Israel Israeli Navy

Knowledgeseeker

Experienced member
Moderator
Arab Moderator
Morocco Moderator
Messages
1,768
Reactions
16 4,484
Nation of residence
Norway
Nation of origin
Moroco
Its all about designing to profile of likeliest enemy/enemies you could face.

Tonnage prioritization boils down to endurance/propulsion vs armor/survivability vs weapons/sensoring

So a corvette (defined relative to frigate, destroyer etc in the end on endurance role specific to each navy doctrine like I described a few posts above) might have:

A) Tonnage by prioritizing say packing weapons/sensoring over endurance (and thus overlaps with say frigate in tonnage terms in case of say Karmorta class). Since those frigates in other navies prioritize the tonnage more for their endurance roles.

B) A more extreme form of this within each category where you entirely go for weapons/sensoring as dominant design driver and endurance and survivability are minimal concerns compared to it.

It doesnt make whole lot of sense for say Israel to project naval power past say eastern mediterranean....and if you pack a corvette chokeful of weapons and sensors, you mitigate lower armour availability by simply being a lot smaller target to begin with and also going fully all in in detecting and shooting at the enemy first anyway etc....in relatively proximate combat spaces to where the navies warships bases are in first place.

But it would make much more sense for Turkiye to have frigates and destroyers with longer endurance (and less weapons "intensity" per DWT) simply by virtue of Turkish geography, opponent portfolio and so on (compared to say Israel)....that the ship needs to prioritize reaching and operating within a further away combat space in general (the worst case scenario being no fueller or replenish support) and maybe have the armour and underwater inner protection sturdiness etc to survive (and be able to dispense and operate a mission or recover itself to some capacity) what is expected at every level of say AAD breaching.
Thank you 😁 I remember reading about a post you made in the past regarding the tonnage= the endurance when placing a warship between the categories of corvettes, Frigates, and Destroyers. The Saar 6 actually has a good amount of weapons and sensors on board, and the range is around 7 000 km. The I-class on the other hand has almost equal range as the FREMM around 10 000 km. So the endurance of the saar 6 is really good compared to the weapons, and sensors it has however do you think it lacks the Armor?


Can you explain more about the lower armor availability part, as well as survivability? I understood the Endurance vs weapon/sensors however I did not really understand what you mean by survivability.
 

Oublious

Experienced member
The Netherlands Correspondent
Messages
2,060
Reactions
7 4,418
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Overloaded with weapons corvette, will the ship not have balance problems?
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,409
Reactions
69 8,192
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Overloaded with weapons corvette, will the ship not have balance problems?

Not if the weapon loads are distributed properly. (Which seems to be the case)
 

Oublious

Experienced member
The Netherlands Correspondent
Messages
2,060
Reactions
7 4,418
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Not if the weapon loads are distributed properly. (Which seems to be the case)


It doesn't matter, it is like a car overloaded and the handling of the car change. I don't now how it works with ships but definitly sailing with a ship will kill his flexibility. Isn't that important? Endurance of the ship will be low.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,409
Reactions
69 8,192
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
It doesn't matter, it is like a car overloaded and the handling of the car change. I don't now how it works with ships but definitly sailing with a ship will kill his flexibility. Isn't that important? Endurance of the ship will be low.

Apparently, long endurance is not Israeli navy's primary concern.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,452
Reactions
31 4,298
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I think Israel Navy uses C-Dome not for self-defense of warship. They use Corvettes for defense of coastal population from artillery rockets.


 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,503
Reactions
111 19,270
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
So the endurance of the saar 6 is really good compared to the weapons, and sensors it has however do you think it lacks the Armor?

Yeah these are not major divergences/trade-offs like there once was in (esp large) warships.

The smaller corvette style ships benefit from their smaller size. Compactness adds more toughness overall (naturally) per tonnage in their realm compared to frigate and destroyer realm when there is no more intrinsic compactness (unless you are comparing them to even larger warships).

There are simply lower amounts and relative sizes of 2D planar surfaces as a ratio of the 3D volume being scaled so to speak (between say corvette to frigate).

When you get volumetrically bigger (and say keep overall average density the same), there is no way around increasing 2D planar surfaces at same time (think of a balloon inflating with air).

Hence you have to consider "armouring" much more intensely as a design driver compared to what you had it at the smaller volume.

