话题讨论：GJ-11“利剑” - 用于中国航母的无人攻击机 part1
正文翻译
The PLA Navy intends to field a navalised GJ-11 UCAV on its catapult-equipped aircraft carriers, a capability not available to the US Navy.
中国海军打算在其配备弹射器的航空母舰上装备一款海军版GJ-11无人驾驶飞机，这是一种美国海军不具备的能力。
The PLA Navy intends to field a navalised GJ-11 UCAV on its catapult-equipped aircraft carriers, a capability not available to the US Navy.
中国海军打算在其配备弹射器的航空母舰上装备一款海军版GJ-11无人驾驶飞机，这是一种美国海军不具备的能力。
评论翻译
@twlamSG
I think Type 001 and 002 most likely be retained as training carrier. Really depends, but China doesn't like to waste their equipment. They may even sell 001 to friendly countries..
我认为001型和002型最有可能被保留作为训练航母。这要看情况，但中国不喜欢浪费装备。他们甚至可能把001卖给友好国家……
I think Type 001 and 002 most likely be retained as training carrier. Really depends, but China doesn't like to waste their equipment. They may even sell 001 to friendly countries..
我认为001型和002型最有可能被保留作为训练航母。这要看情况，但中国不喜欢浪费装备。他们甚至可能把001卖给友好国家……
@ZweiZwolf
I agree China will likely repurpose the 001 and 002 carriers. Removing the ski jump would make for a really nice helicopter carrier, while removing it for a EMALS catapult would make for an excellent drone carrier.
我同意中国可能会改变001和002航母的用途。去掉滑跃将会成为一艘非常好的直升机航母，而去掉滑跃换成电磁弹射器将会成为一艘优秀的无人机航母。
I agree China will likely repurpose the 001 and 002 carriers. Removing the ski jump would make for a really nice helicopter carrier, while removing it for a EMALS catapult would make for an excellent drone carrier.
我同意中国可能会改变001和002航母的用途。去掉滑跃将会成为一艘非常好的直升机航母，而去掉滑跃换成电磁弹射器将会成为一艘优秀的无人机航母。
@unitheg6839
@ZweiZwolf It’s actually hard to repurpose once outfitting is done, kind of costly
@ZweiZwolf 事实上，一旦装备完成，就很难重新改变用途，有点昂贵。
@ZweiZwolf It’s actually hard to repurpose once outfitting is done, kind of costly
@ZweiZwolf 事实上，一旦装备完成，就很难重新改变用途，有点昂贵。
@ZweiZwolf
@unitheg6839 China bought the 001 as a scrap hull, and reworking the hull isn't really that hard. Countries have converted non-carrier ships into carriers, and so forth, so removing a ski jump and changing the airwing really isn't that difficult.
@unitheg6839 中国买001号的时候是破烂船壳，在船体上重新改造并不是那么难。一些国家已经把非航母改装成航母，所以去掉滑跃和改变飞行器真的不是那么困难。
@unitheg6839 China bought the 001 as a scrap hull, and reworking the hull isn't really that hard. Countries have converted non-carrier ships into carriers, and so forth, so removing a ski jump and changing the airwing really isn't that difficult.
@unitheg6839 中国买001号的时候是破烂船壳，在船体上重新改造并不是那么难。一些国家已经把非航母改装成航母，所以去掉滑跃和改变飞行器真的不是那么困难。
@twlamSG
@ZweiZwolf Repurposing a carrier may be too much work. I suspect it is most likely to be sold. Once the catapult proved to work there is no need to train flights on elevated decks. Unless using it to train ship maneuvering, fire safety and other scenario based training.
@ZweiZwolf 改变一艘航母的用途可能工作量太大。我怀疑它最有可能被出售。一旦这种弹射器被证明是有效的，就没有必要在抬高甲板上训练飞行。除非用它来训练船舶操纵、消防安全和其他训练方面的场景。
@ZweiZwolf Repurposing a carrier may be too much work. I suspect it is most likely to be sold. Once the catapult proved to work there is no need to train flights on elevated decks. Unless using it to train ship maneuvering, fire safety and other scenario based training.
@ZweiZwolf 改变一艘航母的用途可能工作量太大。我怀疑它最有可能被出售。一旦这种弹射器被证明是有效的，就没有必要在抬高甲板上训练飞行。除非用它来训练船舶操纵、消防安全和其他训练方面的场景。
@ZweiZwolf
@twlamSG Who would China sell the carrier to? Carriers are expensive items, and China certainly wouldn't want it coming back to bite them. The potential buyers who can both afford a used aircraft carrier and also be trusted not to attack China is pretty limited. Plus, there's the issue of it not getting "accidentally" sunk by America out of spite. Back to Russia? Brasil? Iran? South Africa?
