Warfare HAMAS attack on Israel, Oct 2023 & Iran’s Proxies.

Israel is a green water navy. One carrier requires at minimum one oiler and 2-4 destroyers or frigates. Plus maintaining a replenishment capability across the globe.

Going fancy means adding a cruiser, replenishment vessels, LPD/LHD and/or submarines.

Carriers are for global power projection, not for protecting your own territorial waters and EEZ.
Their air force, plus nukes, is enough. Also Israel is not a huge country, 8m people I think. They have a good navy, 7 corvettes, some subs.
 
If Qaani has bought it, if , thinking on a 6D Chess level, perhaps that is Israel's response to the missile attack, coming about 48 hours afterwards? Maybe not, but it would a huge blow to Iran if it was true. He may well have not been present or was only injured in the attack. Certainly would explain why this explosion was a lot more force than the one that killed Nasrallah though, and apparently rescue teams haven't been able to get anywhere near the blast site yet.
 
Last edited:
Israel is a green water navy. One carrier requires at minimum one oiler and 2-4 destroyers or frigates. Plus maintaining a replenishment capability across the globe.

Going fancy means adding a cruiser, replenishment vessels, LPD/LHD and/or submarines.

Carriers are for global power projection, not for protecting your own territorial waters and EEZ.
Plus, there are international political repercussions for having a carrier. It will necessarily be interpreted as an expression of aggressive regional ambitions. Not something Israel is interested in addition to all the controversies we are already dealing with. There is a reason why Japan keeps calling their carriers destroyers.
 
If Qaani has bought it, if , thinking on a 6D Chess level, perhaps that is Israel's response to the missile attack, coming about 48 hours afterwards? Maybe not, but it would a huge blow to Iran if it was true. He may well have not been present or was only injured in the attack. Certainly would explain why this explosion was a lot more force than the one that killed Nasrallah though, and apparently rescue teams haven't been able to get anywhere near the blast sight yet.
I’m really curious how Iran is going to handle it, if true, of course. I mean this is like Nasrallah+Hanya x 10 or something.
 

Not this tool again.

In fairness, despite the obvious backlash Frenchies are going to take again thanks to him, we remain an ally and friend of Israel.

Also there was a clarification looking like a backpedaling from the Elysées palace about this just now.

Olivier Rafowicz, one of the Spokesperson of Tsahal clarified things a bit while declining to comment on Macrons comment.
 
Plus, there are international political repercussions for having a carrier. It will necessarily be interpreted as an expression of aggressive regional ambitions. Not something Israel is interested in addition to all the controversies we are already dealing with. There is a reason why Japan keeps calling their carriers destroyers.
There's still a significant pacifist support base within Japanese society because of the history, but Japan with the many islands in the Pacific and the huge coastline simply can't do without carriers unlike Israel which would only be hindered by having one.

Have you seen our new missile? It can wipe out an entire city in an instant, but we've decided to call it "Peacemaker" 🙃
 
Israel is a green water navy. One carrier requires at minimum one oiler and 2-4 destroyers or frigates. Plus maintaining a replenishment capability across the globe.

Going fancy means adding a cruiser, replenishment vessels, LPD/LHD and/or submarines.

Carriers are for global power projection, not for protecting your own territorial waters and EEZ.
Well if they did have 1 be easier to strike targets in Iran ..and they could have launched an Op before the Iranian Missiles struck .
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

All eyes on October 8th 00:00+ I guess...
 
Well if they did have 1 be easier to strike targets in Iran ..and they could have launched an Op before the Iranian Missiles struck .
It takes ballistic missiles 12 minutes to get from western Iran to Israel (~1500km) at mach 3 or 4. They're on mobile launchers that are fueled inside man-made caves and driven out ready to fire. In all you get about 30 minutes from visual notification until impact.

Countering ballistic missile launchers from a carrier would mean having dozens of aircraft in the air (even a US supercarrier doesn't have an airwing large enough to keep dozens of aircraft in the air 24/7 for multiple days).

Those aircraft are at best equipped with a pair of AGM-158 JASSM-ER cruise missiles. With a range of a little over 900km these travel at subsonic speeds meaning to cover that distance it'll need close to an hour.

181 ballistic missiles were fired in two waves. Let's say 90 launchers were used. One cruise missile can take out one launcher. That would require 45 aircraft with zero misses.

And the aircraft would need to be flying over the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman, within range of Iranian air defences.

My conclussion: Only ballistic missiles can counter ballistic missiles before they launch (or a space laser 🤗)
 
Last edited:
There are many things Macron forgot.

And many things he does not know.

History and how the lead are only two of these.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top