7 ms·

The U.S. Navy has bought four robot submarines from Boeing

63 points by evo_9 8y ago

ceejayoz 8y ago
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?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  How is the situation any different than at the moment? 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?
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    It's a lot more justifiable to use deadly force to respond when human lives are being placed at risk. The diplomatic consequences are likely to be different, as well.
    - gdy 8y ago
      You mean precious lives of Americans. The other people in the world seem pretty much expendable.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        > You mean precious lives of Americans. 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.
        gdy 8y ago
        This is a fair point I agree with. 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.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        I said, and I quote: "can it defend itself? Should it?" Armed, unmanned robots change the calculus on both sides of an engagement.
        gdy 8y ago
        I meant to refer to "It's a lot more justifiable to use deadly force to respond when human lives are being placed at risk"
- pmorici 8y ago
  It weighs 50 tons and is 51 feet could anything really mess with that? [0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a26344025/navy-extra-large-unmanned-submarines-boeing/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a263440...
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Absolutely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
    - shkkmo 8y ago
      That article is about an incident involving aircraft, I don't think that is what you meant to link.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        It's a large, heavy object being easily interfered with. (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.)
        shkkmo 8y ago
        Ok, so all you have to do to interfere with the robotic sub is crash a jet into it? 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.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        The point: "It's long and heavy" isn't any sort of good reason to believe it can't be messed with. That incident also demonstrates China's willingness to play chicken with US assets. Throw a steel cable into its prop, get too close using another sub or two, etc.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  It should, and almost certainly does, have scuttling charges. Alternatively there could be an “incident” although that’s less desireable.
reustle 8y ago
> 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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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?
    - crooked-v 8y ago
      Well... yes. Maybe it shouldn't, but that decision isn't up to people actually in that branch.
    - mc32 8y ago
      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 8y ago
        Where bad people means enemies of the US.
        mc32 8y ago
        No, enemies of the western world and those who have the same values as us such as Korea, Japan, Chile, Brazil, Botswana, etc.
alanbernstein 8y ago
"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 8y ago
  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.
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    Not final.. just the 2nd step. They previously awarded ~$40m (each) to boeing and lockheed for the design phase. This phase is for prototypes of the vehicles that were designed. There should be a 5th that should be awarded to Lockheed. In a few years, then they'll start production. 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: https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS2017/Berkof-PEOLCS.pdf?ver=2017-04-03-155708-833 https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/S... 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.
  - askvictor 8y ago
    OTOH they're probably a lot cheaper to build if they don't have to support human life.
    - killjoywashere 8y ago
      OTOOH, any and all maintenance requires return to base or abandonment at sea +/- self-destruction.
- 8y ago
itissid 8y ago
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-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/ https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgeral...
- metaphor 8y ago
  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/1328736/ https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article... [2] https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!295 https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!29...
lettergram 8y ago
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.
- andy_ppp 8y ago
  Even better to go fully autonomous with our nuclear submarines right? Then there can be no mistakes...
- ddxxdd 8y ago
  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.
Haga 8y ago
So we entrust nuclear deterrence to compsec? I should invest in coffins

63 points by evo_9 8y ago

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?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
chrisseaton 8y ago
How is the situation any different than at the moment? 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?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  It's a lot more justifiable to use deadly force to respond when human lives are being placed at risk. The diplomatic consequences are likely to be different, as well.
  - gdy 8y ago
    You mean precious lives of Americans. The other people in the world seem pretty much expendable.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      > You mean precious lives of Americans. 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.
      - gdy 8y ago
        This is a fair point I agree with. 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.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        I said, and I quote: "can it defend itself? Should it?" Armed, unmanned robots change the calculus on both sides of an engagement.
        gdy 8y ago
        I meant to refer to "It's a lot more justifiable to use deadly force to respond when human lives are being placed at risk"
pmorici 8y ago
It weighs 50 tons and is 51 feet could anything really mess with that? [0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a26344025/navy-extra-large-unmanned-submarines-boeing/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a263440...
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Absolutely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    That article is about an incident involving aircraft, I don't think that is what you meant to link.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      It's a large, heavy object being easily interfered with. (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.)
      - shkkmo 8y ago
        Ok, so all you have to do to interfere with the robotic sub is crash a jet into it? 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.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        The point: "It's long and heavy" isn't any sort of good reason to believe it can't be messed with. That incident also demonstrates China's willingness to play chicken with US assets. Throw a steel cable into its prop, get too close using another sub or two, etc.
Pharmakon 8y ago
It should, and almost certainly does, have scuttling charges. Alternatively there could be an “incident” although that’s less desireable.

reustle 8y ago

> 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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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?
  - crooked-v 8y ago
    Well... yes. Maybe it shouldn't, but that decision isn't up to people actually in that branch.
  - mc32 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      Where bad people means enemies of the US.
      - mc32 8y ago
        No, enemies of the western world and those who have the same values as us such as Korea, Japan, Chile, Brazil, Botswana, etc.

alanbernstein 8y ago

"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 8y ago
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.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  Not final.. just the 2nd step. They previously awarded ~$40m (each) to boeing and lockheed for the design phase. This phase is for prototypes of the vehicles that were designed. There should be a 5th that should be awarded to Lockheed. In a few years, then they'll start production. 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: https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS2017/Berkof-PEOLCS.pdf?ver=2017-04-03-155708-833 https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/S... 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.
- askvictor 8y ago
  OTOH they're probably a lot cheaper to build if they don't have to support human life.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    OTOOH, any and all maintenance requires return to base or abandonment at sea +/- self-destruction.
8y ago

itissid 8y ago

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-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/ https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgeral...

metaphor 8y ago
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/1328736/ https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article... [2] https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!295 https://www.dau.mil/acquipedia/pages/articledetails.aspx#!29...

lettergram 8y ago

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.

andy_ppp 8y ago
Even better to go fully autonomous with our nuclear submarines right? Then there can be no mistakes...
ddxxdd 8y ago
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.

Haga 8y ago

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