@twlamSG 中国会把这艘航母卖给谁? 航母是很贵的东西，中国当然不希望有人反过来用它对付自己。既能买得起二手航母，又能被信任不会攻击中国的潜在买家相当有限。此外，还有一个问题是，要防止美国出于怨恨而“意外”将其击沉。卖回俄罗斯? 巴西? 伊朗? 南非?
@twlamSG Who would China sell the carrier to? Carriers are expensive items, and China certainly wouldn't want it coming back to bite them. The potential buyers who can both afford a used aircraft carrier and also be trusted not to attack China is pretty limited. Plus, there's the issue of it not getting "accidentally" sunk by America out of spite. Back to Russia? Brasil? Iran? South Africa?
@twlamSG 中国会把这艘航母卖给谁? 航母是很贵的东西，中国当然不希望有人反过来用它对付自己。既能买得起二手航母，又能被信任不会攻击中国的潜在买家相当有限。此外，还有一个问题是，要防止美国出于怨恨而“意外”将其击沉。卖回俄罗斯? 巴西? 伊朗? 南非?
@springtime1838
@ZweiZwolf
Aircraft Carriers as a rule are very expensive if CV 16 or 17 were to be sold there are safe to say not a lot of country's with both experience and the money besides Russia(money may be a problem) the only real option would likely be Brazil assuming they are even interested as having even a STOBAR carrier is expensive and thay have ex HMS Ocean not a replacement for there last CV but thay will have to want a replacement thay have other options to clarify am thinking the PLAN won't refit the Type-001/002 to CATOBAR but just find a good enough use after a Type 004 or two become available for service in the PLAN if a J-15 can use a ski jump than a UCAV can that and the the available radars and such is only getting better with time some ski jumping J-35's and UAV'S for AEW and EW and Tanker with ASW Z-20F's better that most and better than two less Aircraft Carrier that take time to built and outfit
@ZweiZwolf
通常而言，航母十分昂贵，如果中国要出售16或17号航母，可以说没有多少国家既有经验又有金钱来采购它，除了俄罗斯（金钱方面可能有问题），唯一真正的选择可能是巴西，假设他们感兴趣的话，即便是一艘滑跃式航母也十分昂贵，他们有一艘前英国航母大西洋号，它无法替换他们的上一艘航母，但他们可能不得不希望有个替换，他们还有别的选项，说明白一点，我觉得中国海军不会把001/002改装为弹射航母，只会找到足够好的用途，在有一两艘004型在中国海军服役之后之后，如果J-15可以用作滑跃起飞，那么无人机也可以，而且可用的雷达之类的装备只会随着时间变得更好，加上一些滑跃式J-35和无人机用于反潜、电子战和加油机，有反潜型Z-20F最好，总好过少两艘航母，毕竟是建造和舾装是需要时间的。
@ZweiZwolf
Aircraft Carriers as a rule are very expensive if CV 16 or 17 were to be sold there are safe to say not a lot of country's with both experience and the money besides Russia(money may be a problem) the only real option would likely be Brazil assuming they are even interested as having even a STOBAR carrier is expensive and thay have ex HMS Ocean not a replacement for there last CV but thay will have to want a replacement thay have other options to clarify am thinking the PLAN won't refit the Type-001/002 to CATOBAR but just find a good enough use after a Type 004 or two become available for service in the PLAN if a J-15 can use a ski jump than a UCAV can that and the the available radars and such is only getting better with time some ski jumping J-35's and UAV'S for AEW and EW and Tanker with ASW Z-20F's better that most and better than two less Aircraft Carrier that take time to built and outfit
@ZweiZwolf
通常而言，航母十分昂贵，如果中国要出售16或17号航母，可以说没有多少国家既有经验又有金钱来采购它，除了俄罗斯（金钱方面可能有问题），唯一真正的选择可能是巴西，假设他们感兴趣的话，即便是一艘滑跃式航母也十分昂贵，他们有一艘前英国航母大西洋号，它无法替换他们的上一艘航母，但他们可能不得不希望有个替换，他们还有别的选项，说明白一点，我觉得中国海军不会把001/002改装为弹射航母，只会找到足够好的用途，在有一两艘004型在中国海军服役之后之后，如果J-15可以用作滑跃起飞，那么无人机也可以，而且可用的雷达之类的装备只会随着时间变得更好，加上一些滑跃式J-35和无人机用于反潜、电子战和加油机，有反潜型Z-20F最好，总好过少两艘航母，毕竟是建造和舾装是需要时间的。
@SpruceWood-NEG
China Coast Guard @ZweiZwolf
给中国海警。
China Coast Guard @ZweiZwolf
给中国海警。
@ZweiZwolf
@SpruceWood-NEG Coast Guard aircraft carrier? That's a new one, but sure.