In essence its why smaller species in say animal kingdom are pound for pound much tougher and stronger than say humans (we scaled up and lost lot of the intrinsic advantageous geometric ratios at the smaller size, but there was no option around it given certain minimums we need of size to have certain capabilities we have etc).

So a Saar corvette doesnt naturally "lack" the armour/structural integrity etc per se, it can simply harness its smaller size more naturally (and accept the tradeoffs of having a smaller size to begin with) there compared to when you scale the volume up to frigate (to bring in advantages of a bigger size) and you need to more actively consider this.


Though its worth keeping in mind, with advent of advanced air defence systems and all kind of defensive weaponry (hosted on ship or on other allied ships to protect you) to intercept all kind of munitions we have today....., survivability is no longer as huge of a deal like it was in earlier eras of warships at least in the aspect of direct armour and design tradeoffs concerning the superstructure etc.

A corvette in today's era (putting aside its limitations elsewhere) is kind of in sweetspot here you can say in that it can harness what say AAD offers (on it or near it) and not have to care a whole deal about direct superstructure armour and survivability like larger ships would have to still in this era.

Earlier era when you didnt have advanced AAD , CIWS and other protection systems and FCS and radar to handle these like today.....you had literal design choices regarding amount of armour between the same volume + firepower of ship (at the doctrine + design stage)....given the nature of the munition warfare back then and technology at your disposal.

Notably between say the battleship (kept the armour and compromise of lower speed) and battlecruiser "innovation" approach of sacrificing the armour and increasing the speed (or even firepower).

The Hood's blown up! - HMS Prince of Wales

i.e Would HMS Hood have blown up if it was a battleship (like Bismarck who's shells found their mark) with more armour etc. Maybe not.

Likewise If Bismarck were a battlecruiser would it have survived as long as it did taking damage along its last mission? Unlikely.

This kind of starkness doesnt exist today (with advent of newer technology + weaponry to have onboard), there is much more smoother merger of the design drivers along the spectrum.


Can you explain more about the lower armor availability part, as well as survivability? I understood the Endurance vs weapon/sensors however I did not really understand what you mean by survivability.

Sure its things like watertight investment in machinery spaces in the bowels of the ship along with structural thickness, armouring, integrity etc in general there.

This is why the Italian FREMM is heavier than the French one for example.

IIRC, the Italian ones overall have more toughness + protection, especially below the waterline.

The watertight integrity in the machinery spaces were some part of its final selection by USN for FFGX....as USN sees this class needing to be more survivable along with high range/endurance for a frigate.

This is part of their greater final tonnage compared to the French version.

So it's not surprising Italy continues along this line for its DDX too.

More "niche" approaches somewhat away from cookie cutter scaling are not new to NATO. Certain member navies during thick of cold war had very optimised roles (which influenced their new ship requirements) once you look into their assets + training in detailed way.

IIRC, it became one of the reasons it won over the Navantia F-100 in the FFG(X) bid for USN (given USN doctrine preference).

If the French did offer their FREMM there, most likely the Italian FREMM would have beaten it too for same reason.

It is stuff an old friend of mine (who worked in warship design) discussed me back when that competition was ongoing and there was some level of chagrin drama going on behind scenes with the French (who never offered theirs) when Italian FREMM broke their expectation that USN was not really serious about picking a foreign design to begin with.
 
Last edited:

Knowledgeseeker

Experienced member
Moderator
Arab Moderator
Morocco Moderator
Messages
1,768
Reactions
16 4,484
Nation of residence
Norway
Nation of origin
Moroco
Yeah these are not major divergences/trade-offs like there once was in (esp large) warships.

The smaller corvette style ships benefit from their smaller size. Compactness adds more toughness overall (naturally) per tonnage in their realm compared to frigate and destroyer realm when there is no more intrinsic compactness (unless you are comparing them to even larger warships).

There are simply lower amounts and relative sizes of 2D planar surfaces as a ratio of the 3D volume being scaled so to speak (between say corvette to frigate).

When you get volumetrically bigger (and say keep overall average density the same), there is no way around increasing 2D planar surfaces at same time (think of a balloon inflating with air).

Hence you have to consider "armouring" much more intensely as a design driver compared to what you had it at the smaller volume.

