Edit: This is part of the Navy's plan to develop UUVs. They've already spent billions on it. On page 4 of this you can see the UUV systems they're planning:
This year they have $210m allocated for just XLUUVs ($120m) and LDUUVs ($90m). And I'm sure they have more allocated for other parts of the program (Edit: $1b this year for navy underwater drone r&d, and they spent 7-800m last year on it too).
Edit: XLUUV has a few other parts too: there's projects for developing lethal and nonlethal payloads for it; and a payload delivery system.
If the Submarine fleet is having these issues, this might be a step in the right direction.
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 as codified in 31 USC § 1301.
This feels like a ridiculously high number
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!
Also, the US essentially controls the world’s oceans, and that comes with a whole bunch of benefits, wartime or peacetime.
Helps keep the bad guys and gals from trying too much.
So, no, even traditional clientele have left the US
For perspective, the government shutdown fight is over ~1-2 submarines worth of funding.
Surface navy and aviation could do the job.
Let's hope it stays that way indefinitely.
We need people manning the machines, lest we fall victim to things such as jamming radio signal.
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.
If a Chinese fishing trawler "accidentally" drops a net on one of these and "rescues" it, can it defend itself? Should it?
(The parent comment said "It weighs 50 tons and is 51 feet could anything really mess with that?" An EP-3 weighs 67.5 tons and is 105 feet long.)
The same applies to submarines and a net around the propeller.
(It's also a good example of the sort of diplomatic fuss that ensues after this sort of incident, too.)
Posting a link to a completely unrelated article with 0 explanation is idiotic, especially when there are plenty of examples of incidents that actually involve submarines.
Throw a steel cable into its prop, get too close using another sub or two, etc.
If you can capture an autonomous submarine just by throwing a net over it, then presumably you can also capture a manned submarine in the same way? What difference do the bodies inside make in terms of being able to capture it? Just better at evading?
And losing a submarine compared to losing a submarine and the people inside it seems a better deal, doesn't it?
I really don't. Switch the nationalities and my answer is the same - self-defense when human lives are at risk is a lot more justifiable than self-defense of a robot. People are worth more than electronics.
Is it also justifiable to use deadly force in the response to actions not involving deadly force and only hypothetically putting lives at risk?
Because this is what you said in your original comment.
Armed, unmanned robots change the calculus on both sides of an engagement.