
The U.S. Navy has bought four robot submarines from Boeing - evo_9
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy-just-bought-four-giant-robot-submarines-boeing-44642
======
alanbernstein
"Giant" is an odd choice of word in this context. 51 feet long, $43M for four,
seems pretty cheap and small as military hardware goes.

~~~
sandworm101
Too cheap. I suspect we arent getting the entire story. Subs are one of the
biggest areas for black budgets. I would not be shocked if this is the final
purchase of objects the navy has already spent billions developing.

~~~
askvictor
OTOH they're probably a lot cheaper to build if they don't have to support
human life.

~~~
killjoywashere
OTOOH, any and all maintenance requires return to base or abandonment at sea
+/\- self-destruction.

------
itissid
There was a nice investigative report on Propublica on how short staffed US
surface fleet caused the USS McCain and USS Fitzgerald crash into shipping
containers. Basically the navy is focusing on buying newer ships and deploying
too often and not so much on personnel training(?)[1]. Can't train enough
people quickly enough, crews were repurposed for Iraq war etc.

If the Submarine fleet is having these issues, this might be a step in the
right direction.

[1][https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-
fitzgeral...](https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-
destroyer-crash-crystal/)

~~~
metaphor
The situation is far more complicated than that fancy Propublica piece, _color
of money_ being just one:

1\. These ships were purchased with RDT&E funds dating back to at least 2017[1
ref. N00024-17-C-6307].

2\. The color of training money is O&M.

3\. Congress is responsible for appropriating funds.

4\. Even if Navy leadership needed to, they couldn't use RDT&E appropriations
to fund O&M training; that would be a violation of the Misappropriation Act[2]
as codified in 31 USC § 1301.

[1] [https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-
View/Article...](https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-
View/Article/1328736/)

[2]
[https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!29...](https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!295)

------
reustle
> In December 2016, the U.S. Navy announced it needed 66 nuclear-powered
> attack subs, or SSNs, to meet regional commanders' needs.

This feels like a ridiculously high number

~~~
Casseres
That feels like a ridiculously low number to me.

Not all subs will be underway at the same time. 70% of Earth's surface is
covered in water, and they only need 66‽ Though is it 66 more, or 66 total? If
it's 66 total, that's about 5.45 million square miles of water per sub. That's
incredible!

~~~
duado
Does the US Navy’s mission require it to maintain readiness to blow up
anything in any ocean to smithereens at a moment’s notice?

~~~
mc32
They’re mostly reconnaissance, intelligence gathering and defensive.
Occasionally might fire cruise missiles if necessary.

Helps keep the bad guys and gals from trying too much.

~~~
camjohnson26
Where bad people means enemies of the US.

~~~
mc32
No, enemies of the western world and those who have the same values as us such
as Korea, Japan, Chile, Brazil, Botswana, etc.

~~~
gdy
Clearly the US and the EU have different positions on Iran - the US considers
it an enemy and imposed new sanctions, the EU haven't followed the suit.

So, no, even traditional clientele have left the US

~~~
mc32
Sure we don’t agree on everything— our agendas can diverge. The EU still gets
gas from Russia, clearly we differ with them on Russia.

~~~
gdy
Exactly, you don't agree on who the enemies are and 'bad guys' mean the
enemies the US, not of all the countries you lumped together.

~~~
mc32
That’s to be expected, we’re not a ‘bloc’ ala USSR and its satellites.

~~~
gdy
Except you claimed the opposite, saying that the objects of the US military's
attention - 'bad guys' \- are the enemies of the whole bunch of countries
including the EU.

------
lettergram
I think it’s a good idea to have robotic weapons to augment our military. If
we have to fight, use everything to our advantage. But let’s not kid
ourselves. Today the tech would easily be defeated by a sophisticated enemy
(such as China).

We need people manning the machines, lest we fall victim to things such as
jamming radio signal.

~~~
ddxxdd
How much would a jam-proof laser communication system cost?

How much would a 99% autonomous ship with only a few sailors inside cost?

Robots and explosives are cheap; healthcare and housing for personnel are what
make the bulk of DoD's expenditures.

------
ceejayoz
The "how should a self-driving vehicle deal with someone messing with it"
question gets interesting once that self-diving vehicle is armed with
torpedoes.

If a Chinese fishing trawler "accidentally" drops a net on one of these and
"rescues" it, can it defend itself? Should it?

~~~
pmorici
It weighs 50 tons and is 51 feet could anything really mess with that?

[0] [https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-
ships/a263440...](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-
ships/a26344025/navy-extra-large-unmanned-submarines-boeing/)

~~~
mikeash
Definitely. Here’s a case where a far larger submarine got caught in a net:
[https://outdoors360.com/fishing-boat-snags-220-foot-
submarin...](https://outdoors360.com/fishing-boat-snags-220-foot-submarine-
nets/)

~~~
pmorici
This article talks about how the submarine usually ends up severely damaging
any fishing boat unlucky enough to get tangled.

------
Haga
So we entrust nuclear deterrence to compsec? I should invest in coffins