In essence its why smaller species in say animal kingdom are pound for pound much tougher and stronger than say humans (we scaled up and lost lot of the intrinsic advantageous geometric ratios at the smaller size, but there was no option around it given certain minimums we need of size to have certain capabilities we have etc).

So a Saar corvette doesnt naturally "lack" the armour/structural integrity etc per se, it can simply harness its smaller size more naturally (and accept the tradeoffs of having a smaller size to begin with) there compared to when you scale the volume up to frigate (to bring in advantages of a bigger size) and you need to more actively consider this.


Though its worth keeping in mind, with advent of advanced air defence systems and all kind of defensive weaponry (hosted on ship or on other allied ships to protect you) to intercept all kind of munitions we have today....., survivability is no longer as huge of a deal like it was in earlier eras of warships at least in the aspect of direct armour and design tradeoffs concerning the superstructure etc.

A corvette in today's era (putting aside its limitations elsewhere) is kind of in sweetspot here you can say in that it can harness what say AAD offers (on it or near it) and not have to care a whole deal about direct superstructure armour and survivability like larger ships would have to still in this era.

Earlier era when you didnt have advanced AAD , CIWS and other protection systems and FCS and radar to handle these like today.....you had literal design choices regarding amount of armour between the same volume + firepower of ship (at the doctrine + design stage)....given the nature of the munition warfare back then and technology at your disposal.

Notably between say the battleship (kept the armour and compromise of lower speed) and battlecruiser "innovation" approach of sacrificing the armour and increasing the speed (or even firepower).

The Hood's blown up! - HMS Prince of Wales

i.e Would HMS Hood have blown up if it was a battleship (like Bismarck who's shells found their mark) with more armour etc. Maybe not.

Likewise If Bismarck were a battlecruiser would it have survived as long as it did taking damage along its last mission? Unlikely.

This kind of starkness doesnt exist today (with advent of newer technology + weaponry to have onboard), there is much more smoother merger of the design drivers along the spectrum.




Sure its things like watertight investment in machinery spaces in the bowels of the ship along with structural thickness, armouring, integrity etc in general there.

This is why the Italian FREMM is heavier than the French one for example.



IIRC, it became one of the reasons it won over the Navantia F-100 in the FFG(X) bid for USN (given USN doctrine preference).

If the French did offer their FREMM there, most likely the Italian FREMM would have beaten it too for same reason.

It is stuff an old friend of mine (who worked in warship design) discussed me back when that competition was ongoing and there was some level of chagrin drama going on behind scenes with the French (who never offered theirs) when Italian FREMM broke their expectation that USN was not really serious about picking a foreign design to begin with.
Got you! Now it made more sense to me 😁 Why do navies not operate smaller warships when they could save a little money when it comes to the hull? A week ago I took a look at the German F126 frigate which is a huge ship with the same range as the saar 6 around 4 000 nautical miles. The weaponry somehow also seems low for a 10 000 ton warship with 16-cell quad-packed ESSM.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,875
Reactions
12,002
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Thoughts about the saar corvette? Why do they have so many systems on a small Corvette? For us noobies, we always think about the quantity of VLS, anti-ship missiles etc.. However, why could for example the I-Class frigate not have 32 VLS instead of 16? Or let me rephrase my question, what would I-class have to sacrifice in order to have more VLS onboard?
The Saar has to be a stand alone system,needs to be independent.
Take a look at the israeli Navy,you'll understand.
The I class has big and smaller ''brothers'',thats why it doesnt have to be armed to the teeth.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,503
Reactions
111 19,270
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Got you! Now it made more sense to me 😁 Why do navies not operate smaller warships when they could save a little money when it comes to the hull? A week ago I took a look at the German F126 frigate which is a huge ship with the same range as the saar 6 around 4 000 nautical miles. The weaponry somehow also seems low for a 10 000 ton warship with 16-cell quad-packed ESSM.

Like TR-123456 says, you need to look at doctrine first of different navies.

i.e Why they have them that way that are different to each other, what factors influence the formation and evolution of doctrines etc.

i.e Who are their threats, who are their allies (and ability to work with them that has shaped all the asset choices they had, have and are developing going forward), what is their physical size and planned scope of operation etc.

Essentially what is the worst case scenario you have planned for or is required of you from others.....and your role in responding to it (collective or independent or something in between depending on what you are planned to provide versus what others are guaranteed to provide etc).

i.e does German navy have same underlying basic doctrine as Israel's with all this in mind shaping it?