@SpruceWood-NEG 海警航母？这个想法很新鲜，但是没问题。
@SpruceWood-NEG Coast Guard aircraft carrier? That's a new one, but sure.
@SpruceWood-NEG 海警航母？这个想法很新鲜，但是没问题。
@ZweiZwolf
@springtime1838 IMO, any buyer would have to take both 001 and 002 as a package deal, as 002 is more-or-less an indigenous copy of 001. From a doctrine standpoint, any country adding carrier capability would need a 2nd to project power while the 1st undergoes maintenance and provides training. Also, China wouldn't want to be "stuck" with one oddball carrier. Personally, I hope South Africa buys the pair. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
@springtime1838 在我看来，任何买家都不得不接受001和002打包出售，因为002或多或少是001的本土副本。从军事理论的角度来看，任何增加航母能力的国家在第一艘航母进行维护和提供训练时，都需要第二艘航母来投送军力。此外，中国也不想被一艘老航母“绑住手脚”。就我个人而言，我希望南非能买下这两艘航母。结果究竟怎样会很有趣。
@springtime1838 IMO, any buyer would have to take both 001 and 002 as a package deal, as 002 is more-or-less an indigenous copy of 001. From a doctrine standpoint, any country adding carrier capability would need a 2nd to project power while the 1st undergoes maintenance and provides training. Also, China wouldn't want to be "stuck" with one oddball carrier. Personally, I hope South Africa buys the pair. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
@springtime1838 在我看来，任何买家都不得不接受001和002打包出售，因为002或多或少是001的本土副本。从军事理论的角度来看，任何增加航母能力的国家在第一艘航母进行维护和提供训练时，都需要第二艘航母来投送军力。此外，中国也不想被一艘老航母“绑住手脚”。就我个人而言，我希望南非能买下这两艘航母。结果究竟怎样会很有趣。
@danwelterweight4137
Carriers these days are floating coffins and a huge waste of resources.
如今的航空母舰就像漂浮的棺材，是对资源的巨大浪费。
Carriers these days are floating coffins and a huge waste of resources.
如今的航空母舰就像漂浮的棺材，是对资源的巨大浪费。
In a major war between major power anything above the surface will be sunk.
在大国之间的重大战争中，水面上的任何东西都会被击沉。
在大国之间的重大战争中，水面上的任何东西都会被击沉。
If I was the Chinese navy I would focus on making my nuclear powered submarines quieter and more lethal.
如果我是中国海军，我会专注于让我的核动力潜艇更安静、更致命。
如果我是中国海军，我会专注于让我的核动力潜艇更安静、更致命。
Then I would put them on the Arctic, greater Pacific ocean and the Atlantic.
然后我会把它们放在北极、大太平洋和大西洋上。
然后我会把它们放在北极、大太平洋和大西洋上。
I would also work with an African country or a Latin American country in the Atlantic Ocean to allow me to build a naval base there to give me access to the Atlantic Ocean.
我也会与大西洋上的一个非洲国家或拉丁美洲国家合作，让我在那里建立一个海军基地，让我能够进入大西洋。
我也会与大西洋上的一个非洲国家或拉丁美洲国家合作，让我在那里建立一个海军基地，让我能够进入大西洋。
@virushk
@danwelterweight4137 The future is drones!
@danwelterweight4137 未来是无人机!
@danwelterweight4137 The future is drones!
@danwelterweight4137 未来是无人机!
@gelinrefira
@danwelterweight4137 Yes, that's what they are doing right now. The future Chinese subs, including their boomers will be far quieter than the ones they have right now. Military watchers, especially PLAN watchers are predicting the Type 095, 096 will be as come very close to Seawolf or Virginia class. And it is likely they will build a lot of them. Not only that, they are also developing their new generation of conventional subs, probably with advance batteries that can last longer, go further and advance AIP, and they will also build a lot of those.
@danwelterweight4137 是的，他们现在就是这么做的。中国未来的潜艇，包括他们的弹道导弹潜艇，将比现在的潜艇安静得多。军事观察家，特别是中国海军观察家预测095、096型将非常接近海狼级或弗吉尼亚级。而且他们很可能会大量建造。不仅如此，他们还在开发新一代常规潜艇，可能配备更先进的电池，可以使用更长时间，走得更远，先进的AIP系统，他们还将建造很多这样的潜艇。
@danwelterweight4137 Yes, that's what they are doing right now. The future Chinese subs, including their boomers will be far quieter than the ones they have right now. Military watchers, especially PLAN watchers are predicting the Type 095, 096 will be as come very close to Seawolf or Virginia class. And it is likely they will build a lot of them. Not only that, they are also developing their new generation of conventional subs, probably with advance batteries that can last longer, go further and advance AIP, and they will also build a lot of those.
