It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel signs MoU to purchase Dolphin-class submarines from Germany

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Isreal just signed an MoU to purchase 3 Dolphin class subs from Germany for 2.3 billion. The diesel electric subs would bring the Israeli Navy's total to 9. The subs also allow them to deliver cruise missiles (both nuclear and conventional) if needed. They are super quiet and designed for 30 days patrols which make them quite handy from a strategic standpoint. Of all the Persian Gulf countries only Iran has a sub force. The USN Navy shoudl give thought to procuring perhaps AIP boat like the Soryu class to supplement its nuclear force

www.naval-technology.com...
en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Are there any Arabs underwater?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Are there any Arabs underwater?


Egypt has five submarines. Unsure of any others.
global firepower
Unsure how reliable that source is.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I wasnt sure dolphins swim that far north.

They do.




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Are there any Arabs underwater?


Egypt has five submarines. Unsure of any others.
global firepower
Unsure how reliable that source is.


It is, kind of. Depends on the country They do in fact have 6 if you count the second German-made Type 209 undergoing pre-service work in Egypt. Eventually they want to have 4 Type 209s to go along with their upgraded Chinese-made Type 033 Romeos.

It is also very generous of the website to say Egypt's two Mistral-class assault ships are "aircraft carriers"

Once upon a time Syria used to have three regular old Romeo-class submarines. Pictures that surfaced of them on the internet prior to the war showed them in a pretty dire state, and I can't imagine they've gotten any better during the Civil War...

Although one does not typically fight submarines with submarines.
edit on -050008pm10kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Are there any Arabs underwater?


What is that even supposed to mean?

The missiles on submarines are designed to knock out targets on land like Syrian arms depots.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT
Isreal just signed an MoU to purchase 3 Dolphin class subs from Germany for 2.3 billion. The diesel electric subs would bring the Israeli Navy's total to 9. The subs also allow them to deliver cruise missiles (both nuclear and conventional) if needed. They are super quiet and designed for 30 days patrols which make them quite handy from a strategic standpoint. Of all the Persian Gulf countries only Iran has a sub force. The USN Navy shoudl give thought to procuring perhaps AIP boat like the Soryu class to supplement its nuclear force

www.naval-technology.com...
en.wikipedia.org...


Iran must be jumping with joy over this news. These subs make Iran exposed to a pre-emptive strike with bare minutes of warning.

It makes thing a lot tighter, time-wise perhaps even giving independent authorization for retaliatory firing to local commanders in Iran.....oy vey...



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reverbs

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Are there any Arabs underwater?


What is that even supposed to mean?

The missiles on submarines are designed to knock out targets on land like Syrian arms depots.


I'm assuming he mean Arab nations with submarines. As far as we can tell Egypt is the only Arab country. Iran (Not an Arab country) has a fleet but its capabilities are sketchy. Syria USED to have an old Soviet era electric but it retired in 92. Its never made sense for the Gulf states IMHO to have a sizeable force as the Persian Gulf can be controlled by air power etc.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

No doubt but its nothing new in terms of capability as they have had a sub force for some time and no doubt keep an nuclear armed on on station most of the time. Perhaps they will keep two now with the increased numbers etc. They also would in all likelihood have to transit the Suez ont he surface thus alerting anybody to the movement etc. They don't have the range to go around the horn.

While the IDF is capable and willing to preempt threats, I doubt that the preemption would ever be nuclear. My take on their nuclear forces is its more of an MAD type deterrence



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT


That makes sense. As long as Iran doesn't nuke up....



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: FredT


That makes sense. As long as Iran doesn't nuke up....


Thats why you stick to the treaty. They are so dug in, nothing short of a full on invasion and occupation would stop them from getting nukes. Plus the failure of US policy over the last 30+ years in North Korea shows every rouge state the importance of nuking up.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Man, I wish I could care less about this development. But as we give them 3.8 Billion a year just in Military Aid alone, will we shoulder some of the responsibility in the use of these weapons of destruction?

I wonder when we can stop sending them our money and use it for our own infrastructure?

Aiding and abetting.

Sad.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: FredT


That makes sense. As long as Iran doesn't nuke up....


Thats why you stick to the treaty. They are so dug in, nothing short of a full on invasion and occupation would stop them from getting nukes. Plus the failure of US policy over the last 30+ years in North Korea shows every rouge state the importance of nuking up.


