Comment by rich_sasha

> Wasting hours wearing down platforms to maintain crew proficiency is SUBSTANTIAL over lifetime of highend platforms.

That's a good point of course. But I guess that also means we have to figure out how to operate these vehicles with 0 crew - not even remote crew, because they would need training too. I guess that's something we can't do yet - if we could, the humans wouldn't be there already.

> XXLUUVs aren't cheap or lowend, they are highend but PRC shipbuilding advantage over US simply monumental, i.e. they can match capabilities and win attrition game on budget.

I don't doubt China's supermacy in either low or high end manufacturing. But how limited are they here by the ability to build lots of hills Vs to fill them with expensive sensors etc? It seems like a stretch to say that because they can make lots and lots of ships they can make lots and lots of sophisticated unmanned subs too. Either way, if China's industrial prowess is so much better than the US's, it sounds like they would beat NATO with or without drones - they are maybe an efficiency improvement, but if they put their heart into building normal subs, they would still out build the US.

I agree industrial capability appears to be key. NATO, vis a vis Russia, apparently knows they can't destroy all their tanks and kill every last soldier, and instead you need to target supply lines and command structures. AFAICT, this has basically informed th last few decades of NATO strategy. I guess the question is, what is the strategy "against" China. Because, you're right, if it's an attritional war then we're screwed.