@danwelterweight4137 是的，他们现在就是这么做的。中国未来的潜艇，包括他们的弹道导弹潜艇，将比现在的潜艇安静得多。军事观察家，特别是中国海军观察家预测095、096型将非常接近海狼级或弗吉尼亚级。而且他们很可能会大量建造。不仅如此，他们还在开发新一代常规潜艇，可能配备更先进的电池，可以使用更长时间，走得更远，先进的AIP系统，他们还将建造很多这样的潜艇。
The seas around China's coasts will be the graveyard of ships of any nation who dares to pick a fight with them.
中国海岸周围的海域将成为任何胆敢与之战斗的国家的军舰坟墓。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
中国海岸周围的海域将成为任何胆敢与之战斗的国家的军舰坟墓。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
And I'm not even counting their land base rocket force and air force.
我还没算上他们的陆基火箭部队和空军。
我还没算上他们的陆基火箭部队和空军。
@johnbodman4504
I agree.
同意。
I agree.
同意。
@tonysu8860
None of this statement is accurate.
这些说法都不准确。
None of this statement is accurate.
这些说法都不准确。
America chooses to not deploy all at once so that about a third are always fully upgraded with the latest and best upgrades and fully operational. If the USN didn't rotate their carriers on this schedule, there would be periods when fewer carriers would be fully operational or have obsolete equipment This is critical when carriers have lifetimes over 50 years. The PLAN hasn't been operating carriers in number or very long to experience the problem of technological obsolescence or need major overhauls.
美国选择不一次部署所有航母，这样大约三分之一的航母就能得到最新、最好的升级，并具备完全的作战能力。如果美国海军不按照这个时间表轮换他们的航母，那么就会有一段时间，只有很少的航母可以完全投入使用，或者装备过时。当航母的使用寿命超过50年时，这是至关重要的。中国海军运营的航母数量不多，也没有运营很长时间，所以尚未经历技术过时或需要大修的问题。
美国选择不一次部署所有航母，这样大约三分之一的航母就能得到最新、最好的升级，并具备完全的作战能力。如果美国海军不按照这个时间表轮换他们的航母，那么就会有一段时间，只有很少的航母可以完全投入使用，或者装备过时。当航母的使用寿命超过50年时，这是至关重要的。中国海军运营的航母数量不多，也没有运营很长时间，所以尚未经历技术过时或需要大修的问题。
And, anyone who thinks that aircraft carriers will be sunk if there is open hostilities with China hasn't been paying any attention to American military doctrine. For nearly a hundred years now the US has gone to war and win, loss or stalemate the US has never been reckless in wasting and losing assets. Even a single serviceman's life is valuable and to be preserved so why would the US willingly lose an aircraft carrier? China can always attack an aircraft carrier but it's another thing to cause enough damage to disable or sink one.
而且，任何认为如果与中国公开敌对，航母就会被击沉的人，都没有注意到美国的军事学说。近一百年来，美国打过仗，赢过，输过，僵持过，美国从来没有不计后果地浪费和损失过资产。即使是一个军人的生命也是宝贵的，应该得到保护，所以为什么美国愿意失去一艘航空母舰? 中国总是可以攻击一艘航空母舰，但造成足够的破坏或击沉一艘航母是另一回事。
而且，任何认为如果与中国公开敌对，航母就会被击沉的人，都没有注意到美国的军事学说。近一百年来，美国打过仗，赢过，输过，僵持过，美国从来没有不计后果地浪费和损失过资产。即使是一个军人的生命也是宝贵的，应该得到保护，所以为什么美国愿意失去一艘航空母舰? 中国总是可以攻击一艘航空母舰，但造成足够的破坏或击沉一艘航母是另一回事。
@tonysu8860
@gelinrefira China has made notable progress in their submarines but that's all. In all other areas China is so far behind that it's unlikely that China can create even a credible threat much less a possibility or probability of destroying US aircraft or vessels. Even this video's statement that China has advanced drone capability is unproven, or at least not discussed publicly and I doubt the US is going to say much that might confirm the military's opinion of Chinese capability. But, China hasn't demonstrated much, its various drones are mostly demonstrators with the exception of those Predator clones.
@gelinrefira 中国在潜艇方面取得了显著进步，但仅此而已。在所有其他领域，中国都远远落后，中国不太可能造成可信的威胁，更不用说摧毁美国飞机或船只的可能性了。甚至这个视频中关于中国拥有先进无人机能力的说法都是未经证实的，或者至少没有公开讨论过，我怀疑美国会说很多可能证实军方对中国能力的看法。但是，中国并没有展示太多，除了那些“捕食者”的山寨版之外，它的各种无人机大多是演示用的。
@gelinrefira China has made notable progress in their submarines but that's all. In all other areas China is so far behind that it's unlikely that China can create even a credible threat much less a possibility or probability of destroying US aircraft or vessels. Even this video's statement that China has advanced drone capability is unproven, or at least not discussed publicly and I doubt the US is going to say much that might confirm the military's opinion of Chinese capability. But, China hasn't demonstrated much, its various drones are mostly demonstrators with the exception of those Predator clones.