How and why is German doctrine shaped by its role within NATO (and how to integrate within NATO larger force structure) compared to Israel which has different "local" needs peculiar to it.

Or within each such (larger) navy, how simply having a larger number of ships means you have tiers to delegate things to like T-123456 mentions again.

Rather than having smaller navy so you need to have jack of all trades as far as possible with each ship you do produce at relevant size most appropriate to your relevant combat sphere/bubble etc.

I brought this up in various ways in the previous posts.... the range of operations given nature of threats one has, working with and keeping up with ships (i.e long range flotillas being an extreme, which is why USN doesnt really like corvettes at all) in those operations that are set by the country's maritime arena size, alone or with allies (if any) and how it has analysed, wargamed and then responded to meet its threats from the underlying doctrine stage.

Essentially Germany prioritizes working with other NATO partners at ranges relevant to NATO collective security. Within its own navy raw size, it also has the basic numbers to delegate roles to optimise within its own flotilla/formations.

This materialises in the training and assets in the end.

These are all very different to what Israel has prioritized for its security sphere locally....it simply doesn't need to concern itself at all with having assets to play a role and keep up with other assets on planned missions involving lot of other navies moving parts and the nature of that kind of NATO combat sphere having formed to begin with and the raw size/scope of navies to begin with compared to size relevant to Israel.
 
Last edited:

Knowledgeseeker

Experienced member
Moderator
Arab Moderator
Morocco Moderator
Messages
1,768
Reactions
16 4,484
Nation of residence
Norway
Nation of origin
Moroco
Like TR-123456 says, you need to look at doctrine first of different navies.

i.e Why they have them that way that are different to each other, what factors influence the formation and evolution of doctrines etc.

i.e Who are their threats, who are their allies (and ability to work with them that has shaped all the asset choices they had, have and are developing going forward), what is their physical size and planned scope of operation etc.

Essentially what is the worst case scenario you have planned for or is required of you from others.....and your role in responding to it (collective or independent or something in between depending on what you are planned to provide versus what others are guaranteed to provide etc).

i.e does German navy have same underlying basic doctrine as Israel's with all this in mind shaping it?

How and why is German doctrine shaped by its role within NATO (and how to integrate within NATO larger force structure) compared to Israel which has different "local" needs peculiar to it.

Or within each such (larger) navy, how simply having a larger number of ships means you have tiers to delegate things to like T-123456 mentions again.

Rather than having smaller navy so you need to have jack of all trades as far as possible with each ship you do produce at relevant size most appropriate to your relevant combat sphere/bubble etc.

I brought this up in various ways in the previous posts.... the range of operations given nature of threats one has, working with and keeping up with ships (i.e long range flotillas being an extreme, which is why USN doesnt really like corvettes at all) in those operations that are set by the country's maritime arena size, alone or with allies (if any) and how it has analysed, wargamed and then responded to meet its threats from the underlying doctrine stage.

Essentially Germany prioritizes working with other NATO partners at ranges relevant to NATO collective security. Within its own navy raw size, it also has the basic numbers to delegate roles to optimise within its own flotilla/formations.

This materialises in the training and assets in the end.

These are all very different to what Israel has prioritized for its security sphere locally....it simply doesn't need to concern itself at all with having assets to play a role and keep up with other assets on planned missions involving lot of other navies moving parts and the nature of that kind of NATO combat sphere having formed to begin with and the raw size/scope of navies to begin with compared to size relevant to Israel.
Got you! The Moroccan navy will most likely go for the Barak MX on its future naval vessels similar to the Indian navy. Do you know if Israel has a CMS solution similar to AEGIS? Interesting choice of the new model of saar 6 that was displayed with 2 LORA launchers.. Would it not be ideal to make a heaver cruise missile of the sea breaker loaded into VLS similar to the SCALP/storm shadow?
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,409
Reactions
69 8,192
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Got you! The Moroccan navy will most likely go for the Barak MX on its future naval vessels similar to the Indian navy. Do you know if Israel has a CMS solution similar to AEGIS?

Bruh, nobody has similar CMS to AGIS.

China may come close to that, but for now nobody else is within 100 miles.

