The part you quote is explicitly not about the engineers of the vessel. It's about everybody else in the Navy!

What I'm saying is that we are all used to operate in a certain way, and you cannot really expect the automated system to fawlessly adapt to the way you already operate. To benefit from the automation you need to change the way you operate in depth, and that's a much harder thing to do in the military than in the civilian world (where it's already not that easy in practice).

The engineering side of things is always the easiest part of the job, no matter how challenging one particular engineering achievement is.

There is no doubt that such a ship must store spare parts for most things that can break during operation and that everything must be designed so that such spare parts should be replaceable by robots, after running diagnostics that identify the faults.

This is not simple, but it is feasible. It would be feasible much more frequently than currently used, but typically human technicians are cheaper than complex fail-safe automation. Presumably, at least in the beginning, such ships will not be used far from their bases, so they will return there after any defects that cannot be repaired.

All essential functions should have enough redundancy so that the ship should be able to return to the base even when only partially operational, e.g. with some engines or propellers disabled.

All branches of the military have been pushing for automation. As an example, 6th gen fighters are expected to either be crewless or to control swarms of smaller crewless drones from a distance and relay information.

I'm not disputing that.

It's obvious to everyone that remote-controlled weapons are the future. My point is that a remote-controlled ship isn't going to be a 1 for 1 replacement for a crewed one anytime soon, and it's going to need a gigantic organizational and mindset change to deploy them at their full potential.

And you can always send in a chopper with some seamen if needed