@gelinrefira 中国在潜艇方面取得了显著进步，但仅此而已。在所有其他领域，中国都远远落后，中国不太可能造成可信的威胁，更不用说摧毁美国飞机或船只的可能性了。甚至这个视频中关于中国拥有先进无人机能力的说法都是未经证实的，或者至少没有公开讨论过，我怀疑美国会说很多可能证实军方对中国能力的看法。但是，中国并没有展示太多，除了那些“捕食者”的山寨版之外，它的各种无人机大多是演示用的。
The submarine threat must be respected because it's estimated that China's very latest launched might be less than a decade behind the US overall and even a single one that's approximately equal to the US is a threat. But even if China attains approximately parity with the US, China at that point will have only one and it'll be at least 20 years before China would be able to build a fleet comparable in size to the US Los Angeles class and better fleet even if China churned out submarines at breakneck speed and the US doesn't increase its own fleet size.
中国潜艇的威胁必须得到尊重，因为据估计，中国最新下水的潜艇可能比美国落后不到10年，甚至与美国相当的潜艇即便只有一艘，都是一个威胁。但是，即使中国达到了与美国大致相当的水平，到那时中国也将只有一艘，即使中国以惊人的速度生产潜艇，而美国不增加自己的舰队规模，中国也至少需要20年才能建立一支与美国洛杉矶级规模相当的舰队和更好的舰队。
中国潜艇的威胁必须得到尊重，因为据估计，中国最新下水的潜艇可能比美国落后不到10年，甚至与美国相当的潜艇即便只有一艘，都是一个威胁。但是，即使中国达到了与美国大致相当的水平，到那时中国也将只有一艘，即使中国以惊人的速度生产潜艇，而美国不增加自己的舰队规模，中国也至少需要20年才能建立一支与美国洛杉矶级规模相当的舰队和更好的舰队。
@shmeckle666
The point of the number of US carriers is not to have all 10/12 deployed at once time. It’s to, in theory, always have (at least) 3 deployed, 3 in maintenance/refit, and 3 in predeployment prep at any given time. Rule of 3, or some shit. 1 deployed, 1 in maintenance, 1 getting ready to deploy. And you cycle the ships through that cycle as such.
美国航母数量的关键不是一次性部署所有10/12艘。理论上，无论何时，它总是(至少)有3艘部署，3艘维护/改装，3艘部署前准备。三艘法则之类的。一艘部署，一艘维护，一艘准备部署。而且对航母这样循环。
The point of the number of US carriers is not to have all 10/12 deployed at once time. It’s to, in theory, always have (at least) 3 deployed, 3 in maintenance/refit, and 3 in predeployment prep at any given time. Rule of 3, or some shit. 1 deployed, 1 in maintenance, 1 getting ready to deploy. And you cycle the ships through that cycle as such.
美国航母数量的关键不是一次性部署所有10/12艘。理论上，无论何时，它总是(至少)有3艘部署，3艘维护/改装，3艘部署前准备。三艘法则之类的。一艘部署，一艘维护，一艘准备部署。而且对航母这样循环。
@ZweiZwolf
@tonysu8860 China's subs are already really good. Remember the time that a Chinese sub popped up in the middle of a US Navy battle group? Yeah. And their newer subs are certainly even better. China has something like 10 times the US shipbuilding capacity, supported by easily 10 times the industrial manufacturing capability. If push came to shove, China could churn out military hardware at a frightening pace. As for what's been demonstrated, both times the US fought against China in Korea and Vietnam, the US lost. Furthermore, the US has never fought against an actual peer adversary, much less one with clearly larger overall manpower, superior manufacturing technology and greater overall production capacity. Even if Chinese tech is a generation behind the US, their ability to flood the battlefield and replace losses makes a very big difference.
@tonysu8860 中国的潜艇已经很好了。还记得那次中国潜艇突然出现在美国海军战斗群中间吗? 是的。而且他们的新潜艇肯定更好。中国的造船能力大约是美国的10倍，受到轻易达到美国10倍的工业制造能力的支持。如果事态严重，中国可能会以惊人的速度生产军事装备。至于已经证明的，两次美国在朝鲜和越南与中国作战，美国都输了。此外，美国从未与真正并驾齐驱的对手打过仗，更不用说拥有明显更多的总人力、更优越的制造技术和更大的整体生产能力的对手了。即使中国的科技落后美国一代，他们在战场上的能力和弥补损失的能力也会产生很大的不同。
@tonysu8860 China's subs are already really good. Remember the time that a Chinese sub popped up in the middle of a US Navy battle group? Yeah. And their newer subs are certainly even better. China has something like 10 times the US shipbuilding capacity, supported by easily 10 times the industrial manufacturing capability. If push came to shove, China could churn out military hardware at a frightening pace. As for what's been demonstrated, both times the US fought against China in Korea and Vietnam, the US lost. Furthermore, the US has never fought against an actual peer adversary, much less one with clearly larger overall manpower, superior manufacturing technology and greater overall production capacity. Even if Chinese tech is a generation behind the US, their ability to flood the battlefield and replace losses makes a very big difference.
