The Student Room Group

Where is Israel's submarine fleet based? (Dolphins)

This has been annoying me for a few days now, as I literally can't work it out.

Israel's strategic land deterrence lacks depth for obvious reasons, so over the last few years they've been investing in Dolphin and lately Dolphin 2 submarines. These are equipped with 650mm tubes, and although nothing official is out, intelligence strongly suggests they have nuclear/nuclear tipped SLBM's as part of their strategy.

It's probably a modified popeye variant, with a range of 1200-1300km (as observed by the US navy from trials in the indian ocean.

Israel obviously cannot base the fleet there; the dolphins aren't equipped for long missions without resupply, and the Eilat base is unsuitable for large submarines. In fact only one has ever been seen there, as a show of posturing to Iran.

Given they are on patrol in the persian gulf, and do not regularly traverse the Suez canal, the base is almost certainly elsewhere.

It was rumoured to be in Bahrain, but they came out and categorically denied it.

So if not Bahrain, where?

am aware this topic will likely not interest many :p:
Who cares, they're hardly threatening.



Reply 2
Original post by Pretentious Pete
Who cares, they're hardly threatening.





lol, wtf those look like they could do some major 'penetration'
Reply 3
I doubt you'll be able to get a certain answer. Israel is so tetchy about it's deterrent that you'll never know for sure, despite the abundance of information about the program, some of which could be false.
Reply 4
Original post by Aj12
I doubt you'll be able to get a certain answer. Israel is so tetchy about it's deterrent that you'll never know for sure, despite the abundance of information about the program, some of which could be false.


Oh there is no 'certain' answer, but using maps and stuff which I'll upload if there's any/enough interest in the topic, you can basically divine they are either in Bahrain, or possibly India :smile:

The next thing to do would be to check out satellite imagery to look for signs of supply/bases etc, but yea, my guess without going that far is India. Although they have AIP, they still have this 30 day supply problem, and would need to be within a day or so of effective launch range, so there's really not that many options.

It could be another Arab state, but which? And why would they trust each other or allow it? One thing is for sure, they aren't based in Israel.
Original post by samba
Oh there is no 'certain' answer, but using maps and stuff which I'll upload if there's any/enough interest in the topic, you can basically divine they are either in Bahrain, or possibly India :smile:

The next thing to do would be to check out satellite imagery to look for signs of supply/bases etc, but yea, my guess without going that far is India. Although they have AIP, they still have this 30 day supply problem, and would need to be within a day or so of effective launch range, so there's really not that many options.

It could be another Arab state, but which? And why would they trust each other or allow it? One thing is for sure, they aren't based in Israel.


India seems logical because it isn't Arab/Muslim - and it's out of the way, which works in Israel's favour.

Bahrain also seems logical because the US Fifth Fleet is based there - if there's enough room for their Virginia Class subs, there'll be room for a Dolphin or two.

Oman is another possibility - it's stable and hosts US personnel.

And just to **** with your head, so is Saudi Arabia: both state's are in their own Cold War against Iran.

One thing is for sure, though: they're not based in Israel.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 6
Original post by Stalin
India seems logical because it isn't Arab/Muslim - and it's out of the way, which works in Israel's favour.

Bahrain also seems logical because the US Fifth Fleet is based there - if there's enough room for their Virginia Class subs, there'll be room for a Dolphin or two.

Oman is another possibility.

And just to **** with your head, so is Saudi Arabia: both state's are in their own Cold War against Iran.

One thing is for sure, though: they're not based in Israel.


Relatively surprised anybody is actually interested in the topic!

Bahrain was the prime candidate until the general or whatever came out and said "We view the Zionist regime as our enemy and the enemy of all Muslim world. Bahrain in no way allows Tel Aviv [Israeli military forces] to be present in its territorial waters." Could obviously be posturing, but it's a fairly strong statement to make, especially if found out to be untrue later.

On the subject of the GCC and Israel itself, it's interesting, not least because they are a) pretty autocratic b) don't care about 1967 borders c) more afraid of both Iran and radical Islam than Israel. In a way it makes a lot of sense for closer relations, or even alliances. However it's delicate because Muslim public opinion is so strongly against Israel, and they don't want to flare up any sort sort of extremism. Covertly, they certainly have a lot of relations, especially Oman, but whether they'd be able to actually base subs/weapons there or make a treaty is likely dependent on a peace treaty with the Palestinians. Even public opinion on these forums kinda suggests it'd be too risky for them otherwise. I think hosting subs includes that.

That said, Oman and Bahrain [especially] are good geographically, and fairly sparsely populated in the Oman Northern regions, whilst in the Bahrain one the 5th fleet could provide cover. One thing to note is that Israel have specifically stayed away from US help/aid and dependency when developing their sub deterrent, and it could run counter to that to be dependent for basing.

I think Saudi Arabia isn't a viable option. It's deepwater ports are used primarily for oil transit, and it'd be difficult to provision nuclear tipped weapons etc close to that. That and relations aren't quite as close covertly as with [especially] Oman.

India is the wildcard. It's definitely away from prying eyes, but you have supply issues once more, and possible range issues to certain areas. Politically I doubt it'd be too much of a problem, and the indian SLBM even seems somewhat based on what a modified popeye would look like...
Reply 7
Original post by Stalin
India seems logical because it isn't Arab/Muslim - and it's out of the way, which works in Israel's favour.

