We recently came across this article and it got us thinking: do the pros of owning frigates outweigh the pros of owning submarines? No matter the naval circles you might move in, it will always be a hotly contested argument.

No matter their means of propulsive energy, submarines are a strategic deterrent. Certain missions will, however, favour a particular propulsion type.

The mere threat of a submarine in a certain area of the ocean will distract and complicate surface force naval missions. Difficult to find, submarines require a disproportionate response by the very frigates mooted for replacement.

Submarines may often go where they, perhaps, shouldn’t. Their very existence can be denied by their owners – sovereign nations (typically) – and can, therefore, prove political expedient and expendable.

Frigates, on the other hand, are visible; and versatile. Foregoing stealth to aid statesmanship, a surface warship can exert strategic pressures in other ways. Their missions span from ‘simple’ presence and observation, through to fighting into, through, or out of an area for many reasons.

The mixture of surface and submerged fleets in a nation’s Navy may reflect that country’s strategic intent, or its reality.

A basic inspection of many nation’s principles of war reveal favourtism for offensive action, surprise, selection and maintenance of an aim, and economy of effort. We can’t help but wonder a heavy focus on submarines tick those boxes.

Rarely are frigates permitted to master a warfighting discipline, such as anti-submarine warfare. They tend to suffer in such an assessment because of the very versatility making them attractive to their political masters.

Daring to contemplate a Navy without frigates is bold. However, if the purpose of one’s Navy in wartime is critically examined, it actually makes sense.

 

Image: Courtesy of The Daily Telegraph