Sorry. I disagree. That thirty years you cite is valid. Stop 'failing' as you say. If we don't, Israel will. Plus it wouldn't take a full invasion and occupation. Merely take out the leadership in Iran before the nukes are developed. Leaders are rarely suicide driven, yes?



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: nwtrucker

Perhaps they will keep two now with the increased numbers etc.

Not very likely. There is already talk of decommissioning the Flight I Dolphins once they get these new subs.
Would make sense, their wont get them until the late 2020s / early 2030s, the first Dolphin will be two decades old at that point. They could probably keep them around for another decaded at best, but they have been used extensively and dont have AIP.
Also even 10 years from now and with a growing economy, its doubtfull the Israeli Navy can come up with the neccessary funds to keep an 9 boat fleet going. Keep in mind, they also plan to expand their surface force by a sizeable margin to protect their offshore gas fields.
And dont forget the politics involved. This MoU doesnt mean much since the submarines purchases are currently under intervestigation for corruption allegations which include even the current Israel PM.
Germany actually included and some sort of extemption clause to enable them to withdraw from the deal if anything substantial / politically damaging turns up.
And who knows, with all those bribery investigations, Netanyahu might very well be out of office sooner than he might like. The next PM might shift priorities and the purchase could get delayed or cut.


They also would in all likelihood have to transit the Suez ont he surface thus alerting anybody to the movement etc. They don't have the range to go around the horn.

In theory they could refuel them in neutral african or even arabian ports. There have been rumors about it in the past but it would probably be a hard thing to keep secret. They could probably do an underway refuling using some sort of submarine tender and sail around africa. They are just crazy enough to try.

Also keep in mind, the main mission of the Israeli submarine force is intelligence gathering. They are sniffing off Lebanese and Syrian ports all the time, occasionally striking some weapons depot or even deployinig SOF teams.

Nuclear deterrence is tertiary at best and its far from certain that they deploy with their nuclear armed Popeye Turbos all the time...



While the IDF is capable and willing to preempt threats, I doubt that the preemption would ever be nuclear. My take on their nuclear forces is its more of an MAD type deterrence

Nuclear weapons are their life ensurence, they'll use them if the existence of their state is threatened and other options have been exhausted. So a first strike policy is possible.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: nwtrucker

Perhaps they will keep two now with the increased numbers etc.

Not very likely. There is already talk of decommissioning the Flight I Dolphins once they get these new subs.
Would make sense, their wont get them until the late 2020s / early 2030s, the first Dolphin will be two decades old at that point. They could probably keep them around for another decaded at best, but they have been used extensively and dont have AIP.
Also even 10 years from now and with a growing economy, its doubtfull the Israeli Navy can come up with the neccessary funds to keep an 9 boat fleet going. Keep in mind, they also plan to expand their surface force by a sizeable margin to protect their offshore gas fields.
And dont forget the politics involved. This MoU doesnt mean much since the submarines purchases are currently under intervestigation for corruption allegations which include even the current Israel PM.
Germany actually included and some sort of extemption clause to enable them to withdraw from the deal if anything substantial / politically damaging turns up.
And who knows, with all those bribery investigations, Netanyahu might very well be out of office sooner than he might like. The next PM might shift priorities and the purchase could get delayed or cut.


They also would in all likelihood have to transit the Suez ont he surface thus alerting anybody to the movement etc. They don't have the range to go around the horn.

In theory they could refuel them in neutral african or even arabian ports. There have been rumors about it in the past but it would probably be a hard thing to keep secret. They could probably do an underway refuling using some sort of submarine tender and sail around africa. They are just crazy enough to try.

Also keep in mind, the main mission of the Israeli submarine force is intelligence gathering. They are sniffing off Lebanese and Syrian ports all the time, occasionally striking some weapons depot or even deployinig SOF teams.

Nuclear deterrence is tertiary at best and its far from certain that they deploy with their nuclear armed Popeye Turbos all the time...



While the IDF is capable and willing to preempt threats, I doubt that the preemption would ever be nuclear. My take on their nuclear forces is its more of an MAD type deterrence

Nuclear weapons are their life ensurence, they'll use them if the existence of their state is threatened and other options have been exhausted. So a first strike policy is possible.


The only thing I'd add is refueling and refurbishing can easily be done at sea without dependence in questionable and exposed ports.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I don't know about the logistics of this but it sure must be crowded in the Persian Gulf. Figure the US, Russians, Iranians, British and a host of others probably have subs there. You almost need the equivalent of air traffic control under water.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Sorry. I disagree. That thirty years you cite is valid. Stop 'failing' as you say. If we don't, Israel will. Plus it wouldn't take a full invasion and occupation. Merely take out the leadership in Iran before the nukes are developed. Leaders are rarely suicide driven, yes?