AEGIS ships can literally shoot down settilites and ICBMs.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,503
Reactions
111 19,270
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Got you! The Moroccan navy will most likely go for the Barak MX on its future naval vessels similar to the Indian navy. Do you know if Israel has a CMS solution similar to AEGIS? Interesting choice of the new model of saar 6 that was displayed with 2 LORA launchers.. Would it not be ideal to make a heaver cruise missile of the sea breaker loaded into VLS similar to the SCALP/storm shadow?

AEGIS is a different beast, a superpower (and most larger powers in general) will develop and keep certain things close to its chest there, tricks of the trade it has developed for its own use over long time.... for revealing only in a war of scale that should hopefully never come.

Israel offers some CMS from Elbit and Rafael iirc....both would be good options to integrate Barak, C-dome etc on if Morocco does go for it.

Maybe @500 or another Israeli member can tell us more and give input on other questions you have.
 

500

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Israel Moderator
Messages
752
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,875
Nation of residence
Israel
Nation of origin
Israel
Thoughts about the saar corvette? Why do they have so many systems on a small Corvette? For us noobies, we always think about the quantity of VLS, anti-ship missiles etc.. However, why could for example the I-Class frigate not have 32 VLS instead of 16? Or let me rephrase my question, what would I-class have to sacrifice in order to have more VLS onboard?

@Anmdt @Nilgiri






Specifications of the new Sa’ar 6

- 16 Barak-MX launchers in the front
- 2 quadruple launchers for LAHAT missiles to deal with suicide bombers
- 2 quadruple launchers for BlueSpear anti-ship missiles
- 2 launchers for LORA ballistic missiles
- 16 Barak-MX launchers in the middle of the ship
- 12 A bomber carrying a suicide march Mini-Harpy
- 2 torpedo launchers for the MK54 Light Torpedo
Probably economical reasons.

saar 5.jpg


For example Saar-5 class corvettes had place for 32 Barak-1 missiles but only 16 were used for economical reasons.
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,249
Solutions
2
Reactions
101 23,493
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Thoughts about the saar corvette? Why do they have so many systems on a small Corvette? For us noobies, we always think about the quantity of VLS, anti-ship missiles etc.. However, why could for example the I-Class frigate not have 32 VLS instead of 16? Or let me rephrase my question, what would I-class have to sacrifice in order to have more VLS onboard?

@Anmdt @Nilgiri






Specifications of the new Sa’ar 6

- 16 Barak-MX launchers in the front
- 2 quadruple launchers for LAHAT missiles to deal with suicide bombers
- 2 quadruple launchers for BlueSpear anti-ship missiles
- 2 launchers for LORA ballistic missiles
- 16 Barak-MX launchers in the middle of the ship
- 12 A bomber carrying a suicide march Mini-Harpy
- 2 torpedo launchers for the MK54 Light Torpedo
Because of Israeli Navy's doctrine. Their primary goal is to defend country and their economical rights in the EEZ. A bigger vessel becomes unnecessary and they rely on agile, small vessels with less endurance. Thus more weapons on them to get a chance to strike at some positions that does not need saturation and some self-defence systems to defend against anti-symmetric or unmanned threats their adversaries are holding onto.
 

Quasar

Contributor
The Post Deleter
Messages
615
Reactions
35 2,681
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Israeli-Submarine-Drakon-cutaway.jpg



INS-DRAKON.jpg

Photo-1.jpg


F3mL9TyXAAEJ_lS


Israeli-Navy-Dolphin-II-Submarin.jpg

INS Drakon is larger than any previous Israeli submarine, being much longer than the first two Dolphin-II boats. Even more noticeable is the ginormous sail. This likely contains its defining feature: advanced new missiles.

Submarines have been equipped with missile silos in the sail before. The Soviet Union’s first purpose built ballistic missile submarines, the Hotel and Golf classes, did this. More recently North Korea has leveraged this trick to get larger missiles into smaller submarines. Yet the German-designed submarine is the first truly modern design to feature this.

 
Last edited:

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,409
Reactions
69 8,192
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Nuclear tipped SLBM.
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
1,786
Reactions
63 8,036
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
VLS for what? İt is being said that there will be SAMs.
Probably in the form of IDAS. VLS is more than likely for quasi ballistic or cruise missiles like their enlarged 650mm torpedo tubes.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom