Why uncrewed warships shift manpower costs ashore

Are politicians the main advocates for replacing crewed warships with uncrewed vessels because they expect lower personnel costs?

That expectation is misleading because uncrewed vessels shift people into shore control, maintenance, mothership, logistics, and contractor roles rather than eliminating the manpower bill.

Uncrewed vessels still need reliable control systems, shore operators, deployable technicians, and often a nearby mother ship. Moving sailors off the hull can therefore transfer labor into control rooms, maintenance organizations, logistics, and contractor support rather than remove it. Development costs also rise when an autonomous vessel must reach the reliability expected of a warship operating far from home. A further legal and financial distinction is that sending uniformed personnel into danger can be easier than deploying civilian contractors into a conflict zone.