@tonysu8860 中国的潜艇已经很好了。还记得那次中国潜艇突然出现在美国海军战斗群中间吗? 是的。而且他们的新潜艇肯定更好。中国的造船能力大约是美国的10倍，受到轻易达到美国10倍的工业制造能力的支持。如果事态严重，中国可能会以惊人的速度生产军事装备。至于已经证明的，两次美国在朝鲜和越南与中国作战，美国都输了。此外，美国从未与真正并驾齐驱的对手打过仗，更不用说拥有明显更多的总人力、更优越的制造技术和更大的整体生产能力的对手了。即使中国的科技落后美国一代，他们在战场上的能力和弥补损失的能力也会产生很大的不同。
@user-jp2tf5fj5k
@danwelterweight4137 Dude... how can you think Chinese are not developing those subs... They are actually advancing on every aspects, with cheaper prices and more admirable techs compare to US's. The only advantage that US has is their storage. The ship building industry of US has continually shrinking and now its difficult for it to build a destroyer.
@danwelterweight4137 伙计……你怎么能认为中国人没有发展这些潜艇……他们实际上在各个方面都在进步，与美国相比，他们的价格更便宜，技术更令人钦佩。美国唯一的优势是他们的存货。美国的造船业不断萎缩，现在造一艘驱逐舰都很困难。
@danwelterweight4137 Dude... how can you think Chinese are not developing those subs... They are actually advancing on every aspects, with cheaper prices and more admirable techs compare to US's. The only advantage that US has is their storage. The ship building industry of US has continually shrinking and now its difficult for it to build a destroyer.
@danwelterweight4137 伙计……你怎么能认为中国人没有发展这些潜艇……他们实际上在各个方面都在进步，与美国相比，他们的价格更便宜，技术更令人钦佩。美国唯一的优势是他们的存货。美国的造船业不断萎缩，现在造一艘驱逐舰都很困难。
@user-jc8cy5tf2k
@ZweiZwolf According to the latest published data, China's shipbuilding speed is more than 100 times that of the United States.
@ZweiZwolf 根据最新公布的数据，中国的造船速度是美国的100多倍。
@ZweiZwolf According to the latest published data, China's shipbuilding speed is more than 100 times that of the United States.
@ZweiZwolf 根据最新公布的数据，中国的造船速度是美国的100多倍。
@ZweiZwolf
@user-jc8cy5tf2k I just read that China is now closer to 400x the shipbuilding capacity of America. LOL
@user-jc8cy5tf2k 我刚刚读到中国现在的造船能力接近美国的400倍。哈哈。
@user-jc8cy5tf2k I just read that China is now closer to 400x the shipbuilding capacity of America. LOL
@user-jc8cy5tf2k 我刚刚读到中国现在的造船能力接近美国的400倍。哈哈。
@patrickm.4754
One thing I hate about Western analysts is that they tend to compare Type 003 with the Ford class. A fair 1:1 comparison would be with the Kitty Hawk.
我讨厌西方分析家的一件事是，他们倾向于将003型与福特级进行比较。与小鹰号进行比较才公平。
One thing I hate about Western analysts is that they tend to compare Type 003 with the Ford class. A fair 1:1 comparison would be with the Kitty Hawk.
我讨厌西方分析家的一件事是，他们倾向于将003型与福特级进行比较。与小鹰号进行比较才公平。
@zomgneedaname
But then the comparison would have the 003 come out on top, can't have that
但是那样比较之后003会排在首位，可不敢这么比。
But then the comparison would have the 003 come out on top, can't have that
但是那样比较之后003会排在首位，可不敢这么比。
@patrickm.4754
@zomgneedaname Correct, also the way the two countries deploy their carriers are two different strategies. At the end of the day, propaganda is propaganda.
@zomgneedaname 没错，两国部署航母的方式也是两种不同的战略。说到底，宣传就是宣传。
@zomgneedaname Correct, also the way the two countries deploy their carriers are two different strategies. At the end of the day, propaganda is propaganda.
@zomgneedaname 没错，两国部署航母的方式也是两种不同的战略。说到底，宣传就是宣传。
@zix_zix_zix
Maybe because the Type 003, like the USS Gerald R. Ford, features electromagnetic launch system (EMALS) instead of steam catapults?