If you were to say take out the leadership of Iran and by that I mean the Guardian Council of the Constitution I doubt it would change their nuclear ambitions except to put MORE emphasis on the need to acquire them. It would furthermore basically reset the clock in terms of modernization. The old guard that came of age during the revolution is slowing dying off. The younger generations are chomping at the bit to take the reins and the vast majority want less religious restrictions and more freedoms. If you go in and attack the people will unite to fight a common enemy etc.

Ask the ghost of Saddam who thought he could drive a wedge between the religious leaders and the people and invaded Iran. How'd that work out for him?

Their nuclear production facilities are too dug on to destroy with conventional munitions. Also they are pretty disbursed. They have the ability to deliver the weapons regionally and perhaps all the way to Isreal. They are on the cusp of being able to make a device and may already be there. A bombing campaign will not work.

You have two choices: Invade and occupy or try to make the treaty work.......



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Its as if he is reading this thread

Constructing the Ayatollah’s Submarines
warisboring.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT


Their nuclear production facilities are too dug on to destroy with conventional munitions.
Also they are pretty disbursed.
This issue was studied extensivley a decade ago when everyone was talking about an Israeli strike.
While it is true that a couple of iranian nuclear facilitys are very well dug into mountains, you'd probably be able to take them out conventionally if you really tried. A dozen GBU-28s aimed at the same spot will dig deep into the ground and destroy sensitive nuclear equipment (essentially we are talking the uranium centrifuges) via shockwaves if they dont penetrate the facility outright.
The job would be much easier for the US using GBU-57s, two or three aimed at the same spot will obliterate anything the Iranians dug in. It would also be possible to just attack the entrances, ventilation shafts and power lines for such a facility. Wouldnt knock it out forever, but at the very least for a very long time.
You can also get creative and attack such facilities with radiologial weapons, rendering them unusable. Attacking an active nuclear facility will be a very messy job anyway and its less over than nuking it.

The large number of facilitys isnt really an isee as well. Think about it this way, to destroy a chain, you dont have to break every chain link. If you break one, the chain is unusable. If you target specific vital parts of their weapon production procress you could cripple them with a relativley low number of strikes. Might even get by without touching their dug in facilities.



They have the ability to deliver the weapons regionally and perhaps all the way to Isreal.
They are on the cusp of being able to make a device and may already be there. A bombing campaign will not work.
You have two choices: Invade and occupy or try to make the treaty work......
They could easily fly a nuclear device to Syria, load in on a truck and drive to the border.

The problem is not so much what they can do themselves but what research and actual tech they get out of the North Korean program. Israel intelligence sources have been pretty clear on this, Iran is a major force in North Koreas nuclear program and their recent successes have been no accident. I doubt the cooperation is a one way street and this is very worrying since it makes the nuclear deal Obama agreed to irrelevant. To be fair, the deal did nothing but buy ten more years of peace anyway, but if the Iranians get what they want from the Koreans, thinks might fall apart way sooner than we hope even at this point.


So choices... i wiouldnt say a bombing campaign wouldnt work. It would work as far as setting the Iranias back for another decade or two. But eventually they get their, just like North Korea did.
We can and will have to live with it since we dont like to fight neccessary wars before they are forced upon us, just as we have to with North Korea. This approach will work for a time, but sooner or later, at some point something will go horrible wrong and we will fighting a nuclear war with Iran or North Korea. And we wont be able to contain it and finally realise we should have acted much, much sooner.

Shame really. Bush should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq and get rid of the Ayatollahs. Would have been a god aweful mess but at least Iran woudlnt be controlled by a bunch of hating the west and the jews religious fanatics.
Obama should have put all his power behind the Iranian gree Revolution back in 2009 instead of sucking up to the people in charge to his worthless nuke deal... probably would have resoluted in a Civil War but i take a civil war in Iran over islamist fanatics armed with nukes any day.
Of course all this bs wouldnt have happend if the US didnt decide to mettle with Iran in the first place and ignore its own responsibilities once the fanatics took over.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

it will take more than a few GBU-28's Years ago AWST showed satellite pictures of the Natanz and it shows basically 10 foot alternating layers of packed sand and reinforced concrete x 10. The GBU-28 would not have enough ooomph to get it even in succession.

The 30000 lb MOP may be able to hold the target at risk. but its not assured



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join