Bahrain also seems logical because the US Fifth Fleet is based there - if there's enough room for their Virginia Class subs, there'll be room for a Dolphin or two.

Oman is another possibility - it's stable and hosts US personnel.

And just to **** with your head, so is Saudi Arabia: both state's are in their own Cold War against Iran.

One thing is for sure, though: they're not based in Israel.


Egypt I reckon. They'd want it in the Middle East in a Sunni country but not one with a Muslim government. While Turkey as a solid western ally and relative friend of Israel is one option, Egypt has a secular military dictatorship bar the year after the Arab spring and is only a few hundred miles away.
Israel has always been very chummy with and had a lot of strategic defence relationships with South Africa. Not a million miles away from where the subs need to operate.
Reply 9
Original post by Old_Simon
Israel has always been very chummy with and had a lot of strategic defence relationships with South Africa. Not a million miles away from where the subs need to operate.


South Africa way is too far away strategically lol; they couldn't resupply and get back in the zone anywhere near quickly enough for either a first response or first strike.To put it into perspective, Diego Garcia is far closer.

Original post by Rakas21
Egypt I reckon. They'd want it in the Middle East in a Sunni country but not one with a Muslim government. While Turkey as a solid western ally and relative friend of Israel is one option, Egypt has a secular military dictatorship bar the year after the Arab spring and is only a few hundred miles away.


Egypt isn't stable enough. Not by a long shot.

edit: Turkey is an interesting one. They have no access to the persian gulf, but could potentially have a black sea port in range of a lot of things. Too far out to hit most targets, so I'd likely discount it. Russia could be a slight possibility I guess, based in the Caspian.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by samba
South Africa way is too far away strategically lol; they couldn't resupply and get back in the zone anywhere near quickly enough for either a first response or first strike.To put it into perspective, Diego Garcia is far closer.



Egypt isn't stable enough. Not by a long shot.

The transition time from S Africa is very doable for a submarine for long term maintenance, crew relief etc. Hell it used to take the German U boats several days to get on station. It is also conveniently outside the range of all enemy missiles and probably strike aircraft as well, and easy to secure in secrecy I would think. A dock yard in Egypt will be riddled with spies and saboteurs.
Reply 11
Original post by Old_Simon
The transition time from S Africa is very doable for a submarine for long term maintenance, crew relief etc. Hell it used to take the German U boats several days to get on station. It is also conveniently outside the range of all enemy missiles and probably strike aircraft as well, and easy to secure in secrecy I would think. A dock yard in Egypt will be riddled with spies and saboteurs.


The dolphins have a 30 day operational range. Only napkin maths, but a 5000 mile trip to station at 18 knots is a 10 day trip. Then you have 10 days back, so only 10 days on station at an absolute maximum. Diego Garcia is a bit closer, and obviously completely secret, but I still think it's a bit far out. Completely agree about Egypt, it's not stable or viable enough.

I personally think it's a GCC state. Their interests align with Israel far more than people realise.
Original post by samba
The dolphins have a 30 day operational range. Only napkin maths, but a 5000 mile trip to station at 18 knots is a 10 day trip. Then you have 10 days back, so only 10 days on station at an absolute maximum. Diego Garcia is a bit closer, and obviously completely secret, but I still think it's a bit far out. Completely agree about Egypt, it's not stable or viable enough.

I personally think it's a GCC state. Their interests align with Israel far more than people realise.

You may well be correct. But I would think a modern submerged sub can exceed 18 knots easily. Alternatively we may be looking at a pro American Gulf State like Qatar or similar. In fact they probably use a USA facility as cover and to save infrastructure costs. Nuclear missiles need specialist handling. They can not sit fully armed in dock for weeks on end.
Reply 13
Original post by Old_Simon
You may well be correct. But I would think a modern submerged sub can exceed 18 knots easily. Alternatively we may be looking at a pro American Gulf State like Qatar or similar. In fact they probably use a USA facility as cover and to save infrastructure costs. Nuclear missiles need specialist handling. They can not sit fully armed in dock for weeks on end.


Yea, they can do 25, but cruise at 18 or their range is impaired. That's why Bahrain was such a big rumour; the US 5th fleet sits right there, plenty of room and stuff! But then the CiC came out and said: "We view the Zionist regime as our enemy and the enemy of all Muslim world. Bahrain in no way allows Tel Aviv [Israeli military forces] to be present in its territorial waters." That said, they could easily be lying.

Important to note btw that these aren't 'nukes' in the sense that the US's SLIBM's are. They are nuclear tipped tactical warheads (as far as most people are aware.) not massive "**** the whole country up" ones.
Original post by samba
Yea, they can do 25, but cruise at 18 or their range is impaired. That's why Bahrain was such a big rumour; the US 5th fleet sits right there, plenty of room and stuff! But then the CiC came out and said: "We view the Zionist regime as our enemy and the enemy of all Muslim world. Bahrain in no way allows Tel Aviv [Israeli military forces] to be present in its territorial waters." That said, they could easily be lying.

Important to note btw that these aren't 'nukes' in the sense that the US's SLIBM's are. They are nuclear tipped tactical warheads (as far as most people are aware.) not massive "**** the whole country up" ones.

Tactical Nukes still make a big bang. They require huge and very expensive hardened facilities for unloading the subs missiles, transporting them, securing them then maintaining them. It must be a joint US facility like Holy Loch in Scotland.

Quick Reply