也许是因为003型像杰拉尔德·r·福特号一样，采用电磁发射系统而不是蒸汽弹射器?
Maybe because the Type 003, like the USS Gerald R. Ford, features electromagnetic launch system (EMALS) instead of steam catapults?
也许是因为003型像杰拉尔德·r·福特号一样，采用电磁发射系统而不是蒸汽弹射器?
@user-ji6wb7ki8g
Electromagnetic ejection capability is significantly stronger than steam ejection capability.. So the 003 model is clearly comparable to the Ford class, rather than the fully outdated and retired Little Eagle..
电磁弹射能力明显强于蒸汽弹射能力。所以003型号显然可以与福特级相媲美，而不是完全过时和退役的小鹰……
Electromagnetic ejection capability is significantly stronger than steam ejection capability.. So the 003 model is clearly comparable to the Ford class, rather than the fully outdated and retired Little Eagle..
电磁弹射能力明显强于蒸汽弹射能力。所以003型号显然可以与福特级相媲美，而不是完全过时和退役的小鹰……
@danwelterweight4137
@zix_zix_zix it's not a good comparison because the Ford class is nuclear class. The Kitty Hawk and the Type 003 are not.
@zix_zix_zix 这不是一个好的比较，因为福特级是核动力级。小鹰号和003型不是。
@zix_zix_zix it's not a good comparison because the Ford class is nuclear class. The Kitty Hawk and the Type 003 are not.
@zix_zix_zix 这不是一个好的比较，因为福特级是核动力级。小鹰号和003型不是。
You wouldn't compare a nuclear submarine to a conventional submarine so why would you compare a nuclear carrier to a conventional carrier?
你不会将核潜艇与常规潜艇进行比较，那么为什么要将核动力航母与常规航母进行比较呢?
你不会将核潜艇与常规潜艇进行比较，那么为什么要将核动力航母与常规航母进行比较呢?
@chrisdoulou8149
It doesn’t nearly compare with either. It’s a Kittyhawk sized vessel that’s comparable to the Ford in tech level.
它根本无法与任何一个相比。这是一艘小鹰号大小的船，在技术水平上与福特号相当。
It doesn’t nearly compare with either. It’s a Kittyhawk sized vessel that’s comparable to the Ford in tech level.
它根本无法与任何一个相比。这是一艘小鹰号大小的船，在技术水平上与福特号相当。
@zix_zix_zix
@danwelterweight4137 A nuclear submarine usually means it is a lot quieter than a conventional one, which makes it harder to detect. This is a very important quality for submarines because they rely on stealth to survive. In carriers, nuclear-powered means there is no need to refuel, therefore extended operational range. Although this is an important feature for blue water operations, it is not that important to PLAN because they do not intend to send their carrier to operate away from home. Therefore, it all comes down to airwing operations.
@danwelterweight4137 核潜艇通常意味着它比传统潜艇安静得多，这使得它更难被发现。这对潜艇来说是一个非常重要的品质，因为它们依靠隐身来生存。而航母，核动力意味着不需要加油，因此扩大了作战范围。虽然这是蓝水作战的一个重要特征，但对中国海军来说并不是那么重要，因为他们不打算派其航母在远离本土的地方作战。因此，这一切都归结为飞行器的操作。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@danwelterweight4137 A nuclear submarine usually means it is a lot quieter than a conventional one, which makes it harder to detect. This is a very important quality for submarines because they rely on stealth to survive. In carriers, nuclear-powered means there is no need to refuel, therefore extended operational range. Although this is an important feature for blue water operations, it is not that important to PLAN because they do not intend to send their carrier to operate away from home. Therefore, it all comes down to airwing operations.
@danwelterweight4137 核潜艇通常意味着它比传统潜艇安静得多，这使得它更难被发现。这对潜艇来说是一个非常重要的品质，因为它们依靠隐身来生存。而航母，核动力意味着不需要加油，因此扩大了作战范围。虽然这是蓝水作战的一个重要特征，但对中国海军来说并不是那么重要，因为他们不打算派其航母在远离本土的地方作战。因此，这一切都归结为飞行器的操作。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Ream334
What are the chances of the Type 003 meeting a Kitty Hawk in battle?
003型在战斗中遇到小鹰号的几率有多大?
What are the chances of the Type 003 meeting a Kitty Hawk in battle?
003型在战斗中遇到小鹰号的几率有多大?
@danwelterweight4137
@zix_zix_zix wrong, conventional submarines are much more quieter than nuclear submarines.
@zix_zix_zix 错了，常规潜艇比核潜艇安静得多。
@zix_zix_zix wrong, conventional submarines are much more quieter than nuclear submarines.
@zix_zix_zix 错了，常规潜艇比核潜艇安静得多。
Nuclear submarines are way more noisy.
