A submarine may not be practical

During an ambush interview with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. when he attended the 125th anniversary of the Philippine Navy last Friday, he said acquiring a submarine is still part of the plan to catch up with the armaments of our Southeast Asian neighbors.

“There is a plan but it is still being developed dahil ang treatment para ma-operate nang submarine is not a small commitment, it is a very large commitment because the training, the equipment that is involved, and the operational requirements that are involved is quite significant,” he was quoted as saying.

Perhaps he should reconsider ditching the sub plan and focus on spending for surface vessels instead. While it won’t be inherently wrong for us to go for a submarine, it might be impractical in our position and with our budget.

While submarines are versatile for both attack and defense as proven during the years of world wars I and II, these days they are more of attack weapons than defense weapons, favored because they can go anywhere in the ocean and evade most forms of detection. The deadliest of them even carry enough missiles to start and end a war there and then.

And while it is true that the best defense is a good offense, we don’t see ourselves in any situation where we have to engage enemy ships with the intent to torpedo them out of the water anytime soon, let alone loose missiles at targets.

It is also as he says; operating a submarine is no small commitment, it will cost us arms and legs when it comes to training personnel and maintaining and housing it. All that for something that we may never likely use for its real and intended purpose.

For all intents and purposes, the submarine is also more of a prestige weapon than anything else.

However, the president is also on the right track in working to improve the country’s antisubmarine capabilities. We still have a lot to accomplish when it comes to modernizing and beefing up our naval forces.

The money should go there instead of underwater.