey part of the Middle East proper). Israel’s is probably the most capable.
Maybe they want to be part of a global force for good?
I’m sure that’s also a factor.
Still, there seems to be a conception that the sole purpose of a navy is to fight other navies, and in today’s combined-arms world, that just isn’t true. It doesn’t even have to be its main role.
They want to have the same capability that other nuclear powers already have in a submerged nuclear deterrent force, except instead of ballistic missiles, they will have cruise missiles. Submarines are not as easily caught napping as, say, aircraft on the ground. Should the Israeli air force for some reason be rendered impotent, then the submarines retain a credible national deterrent.
For a small, coastal country, a navy is like a military base you can move. Very useful for concentrating force at any particular point in the country, even if it’s not right on the coast.
Does the Israeli Navy have any larger surface ships? Destroyers, cruisers, etc?
You don’t always know in advance when you will need a navy, which takes many years to build, and more to train. A cautious country will have that done in advance of any actual need for it. It seems to me to be prudent for Israel to have a navy to help defend it.
Re: What The Second Stone said, Themistocles had to lobby the Athenians about that almost 2500 years ago.
And no, the Israelis still do not have large surface combatants as we’d define them in NATO. Heavy Corvette/Light Frigate is the top class. Subs are a cost-effective instrument to have blue-water power projection for someone who can’t afford to build and maintain a true high-seas surface fleet.
Than high pitched buzz you hear is Admiral Dönitz spinning in his grave :D. (More seriously, German-built, or built from German design, is the standard for the lesser powers’ sub fleets these days, since the Yanks, Brits and French went to all-nuke fleets.)
I hate to butt in but I just wanted to say thanks to all of you - I’ve really learned A LOT from this thread. I appreciate it. My husband and I have been talking about some of what you all have said for the last hour (last hour we’ve been talking - not the last hour you commented) - it’s been a very pleasant evening. Thank you all for that. 
Your using Themistocles as an example of “not knowing in advance when you will need a navy, which takes many years to build, and more to train. A cautious country will have that done in advance of any actual need for it.”?
Themistocles’s navy was built to fight the Persians who had already launched two seaborn invasions of Greece and were readying a third.
No, I’m pointing out that Themistocles had to lobby the council for it, in spite of there being awareness of the threat.
The more ships a naval power has, allows it to maintain a constant force projection or an on station nuke deterrent. While at the same time, be able to refit and have boats in the work up cycle.
Declan