核潜艇的噪音更大。
核潜艇的噪音更大。
Nuclear submarines and nuclear carriers don't have to be supplied with fuel on a regular basis. That is true. That is why they should not be compared with conventional submarines and carriers because they are two different classes of weapons for different purposes.
核潜艇和核动力航母不需要定期补给燃料。这是真的。这就是为什么它们不应该与常规潜艇和航母进行比较，因为它们是两种不同类型的武器，用于不同的目的。
核潜艇和核动力航母不需要定期补给燃料。这是真的。这就是为什么它们不应该与常规潜艇和航母进行比较，因为它们是两种不同类型的武器，用于不同的目的。
@grid-panda
@danwelterweight4137 In the 2000s, the U.S. Navy proposed the CVX plan for the 21st century aircraft carrier. The CVX plan has two branches, one is the steam powered CV-21, and the other is the nuclear-powered CVN-21. The Ford class is CVN-21. The concept of type 003 is very close to the original CV-21.
@danwelterweight4137 21世纪初，美国海军提出了21世纪航母的CVX计划。CVX计划有两个分支，一个是蒸汽动力CV-21，另一个是核动力CVN-21。福特级是CVN-21。003型的概念非常接近最初的CV-21型。
@danwelterweight4137 In the 2000s, the U.S. Navy proposed the CVX plan for the 21st century aircraft carrier. The CVX plan has two branches, one is the steam powered CV-21, and the other is the nuclear-powered CVN-21. The Ford class is CVN-21. The concept of type 003 is very close to the original CV-21.
@danwelterweight4137 21世纪初，美国海军提出了21世纪航母的CVX计划。CVX计划有两个分支，一个是蒸汽动力CV-21，另一个是核动力CVN-21。福特级是CVN-21。003型的概念非常接近最初的CV-21型。
@zix_zix_zix
@danwelterweight4137 I don't think so. Diesel Electric subs CAN be very quiet when operating on batteries; they just can’t operate on batteries forever and they are very noisy when they start their diesels to charge those batteries - not to mention that they cannot stay underwater for months, either,
@danwelterweight4137 我不这么想。柴电潜艇在使用电池时非常安静；只是它们不能永远靠电池工作，而且当它们启动柴油给电池充电时，噪音非常大——更不用说它们也不能在水下呆上几个月。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@danwelterweight4137 I don't think so. Diesel Electric subs CAN be very quiet when operating on batteries; they just can’t operate on batteries forever and they are very noisy when they start their diesels to charge those batteries - not to mention that they cannot stay underwater for months, either,
@danwelterweight4137 我不这么想。柴电潜艇在使用电池时非常安静；只是它们不能永远靠电池工作，而且当它们启动柴油给电池充电时，噪音非常大——更不用说它们也不能在水下呆上几个月。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@kanestalin7246
@zix_zix_zix nuclear submarines are noiser than conventional one not quieter
@zix_zix_zix 核潜艇比传统潜艇噪音大，而不是更安静。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@zix_zix_zix nuclear submarines are noiser than conventional one not quieter
@zix_zix_zix 核潜艇比传统潜艇噪音大，而不是更安静。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@theinfralix6598
Except one is new clear and the other is conventional power, they are comparable in almost every way
除了一种是核动力，另一种是传统能源外，它们几乎在所有方面都具有可比性。
Except one is new clear and the other is conventional power, they are comparable in almost every way
除了一种是核动力，另一种是传统能源外，它们几乎在所有方面都具有可比性。
@papatango2362
@Ream334 0 because kitty hawk is scrapped.
@Ream334 毫无可能，因为小鹰级报废了。
@Ream334 0 because kitty hawk is scrapped.
@Ream334 毫无可能，因为小鹰级报废了。
@obliviouz
I can't believe no-one has mentioned the obvious reason: in any practical application of the Type 003, it will be up against the Ford, not the Kitty Hawk. Nothing about war is "fair" - making 'fair' comparisons is pointless; projecting actual power and winning engagements is all that matters.
我不敢相信竟然没有人提到这个明显的原因：在003型的任何实际应用中，它将对抗福特，而不是小鹰。战争没有什么是“公平”的——进行“公平”的比较是毫无意义的；投射真正的兵力和赢得交战才是最重要的。
I can't believe no-one has mentioned the obvious reason: in any practical application of the Type 003, it will be up against the Ford, not the Kitty Hawk. Nothing about war is "fair" - making 'fair' comparisons is pointless; projecting actual power and winning engagements is all that matters.
我不敢相信竟然没有人提到这个明显的原因：在003型的任何实际应用中，它将对抗福特，而不是小鹰。战争没有什么是“公平”的——进行“公平”的比较是毫无意义的；投射真正的兵力和赢得交战才是最重要的。
很赞 21
收藏