The Greeks have the only real navy in the area, and they don't waste their money on carriers either. (OTOH, they have islands: much, much harder to sink!). The Italians do have an aviation-capable flagship, but they also have NATO obligations, and they are a big, rich country that needs to show muscle from time to time. The tiny, chronically underfunded Israeli navy does not have much of a requirement for large surface ships either, and currently bases it's surface assets around three corvettes and less than a dozen missile boats. They'd like more subs, but MOF won't pay for them, or the Germans won't sell them for fear they get used to oppress the Palestinians or something like that. The only use Israel could have for a carrier is civilian. The country is tiny, and there no room left for an expanding population. The only, rather spaced-out way out of zanzibar is due west, that is, putting the Israelis at sea, to colonize the extensive, shallow Mediterranean continental shelf. In the unlikely event we become sufficiently visionnary again in order to have yet another go at making the desert bloom, well, the only desert not yet turned into a toxic chemical wasteland is the oriental Med's marine desert, which improductivity has become even more legendary after the soviets slapped that Aswan Dam on the Nile river that used to bring in some nutrients. Since the oriental Med, the collector of all wave systems for the entire sea from Gibraltar to Beyrouth, is also known for it's brutality since Homerus' days, a large, stable floating mooring platform such as a decommissioned carrier could very well be the way to go for any viable "Waterworld" project. In any case, it'd be much better to recycle those huge hulls that can float for the next couple of centuries for doing something useful, rather than to sink them in the ocean just to check whether and how some ammunition works...

carrier is really needed only for power projection, so since israeli armed forces are only for defense purpose, it really would be stupid for them to have a carrier for almost no purpose.

Like most weapons systems created by the Israel arms industry they manage to put their twist to it. This statement is backed up by the fact that israel is the 3rd largest arm supplier in the world. Now there has been much talk between Dan Halutz the new head of the IDF who is the first non-army head and with Yuval Steinitz the Knesset member who chairs the defense committee. They want to beef the navy up, in light of the widening gap between Egypts and Israels. Second, basic Israeli military strategy: defensive strategy, offensive tactics. So the added threat of force projection of an infantry brigade and the necessary logistics needed to supply any such operation. This will be decided in the 2006 procurement budget. As far as the aircraft carrier I go along the lines of an Israeli aircraft carrier therefore a unconventional one. I go along the lines of what is in discussion of a helo type craft which we able to launch drones or carry one or two helicopter. Israel is now starting to create a bigger indigenous arms industry due to the U.S. stance toward israel over the past year. An aircraft carrier would be designed if ever needed in case the Jews in the diaspora were ever victimized again, there would be a viable response of force projection for an evacuation operation. This would be the motivations of such a weapons system for the Jewish state.

So if the neo-nazis take over Germany and begin the final-again solution, Israel is going to sail its one carrier around to the Baltic to rescue them?

it is a non starter... the philosophy espoused by the likes of Bin Nun, Shoshan, Schulman, Kimche and Karish are still relevant. they have smaller vessels for a reason - it's also why there has been no replacement made on size for capability ever since they lost the Eilat. The history of the Saar's is an abject lesson in their mindset about how the Navy should be structured.

Just to bring some order to this thread, the whole issue is covered in this old link: http://www.defensenews.com/sgmlparse2.php?F=archive2/20040524/atpc12013617.sgml The idea was for a 13,000-ton amphibious assault ship, not an AC, ever since budget problems have put this plan into deep freeze.

Maybe some company should outfit old 50s/60s carriers with new weapons, comm, nav, acquisition/c4I, etc. Throw some SH-60s and some 50s/60s airframes like A-4 Skyhawks on board and rent the sucker out!!!

For what? The reason the old 50s/60s carrier is parked is because it got too expensive to refit/overhaul. What makes you think that having it in mothballs for decades is going to change that? What would Israel need with a carrier? The whole country is little more than a carrier. Beside, a single carrier isn't a weapon. It's a target.

It's not the most serious comment I've made. I just thought it would be fun to let Sierra Leone do a little power projection. Oh well.

Ever see the Peter Sellers movie, "The Mouse that Roared"?