Eilat (Saar V) class corvettes

Is topweight such an issue in the Eastern med though ? Its not like these ships are likely to regularly experience a North Atlantic storm, heavy icing or the roaring 40’s ……………

Perhaps they took the decision not to worry due to their local conditions ?

Was the weight issue solved by removing the Gabriel missiles and replacing the 76mm cannon with the 20mm CIWS or is there still a weight problem with this class?

“Shipbuilding costs are high in the United States. American shipyard workers are highly unionized, a factor which lowers productivity. Since American shipyards are fundimentally uncompetitive in terms of building costs, there really isn’t much of a shipbuilding industry anymore outside of Navy contracts.”

Israel is not the only country that receives money from the USA. I would think the US Coast guard or other countries like Greece, Turkey, Phillipines, Taiwan, etc. would be interested in this ship.

It was intended for a 76mm Oto and a Phalanx to be interchangeable in the eyes of the ship.

These ships are tailored to Israeli specs and relatively expensive. For example, they mount the Prairie-Masker noise reduction system, which even many larger surface combattants in major navies often don’t have. It has all gas turbine propulsion, usually only found on larger ships. It was one of the first ships with a secondary CIC. etc. These kinds of things greatly reduce export potential: most other navies looking to buy a vessel in this tonnage-class are looking for a much cheaper and more economic lighter equiped ship.

I hope some members here can answer some of my questions about this ship.

How does Israel feel about this ship?

Why were only three built?

Why didn’t the USA export this ship to other countries?

Any other comments or pics of this class would be great!

There are some pics and information over here:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/saar5/Saar5.html

Was the weight issue solved by removing the Gabriel missiles and replacing the 76mm cannon with the 20mm CIWS or is there still a weight problem with this class?

“Shipbuilding costs are high in the United States. American shipyard workers are highly unionized, a factor which lowers productivity. Since American shipyards are fundimentally uncompetitive in terms of building costs, there really isn’t much of a shipbuilding industry anymore outside of Navy contracts.”

Israel is not the only country that receives money from the USA. I would think the US Coast guard or other countries like Greece, Turkey, Phillipines, Taiwan, etc. would be interested in this ship.

The only reason the Sa’ar Vs suffer from excessive topweight is because the Israelis were more concerned with supporting their local defense industry than producing seaworthy combatants.

It wasn’t neccessary to fit a total of 64(!) Barak SAM missiles to this class. However, IAI produces the Barak missile and there wasn’t exactly a backlog of foriegn orders at the time the Sa’ar Vs were planned. Of course, since the ships were more-or-less free, Israel could afford to direct procurement money towards the domestically produced armament.

dont think barak was the sole reason its rather light weight system, the top weight issue IIRC was caused because the superstructure/mast design and its heavy armament only served to worsen that. This is something that should have been detected and resolved in design phase. Earliar saar iv Missile boat carry 32 Baraks btw.

well of what i have heard, the ships suffer from extensive topweigt as israelis wanted to but so many SSMs to the the topdecks of it (The sthealth features effectively left no other place for them) I have also read that Israeli Navy had little understanding or intrest of ship top-weigth proplems that later coused them trouple as they overloaded their small boats with effective SSM fit…so no succses. The US shipbuilders were propaply aware of it but israeli didnt change the requirments. So they were referred as pocket cruisers by the americans. Later on I have heard that the planned OTO 76mm wasent fitted on the foredeck as it was too heavy, and the Gabriels arent usually carried.

The only reason the Sa’ar Vs suffer from excessive topweight is because the Israelis were more concerned with supporting their local defense industry than producing seaworthy combatants.

It wasn’t neccessary to fit a total of 64(!) Barak SAM missiles to this class. However, IAI produces the Barak missile and there wasn’t exactly a backlog of foriegn orders at the time the Sa’ar Vs were planned. Of course, since the ships were more-or-less free, Israel could afford to direct procurement money towards the domestically produced armament.

speaking of US SYs what happened to ambassador MK 3 Missile boats that were to be built for egypt?

I hope some members here can answer some of my questions about this ship.

How does Israel feel about this ship?

The ships were provided free of charge…so how do think they feel?

Why were only three built?

Perhaps the requirement was just for three. Perhaps the United States didn’t feel like funding any more.

Why didn’t the USA export this ship to other countries?

Shipbuilding costs are high in the United States. American shipyard workers are highly unionized, a factor which lowers productivity. Since American shipyards are fundimentally uncompetitive in terms of building costs, there really isn’t much of a shipbuilding industry anymore outside of Navy contracts.

well of what i have heard, the ships suffer from extensive topweigt as israelis wanted to but so many SSMs to the the topdecks of it (The sthealth features effectively left no other place for them) I have also read that Israeli Navy had little understanding or intrest of ship top-weigth proplems that later coused them trouple as they overloaded their small boats with effective SSM fit…so no succses. The US shipbuilders were propaply aware of it but israeli didnt change the requirments. So they were referred as pocket cruisers by the americans. Later on I have heard that the planned OTO 76mm wasent fitted on the foredeck as it was too heavy, and the Gabriels arent usually carried.