First of all it is David Axe and The Telegraph. Fake until proven otherwise combination...
If I comment on the substance, it is a typical unmanned systems high-tech fantasy that plague a lot of the public discussions. Being unmanned and smaller isn't an inherent advantage or disadvantage. There are cases in mil procurement where unmanned systems have been great. The greatest example is high-endurance COIN and ISR aircraft like the MQ-9, WL-2, and TB-2. At their size factor, deleting the human is a significant boost to the endurance and it takes the human fatigue out of the mission planning. Another great example would be small FPV-class UAVs. Of course, with their size factor and sacrificial use cases, such aircraft couldn't exist with humans in them.
On the other end we have fighter aircraft. They didn't go unmanned because in a 20+ tonnes and supersonic aircraft, the cockpit isn't a that big factor in weight, drag or volume. The AI wasn't and still isn't good enough to trust it with tactical decisions either. Since you can't risk such an expensive and important asset to video link integrity, unmanned fighters are non-starters in 2025.
And in no asset class the gap between unmanned and manned systems is as big as it is with underwater platforms. Running a submarine requires very complex thinking patterns which is why in most navies submariners get a special treatment. Sub officers have to constantly interpret the unknown using the very little information a sub has. There is also the fact that frequent human supervision is impossible with UUVs.
So nope. There is quite some time until UUVs match a small SSK in traditional submarine duties, let alone a good SSN.
