KSS-III Batch 2 can be manned by 33 crews

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/06/kss-iii-submarine-sets-course-for-the-baltic-sea/
>The KSS-III Batch II features a high degree of automation, and a crew of 33, although it is possible to embark up to 55 personnel. In addition, the sub is equipped with an integrated sonar system with eight antennas, a Hanwha Systems Naval Shield Baseline 2.2 combat management system with an open architecture and adaptable to export requirements, and a Link-K tactical data link interoperable with allied systems.

Impressive level of automation for a ship with a tonnage over 3000t. For reference, the latest Japanese Taigei class has a crew complement of 70.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Batch 1 can already dive deeper than an virginia class sub equivalent to an ohio class, can't even imagine the Batch 2, the Batch 3 in advanced development is apparently nuclear...

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Batch 1 can already dive deeper than an virginia class sub
      On paper maybe, but the unclassified max dive depth for Virginia-class is laughably shallower than its ACTUAL maximum dive depth.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Batch 3 in advanced development is apparently nuclear
      Lol
      Lmao

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They ARE a regional power at best, to pretend to be anything beyond that just makes them look like the buck broken
        asiatics they wish they weren't.

        Don't underestimate Korean but hurt. Remember when Japan announced they were modifying the Izumo's for F-35 operations, Korea immediately came out and said they would modify their Dokdo's with around half the displacement to do the same. Then that never happened, so they said they would build 40,000t light carriers, then said they would build 70,000t. Then they spent like 50 million dollars on a feasibility study on such a project and magically the next year CVX funding was absent from all budgets. Batch 3 will absolutely be a nuclear sub on paper and it will be hyped up at a bunch of military expos as Korea stronk, then it will never be funded in any meaningful capacity like every other wunderwaffe Korea thinks they can make. Their shitty little arsenal ship design that they announced immediately after ASEV was announced by Japan is heading their soon. It got funding for conceptual design and all news on it has disappeared after.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Batch 1 can already dive deeper than an virginia class sub
      Test depth for KSS-III was supposedly 350m, the publicly disclosed test depth for Virginia-class is 240m. However various reports suggest they're capable of depths of at LEAST 490m and potentially more, though again officially they only say "greater than 240m".

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Batch 3 in advanced development is apparently nuclear
      It's not, but it should be. Diesel subs are just less useful than nuclear subs. Building diesel subs is an admission of being a regional power at best.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They ARE a regional power at best, to pretend to be anything beyond that just makes them look like the buck broken
        asiatics they wish they weren't.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Building diesel subs is an admission of being a regional power at best.
        The ROKN has 0 power projection capability. 20,000t of their surface fleet is purely shitty patrol boats. Also I think the chart is actually wrong here for their AOEs since they have three 9,113t Cheonjis and one 10,105t Basedang which is 37,444, so idk where they pulled 49,510 out of.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Also I think the chart is actually wrong here
          Because if they didn't lie, they wouldn't be in the "top 10" covered by that chart.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I would be surprised if even 1/2 of the systems function as advertised.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good stuff. Surface ships which have to be scrubbed of rust etc are one thing but it's always struck me as strange why modern subs would have more than 20-40 people aboard. Maybe it's just that many are relatively old and the next batch will be updated.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Impressive level of automation for a ship with a tonnage over 3000t.
    sure, in the 1960s.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, batch 2 is 3,600 t in displacement when surfaced. Alfas weigh only 2300 t.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >automation is when you don't include the maintenance crew and leave the sub to die if it doesn't run back to port when anything happenes
      True soviet smekalka

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Implessive
    Next are you going to boast about how it can fire an Iskander copy with a copy of pajeet ARSS?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    33 whole crews for one boat?!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We need to pump those numbers down. I'm thinking a crew of twelve. Maybe nine.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      32,5, but we have to round up.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Impressive level of automation for a ship with a tonnage over 3000t.
    Already mentioned but the Alfa class SSN was around 3000t and had a crew of something like 30 officers and maybe a few NCOs. Everything on that was automated. That was actually part of the problem with it. Very expensive in the 70s and 80s and if anything broke underway it was just broken until you could get into port. Also, because most things were maintained by men not going along for the trip they didn't have much incentive to do a good job since their lives didn't really depend on it.

    Still, this is what I think all modern subs should be like. Keep the crew compartments as small as possible and very reinforced and automate everything possible to minimize risk.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Impressive but not necessarily new, small crew submarines in the same style were preferred by the Soviets. Lots of automation, exceptionally deep diving, but plenty of tradeoffs. Korea probably can swing it better than the Soviets could, but don't be so easily impressed by a crew number. US crew counts have always been enormous because as a policy they favor redundancy and, to put it bluntly, having a lot of bodies to throw at damage control. It does work, but my point is that crew complement is an arbitrarily defined number of bodies that planners expect to fill the boat's shifts and weather the boat's damage. Lightening workloads with automation just to shrink the crew and work the sailors harder feels like one step forward two steps back. We could have more, shorter shifts and less fatigue on crews.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *