模拟海战 - 美国和英国航母战斗群 VS 6艘中国055型驱逐舰
正文翻译
US & UK Carrier Groups vs Six Chinese Type 055 Destroyers (Naval Battle 138) | DCS
美国和英国航母战斗群vs 6艘中国055型驱逐舰
美国和英国航母战斗群vs 6艘中国055型驱逐舰
评论翻译
Grim Reapers
2024年7月18日
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Grim Reapers
2024年7月18日
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
You guys have challenged me to find what it would take to withstand and defeat a full Chinese Type 055 Destroyer Squadron. In this video I simulate using paired US and UK Carrier Strike Groups for the task. The Type 055 use their YJ-21 hypersonic and YJ-18 supersonic missiles, while the US and UK defend with SM-3, SM-6, SM-2, ESSM and Aster missiles, then counter attack with F-35 and Super Hornet firing LRASM, SPEAR 3 and MAKO missiles.
0:00 Overview
1:57 BATTLE 1: USCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Briefing)
4:11 BATTLE 1: USCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Battle)
7:57 BATTLE 2: USCSG & UKCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Briefing)
9:42 BATTLE 2: USCSG & UKCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Battle)
你们向我发起了挑战，要求我探究如何抵御并战胜一支完整的中国055型驱逐舰编队。在这段视频中，我模拟了美国和英国的航母战斗群协同作战的场景。中国的055型驱逐舰装备了YJ-21高超音速导弹和YJ-18超音速导弹；而美国和英国方面则分别用SM-3、SM-6、SM-2、“增强型海麻雀”(ESSM)导弹和紫菀（英语：MBDA Aster）防空导弹进行防御，并利用F-35战斗机和超级大黄蜂发射“远程反舰导弹(LRASM)”、 “矛”3(SPEAR CAP3)空对面导弹和“灰鲭鲨”(Mako)空射高超声速导弹进行反击。
视频概要：
0:00 视频概述
1:57 第一场战斗：美国单航母战斗群对抗6艘055型驱逐舰（战前简报）
4:11 第一场战斗：美国单航母战斗群对抗6艘055型驱逐舰（战斗过程）
7:57 第二场战斗：美国和英国航母战斗群联合对抗6艘055型驱逐舰（战前简报）
9:42 第二场战斗：美国和英国航母战斗群联合对抗6艘055型驱逐舰（战斗过程）
0:00 Overview
1:57 BATTLE 1: USCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Briefing)
4:11 BATTLE 1: USCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Battle)
7:57 BATTLE 2: USCSG & UKCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Briefing)
9:42 BATTLE 2: USCSG & UKCSG vs 6 x Type 055 (Battle)
你们向我发起了挑战，要求我探究如何抵御并战胜一支完整的中国055型驱逐舰编队。在这段视频中，我模拟了美国和英国的航母战斗群协同作战的场景。中国的055型驱逐舰装备了YJ-21高超音速导弹和YJ-18超音速导弹；而美国和英国方面则分别用SM-3、SM-6、SM-2、“增强型海麻雀”(ESSM)导弹和紫菀（英语：MBDA Aster）防空导弹进行防御，并利用F-35战斗机和超级大黄蜂发射“远程反舰导弹(LRASM)”、 “矛”3(SPEAR CAP3)空对面导弹和“灰鲭鲨”(Mako)空射高超声速导弹进行反击。
视频概要：
0:00 视频概述
1:57 第一场战斗：美国单航母战斗群对抗6艘055型驱逐舰（战前简报）
4:11 第一场战斗：美国单航母战斗群对抗6艘055型驱逐舰（战斗过程）
7:57 第二场战斗：美国和英国航母战斗群联合对抗6艘055型驱逐舰（战前简报）
9:42 第二场战斗：美国和英国航母战斗群联合对抗6艘055型驱逐舰（战斗过程）
@McAllisterCo
I just want to reiterate THIS IS A VIDEO GAME, it does not replicate all the intricacies found in a real world battle, it does not replicate the weapons capabilities in real life, and therefor it does not have any bearing on real life. I think some people forget that.
我想再次强调，这一段内容是视频游戏，它无法复现现实世界战斗中的所有细节，也无法真实反映武器的实际性能，因此它与现实生活没有直接关联，有些人似乎忘记了这一点。
I just want to reiterate THIS IS A VIDEO GAME, it does not replicate all the intricacies found in a real world battle, it does not replicate the weapons capabilities in real life, and therefor it does not have any bearing on real life. I think some people forget that.
我想再次强调，这一段内容是视频游戏，它无法复现现实世界战斗中的所有细节，也无法真实反映武器的实际性能，因此它与现实生活没有直接关联，有些人似乎忘记了这一点。
@superbudegu
Not only is this a game, this is DCS, the worst game to simulate a naval battle in. His videos are fun, but in no way it simulates or represents what would have happened if the USN and PLAN clashed in the sea.
这不仅是一场游戏，而且还是“数字战斗模拟器（DCS，一款专注于现代空战的飞行模拟器游戏）”，它在模拟海战方面表现最差劲。虽然他的视频很有趣，但它们并不能真实模拟或代表美国海军和中国海军在海上冲突会发生什么。
Not only is this a game, this is DCS, the worst game to simulate a naval battle in. His videos are fun, but in no way it simulates or represents what would have happened if the USN and PLAN clashed in the sea.
这不仅是一场游戏，而且还是“数字战斗模拟器（DCS，一款专注于现代空战的飞行模拟器游戏）”，它在模拟海战方面表现最差劲。虽然他的视频很有趣，但它们并不能真实模拟或代表美国海军和中国海军在海上冲突会发生什么。
@kimjonglongdong3158
@superbudegu? can I ask why DCS is the WORST game to simulate a naval battle in? Is it highly inaccurate compared to other games?
我能问为什么DCS是模拟海战方面最差劲的游戏吗？它比其他游戏的准确性差很多吗？
@superbudegu? can I ask why DCS is the WORST game to simulate a naval battle in? Is it highly inaccurate compared to other games?
我能问为什么DCS是模拟海战方面最差劲的游戏吗？它比其他游戏的准确性差很多吗？
@superbudegu
@kimjonglongdong3158? DCS is not made for modern naval warfare simulation, only something like Command: Modern Operations can do something like this and even CMO is not realistic enough. the naval battles you see on this channel are not real and this is not how they would nplay out in real life. Most of the weapons used have their real capabilities classified, the ranges of the naval battles are not real, the missiles and AI are dumb af, there is no EW involved, etc. Naval warfare is very complex for a game like DCS to emulate properly, not even CMO is capable of that.
DCS并不是为现代海战模拟设计的，只有像“指挥:现代行动（Command: Modern Operations）”这样的游戏才能进行类似的模拟，即便如此，CMO也不够现实。这个频道上的海战并不真实，也不是现实中会发生的情况。大多数武器的真实性能是保密的，海战的范围也不真实，导弹和人工智能表现得很笨拙，没有涉及电子战等因素。海战非常复杂，DCS这样的游戏很难准确模拟，CMO也做不到。
@kimjonglongdong3158? DCS is not made for modern naval warfare simulation, only something like Command: Modern Operations can do something like this and even CMO is not realistic enough. the naval battles you see on this channel are not real and this is not how they would nplay out in real life. Most of the weapons used have their real capabilities classified, the ranges of the naval battles are not real, the missiles and AI are dumb af, there is no EW involved, etc. Naval warfare is very complex for a game like DCS to emulate properly, not even CMO is capable of that.
DCS并不是为现代海战模拟设计的，只有像“指挥:现代行动（Command: Modern Operations）”这样的游戏才能进行类似的模拟，即便如此，CMO也不够现实。这个频道上的海战并不真实，也不是现实中会发生的情况。大多数武器的真实性能是保密的，海战的范围也不真实，导弹和人工智能表现得很笨拙，没有涉及电子战等因素。海战非常复杂，DCS这样的游戏很难准确模拟，CMO也做不到。
@kimjonglongdong3158
@superbudegu? Ah so its more that DCS is better suited to older tech battles, plus lack of info on modern systems? The battles are still pretty fun though
啊，我明白了，DCS更适合模拟以前的科技战争，而且缺乏关于现代系统的详细信息？不过这些战斗看起来仍然很有趣。
@superbudegu? Ah so its more that DCS is better suited to older tech battles, plus lack of info on modern systems? The battles are still pretty fun though
啊，我明白了，DCS更适合模拟以前的科技战争，而且缺乏关于现代系统的详细信息？不过这些战斗看起来仍然很有趣。
@Wyomingchief
@kimjonglongdong3158?because it's literally a digital air combat simulator. It's not made to simulate Naval combat. It's just a aircraft simulator that has Naval assets
因为它本质上是一款数字空战模拟器，不是为模拟海战设计的。它只是一个包含海军资产的飞机模拟器。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@kimjonglongdong3158?because it's literally a digital air combat simulator. It's not made to simulate Naval combat. It's just a aircraft simulator that has Naval assets
因为它本质上是一款数字空战模拟器，不是为模拟海战设计的。它只是一个包含海军资产的飞机模拟器。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@hdmccart6735
Yes. It also forgets the notion of American Exceptionalism.
是的，它还忽略了美国例外论的概念。
Yes. It also forgets the notion of American Exceptionalism.
是的，它还忽略了美国例外论的概念。
@Tuhoeterra
@hdmccart6735? yeah i don't think caps server is going to have the same computational power as an AEGIS battle management suite.
是的，我不认为该软件下的服务器会有与“宙斯盾”作战系统相同的计算能力。
@hdmccart6735? yeah i don't think caps server is going to have the same computational power as an AEGIS battle management suite.
是的，我不认为该软件下的服务器会有与“宙斯盾”作战系统相同的计算能力。
@hdmccart6735
@Tuhoeterra? Guess it depends on who has the better deal with TSMC.
这要看谁与台积电有更优的交易条件了。
@Tuhoeterra? Guess it depends on who has the better deal with TSMC.
这要看谁与台积电有更优的交易条件了。
@angel102ify
fuck, good thing you told me, I thought i was watching the Discovery channel.
天哪，幸好你提醒我，我还以为我在看探索频道。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
fuck, good thing you told me, I thought i was watching the Discovery channel.
天哪，幸好你提醒我，我还以为我在看探索频道。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@trazyntheinfinite9895
@superbudegu?not to mentionnthat no carriermfleet would ever get into missile range of some other ship. Its literaly the whole point of a carrier to not do that.
别忘了，没有航母会冒险进入其他舰船的导弹射程。航母的整个设计理念就是避免这种情况。
@superbudegu?not to mentionnthat no carriermfleet would ever get into missile range of some other ship. Its literaly the whole point of a carrier to not do that.
别忘了，没有航母会冒险进入其他舰船的导弹射程。航母的整个设计理念就是避免这种情况。
@Andrew_NJ
This is all true but if the Ukraine war taught us anything is that countries like Russia and China significantly oversell their military capabilities. Until China's Navy is tested in combat their capabilities are unknown and likely to be far below that of the U.S. and our Allies regardless of what Wikipedia says.
虽然这些都是事实，但乌克兰战争告诉我们，像俄罗斯和中国这样的国家可能会大幅夸大他们的军事能力。除非中国海军在实战中得到检验，否则他们的真实能力是未知的，很可能远低于美国及其盟友的水平——不管维基百科怎么说。
This is all true but if the Ukraine war taught us anything is that countries like Russia and China significantly oversell their military capabilities. Until China's Navy is tested in combat their capabilities are unknown and likely to be far below that of the U.S. and our Allies regardless of what Wikipedia says.
虽然这些都是事实，但乌克兰战争告诉我们，像俄罗斯和中国这样的国家可能会大幅夸大他们的军事能力。除非中国海军在实战中得到检验，否则他们的真实能力是未知的，很可能远低于美国及其盟友的水平——不管维基百科怎么说。
@laurentitolledo1838
Some people refuse (on their own free will) that DCS is a game....
and they are quite adamant about it....
有些人拒绝接受DCS只是一款游戏的事实，而且他们对此非常坚定。
Some people refuse (on their own free will) that DCS is a game....
and they are quite adamant about it....
有些人拒绝接受DCS只是一款游戏的事实，而且他们对此非常坚定。
@SydWaters1776
Stop raining on peoples parades...
别总是给别人的热情泼冷水……
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Stop raining on peoples parades...
别总是给别人的热情泼冷水……
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@sweatybotfn9982
Imagine demonetizing just for showing Afghanistan
想象一下，仅仅因为展示了阿富汗就被油管官方撤销“货币支持”的功能。
Imagine demonetizing just for showing Afghanistan
想象一下，仅仅因为展示了阿富汗就被油管官方撤销“货币支持”的功能。
@grimreapers
We must have said something that YT didn't like, but not sure what.
我们可能说了些什么油管不喜欢的话，但不确定是什么。
We must have said something that YT didn't like, but not sure what.
我们可能说了些什么油管不喜欢的话，但不确定是什么。
@gregbrown3764
@grimreapers? "China too powerful so..."
“因为中国太强大了，所以...”
@grimreapers? "China too powerful so..."
“因为中国太强大了，所以...”
@laurentitolledo1838
Secret service's stern warning to YT caused it?
是不是特工机构对油管发出了严厉警告？
Secret service's stern warning to YT caused it?
是不是特工机构对油管发出了严厉警告？
@gregbrown3764
@laurentitolledo1838? LOL. Could be, after they spent an hour trying to holster their sidearms.
哈哈，确实有可能，毕竟他们试了一个小时才把枪放回枪套。
@laurentitolledo1838? LOL. Could be, after they spent an hour trying to holster their sidearms.
哈哈，确实有可能，毕竟他们试了一个小时才把枪放回枪套。
@jakeslouw3416
I like that you showed the 3 minute version. Gives us a proper frx of reference.
我喜欢你展示的3分钟的版本，这给了我们一个合适的参考框架。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I like that you showed the 3 minute version. Gives us a proper frx of reference.
我喜欢你展示的3分钟的版本，这给了我们一个合适的参考框架。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@desmondsun7041
This is a amazing. The UK has two crippled never-eady toys that they call carriers. Such a serious topic to kick off the joke.
这真是令人惊叹。英国有两艘他们称之为航母的残次品，在这么严肃的话题下开玩笑。
This is a amazing. The UK has two crippled never-eady toys that they call carriers. Such a serious topic to kick off the joke.
这真是令人惊叹。英国有两艘他们称之为航母的残次品，在这么严肃的话题下开玩笑。
@ArmUkraine
Well not really, they are the most modern aircraft carriers with a lot of sailing hours already…
实际上并非如此，它们是非常现代化的航母，航行时间已经够长了…
Well not really, they are the most modern aircraft carriers with a lot of sailing hours already…
实际上并非如此，它们是非常现代化的航母，航行时间已经够长了…
@aburetik4866
In 2023 alone, China built 43.22 million tons of ships while America only 0.6 million. Just imagine if China puts that massive ship building capacity into military purpose. It can make American navy look like a small baby in no time.
仅在2023年，中国就建造了4320万吨的船只，而美国只有60万吨。想象一下，如果中国把这种巨大的造船能力用在军事上，很快就能让美国海军相形见绌。
In 2023 alone, China built 43.22 million tons of ships while America only 0.6 million. Just imagine if China puts that massive ship building capacity into military purpose. It can make American navy look like a small baby in no time.
仅在2023年，中国就建造了4320万吨的船只，而美国只有60万吨。想象一下，如果中国把这种巨大的造船能力用在军事上，很快就能让美国海军相形见绌。
@kirovfactory
The problem is with the conversion rate (seen 30:1 from some study) and restricted supply of crucial parts. But I highly doubt the scenario as the building time of modern warships are that long and the supply chain so vulnerable. The side that is slightly disadvantaged in the first few days will have their shipbuilding asset wiped out. And to consider that the US has two ocean fronts and its operation base lined up all the way toward China's door step, basically it can afford to lose many battles but keep gaming while China is one defeat from game over.
问题在于转换率（有些研究显示是30:1）和关键部件的供应限制。但我非常怀疑这种情况，因为现代战舰建造时间长，供应链脆弱。一开始稍微处于劣势的一方，其造船资产很快就会被摧毁。考虑到美国有两个海洋前线，而且其基地一直延伸到中国的家门口，基本上它可以在输掉许多战斗后继续战斗，而中国只要一次失败，就可能全盘皆输。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The problem is with the conversion rate (seen 30:1 from some study) and restricted supply of crucial parts. But I highly doubt the scenario as the building time of modern warships are that long and the supply chain so vulnerable. The side that is slightly disadvantaged in the first few days will have their shipbuilding asset wiped out. And to consider that the US has two ocean fronts and its operation base lined up all the way toward China's door step, basically it can afford to lose many battles but keep gaming while China is one defeat from game over.
问题在于转换率（有些研究显示是30:1）和关键部件的供应限制。但我非常怀疑这种情况，因为现代战舰建造时间长，供应链脆弱。一开始稍微处于劣势的一方，其造船资产很快就会被摧毁。考虑到美国有两个海洋前线，而且其基地一直延伸到中国的家门口，基本上它可以在输掉许多战斗后继续战斗，而中国只要一次失败，就可能全盘皆输。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@user-hb6pz8nx4c
The difference is quality vs quantity. Chinese boats are floating aluminum cans, US boats are heavily armored
区别在于质量VS数量。中国的船只就像漂浮的铝罐，而美国的船只则是重型装甲。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The difference is quality vs quantity. Chinese boats are floating aluminum cans, US boats are heavily armored
区别在于质量VS数量。中国的船只就像漂浮的铝罐，而美国的船只则是重型装甲。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@aburetik4866
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? Chinese type 055 is far more advanced/powerful than American small floating coffins like Arleigh burke built with 1980s technology
中国的055型驱逐舰远比美国那些用1980年代技术建造的类似阿利·伯克级的“小型浮动棺材”要先进得多。
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? Chinese type 055 is far more advanced/powerful than American small floating coffins like Arleigh burke built with 1980s technology
中国的055型驱逐舰远比美国那些用1980年代技术建造的类似阿利·伯克级的“小型浮动棺材”要先进得多。
@mrspaceman9307
No. Unlike china, the USA has the capability to actually hit and destroy all of these dockyards. It has bases surrounding China. China can never hit the mainland USA and its shipyard. As sure the USA can produce ships uninterrupted vs china who have to watch the sky.
不，与中国不同，美国有能力真正击中并摧毁所有这些造船厂——它的基地环绕中国，而中国永远无法触及美国本土及其造船厂。美国可以不间断地生产船只，而中国则必须时刻警惕。
No. Unlike china, the USA has the capability to actually hit and destroy all of these dockyards. It has bases surrounding China. China can never hit the mainland USA and its shipyard. As sure the USA can produce ships uninterrupted vs china who have to watch the sky.
不，与中国不同，美国有能力真正击中并摧毁所有这些造船厂——它的基地环绕中国，而中国永远无法触及美国本土及其造船厂。美国可以不间断地生产船只，而中国则必须时刻警惕。
@aburetik4866
@mrspaceman9307? Those small American bases surrounding China won't last 10 minutes in the first wave of Chinese assault, as they are far away from American homeland with severe logistical challenges.
And China's capacity can easily build a fleet 10 times the existing American navy, before war even starts. It's just a matter of will.
那些环绕中国的美国小型基地在中国的首波攻击中无法坚持10分钟，因为它们远离美国本土，面临严重的后勤挑战。中国的能力可以轻易地在战争开始前建造出比现有美国海军大10倍规模的舰队，这只是个意愿问题。
@mrspaceman9307? Those small American bases surrounding China won't last 10 minutes in the first wave of Chinese assault, as they are far away from American homeland with severe logistical challenges.
And China's capacity can easily build a fleet 10 times the existing American navy, before war even starts. It's just a matter of will.
那些环绕中国的美国小型基地在中国的首波攻击中无法坚持10分钟，因为它们远离美国本土，面临严重的后勤挑战。中国的能力可以轻易地在战争开始前建造出比现有美国海军大10倍规模的舰队，这只是个意愿问题。
@avnidvyi
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? oh boy, you clearly dont know about China nowadays.
哦，天哪，你显然不了解现在的中国。
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? oh boy, you clearly dont know about China nowadays.
哦，天哪，你显然不了解现在的中国。
@vlhc4642
@mrspaceman9307? American bases within Chinese strike range are just called Chinese bases 1 week into the war, lol
What you need to figure out is how will America fight with nothing but Pacific Ocean between homeland and the Chinese fleet.
在战争的第一周，中国打击范围内的美国基地就会被称为中国基地，哈哈。
你需要考虑的问题是，美国将如何在太平洋这个将美国本土与中国舰队隔开的广阔海域上进行战斗。
@mrspaceman9307? American bases within Chinese strike range are just called Chinese bases 1 week into the war, lol
What you need to figure out is how will America fight with nothing but Pacific Ocean between homeland and the Chinese fleet.
在战争的第一周，中国打击范围内的美国基地就会被称为中国基地，哈哈。
你需要考虑的问题是，美国将如何在太平洋这个将美国本土与中国舰队隔开的广阔海域上进行战斗。
@vlhc4642
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? America is the one running on greater number of ancient 1980s Burkes buddy.
美国现在主要依赖的是数量更多的、老旧的1980年代伯克级驱逐舰，朋友。
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? America is the one running on greater number of ancient 1980s Burkes buddy.
美国现在主要依赖的是数量更多的、老旧的1980年代伯克级驱逐舰，朋友。
@vlhc4642
@kirovfactory? It's not about warships, its about logistics, it's about the Liberty class, not battleships.
Chinese shipbuilding can actually sustain pronged conflict in North America, while America is just a few sunk ships away from not able to defend Hawaii.
Also I don't think you comprehend what it means when a single Chinese shipyard is larger than all US shipyard combined, you'll deplete your entire missile inventory just to take one out for a week and reduce Chinese advantage from 250x to 240x.
这关键不在于战舰，而在于后勤能力，以及自由级这样的舰艇，我们讨论的不是战列舰。
中国的造船业实际上可以在北美持续多线冲突，而美国只有几艘沉船，是无法保卫夏威夷的。
你可能没有完全理解，如果一个中国的造船厂的规模就超过了所有美国造船厂的总和，这代表着什么。你将不得不用尽所有的导弹，只为了摧毁一个造船厂并让它一周内无法运作，这样也只能将中国的优势从250倍降低到240倍。
@kirovfactory? It's not about warships, its about logistics, it's about the Liberty class, not battleships.
Chinese shipbuilding can actually sustain pronged conflict in North America, while America is just a few sunk ships away from not able to defend Hawaii.
Also I don't think you comprehend what it means when a single Chinese shipyard is larger than all US shipyard combined, you'll deplete your entire missile inventory just to take one out for a week and reduce Chinese advantage from 250x to 240x.
这关键不在于战舰，而在于后勤能力，以及自由级这样的舰艇，我们讨论的不是战列舰。
中国的造船业实际上可以在北美持续多线冲突，而美国只有几艘沉船，是无法保卫夏威夷的。
你可能没有完全理解，如果一个中国的造船厂的规模就超过了所有美国造船厂的总和，这代表着什么。你将不得不用尽所有的导弹，只为了摧毁一个造船厂并让它一周内无法运作，这样也只能将中国的优势从250倍降低到240倍。
@weiye8830
@mrspaceman9307？中国内陆的造船厂比美国还多。
@mrspaceman9307？中国内陆的造船厂比美国还多。
@ArmUkraine
Ya do know that the US could just bomb these shipyards in an actual war
你知道美国在实际战争中可以轰炸这些造船厂，对吧。
Ya do know that the US could just bomb these shipyards in an actual war
你知道美国在实际战争中可以轰炸这些造船厂，对吧。
@lenparfan4486
@aburetik4866?what made you think that they can easily make destroyers
是什么让你觉得他们能轻易制造驱逐舰？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@aburetik4866?what made you think that they can easily make destroyers
是什么让你觉得他们能轻易制造驱逐舰？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@zetaopress2389
@aburetik4866?and how would you know who’s more advance ? Have you been on these ships? Have you ever heard that technology can be upxed as well? Look at the M1 abrams for example, it’s a 1970s tank and still pulls off real well today do to upxed features that are up to date. The tank model is old but the technology? Nope. Same thing with the Russian T-70 tanks those are hella old but with up to date technology they can still kick off and do some damage.
你怎么知道谁更先进？你上过这些船吗？你有没有听说过技术也可以更新？以M1艾布拉姆斯（英语：M1 Abrams）为例，它是一款1970年代的坦克，但由于更新了功能，今天仍然具备出色的表现。坦克型号老了，但技术呢？可不陈旧。俄罗斯的T-70坦克也一样，它们非常老旧，但配备了最新的技术，仍然可以发动攻击并造成损害。
@aburetik4866?and how would you know who’s more advance ? Have you been on these ships? Have you ever heard that technology can be upxed as well? Look at the M1 abrams for example, it’s a 1970s tank and still pulls off real well today do to upxed features that are up to date. The tank model is old but the technology? Nope. Same thing with the Russian T-70 tanks those are hella old but with up to date technology they can still kick off and do some damage.
你怎么知道谁更先进？你上过这些船吗？你有没有听说过技术也可以更新？以M1艾布拉姆斯（英语：M1 Abrams）为例，它是一款1970年代的坦克，但由于更新了功能，今天仍然具备出色的表现。坦克型号老了，但技术呢？可不陈旧。俄罗斯的T-70坦克也一样，它们非常老旧，但配备了最新的技术，仍然可以发动攻击并造成损害。
@eternalobi
Hence why US is worried about China. Its not about current strength of China, but rather the future prospect
这就是美国担心中国的原因。不是关于中国目前的实力，而是未来的前景。
Hence why US is worried about China. Its not about current strength of China, but rather the future prospect
这就是美国担心中国的原因。不是关于中国目前的实力，而是未来的前景。
@KittyCat-qg4vd
@kirovfactory? In Pentagon war games from the past 10 years, US navy lost every single time. All American bases in the West Pacific from Japan to Australia as well as major ships are vulnerable to Chinese missile strikes. China is now adding carriers, large destroyers/cruisers and modern submarine into the mix. US stands no chance at all. Calling it just a defeat will be generous. It will be total annihilation.
在过去10年的五角大楼战争游戏中，美国海军每次都输了。从日本到澳大利亚的所有美国基地以及主要舰船都容易受到中国导弹袭击的威胁。中国现在又增加了航母、大型驱逐舰/巡洋舰和现代化潜艇。美国根本没有机会。说它只是失败都算是宽宏大量了，这将是彻底的歼灭。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@kirovfactory? In Pentagon war games from the past 10 years, US navy lost every single time. All American bases in the West Pacific from Japan to Australia as well as major ships are vulnerable to Chinese missile strikes. China is now adding carriers, large destroyers/cruisers and modern submarine into the mix. US stands no chance at all. Calling it just a defeat will be generous. It will be total annihilation.
在过去10年的五角大楼战争游戏中，美国海军每次都输了。从日本到澳大利亚的所有美国基地以及主要舰船都容易受到中国导弹袭击的威胁。中国现在又增加了航母、大型驱逐舰/巡洋舰和现代化潜艇。美国根本没有机会。说它只是失败都算是宽宏大量了，这将是彻底的歼灭。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@KittyCat-qg4vd
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? Right now, China has 8 Type 055 destroyers and China is building another 12 Type 055B destroyers. 055B will feature all electric drive system, laser weapons, railgun, 2500 km range ballistic anti-ship missiles. Rumor says China is putting these missiles and hypersonic missiles on the existing Type 055 destroyers as well. 055B will be 15,000 tons in displacements. 055B will also feature a newer version of the 055 dual band radar. Due to technology shortcoming, Zumwalt potential has never been realized. And China is showing how it is done.
目前，中国有8艘055型驱逐舰，并正在建造另外12艘055B型驱逐舰。055B将采用全电驱动系统、激光武器、轨道炮、2500公里射程的弹道反舰导弹。有传言说中国也在现有的055型驱逐舰上安装这些导弹和高超音速导弹。055B的排水量将达到15000吨。055B还将配备更新版本的055双波段雷达。由于技术上的缺陷，这艘驱逐舰从未实现其潜在的能力。与此同时，中国正在展示如何有效地实现这些。
@user-hb6pz8nx4c? Right now, China has 8 Type 055 destroyers and China is building another 12 Type 055B destroyers. 055B will feature all electric drive system, laser weapons, railgun, 2500 km range ballistic anti-ship missiles. Rumor says China is putting these missiles and hypersonic missiles on the existing Type 055 destroyers as well. 055B will be 15,000 tons in displacements. 055B will also feature a newer version of the 055 dual band radar. Due to technology shortcoming, Zumwalt potential has never been realized. And China is showing how it is done.
目前，中国有8艘055型驱逐舰，并正在建造另外12艘055B型驱逐舰。055B将采用全电驱动系统、激光武器、轨道炮、2500公里射程的弹道反舰导弹。有传言说中国也在现有的055型驱逐舰上安装这些导弹和高超音速导弹。055B的排水量将达到15000吨。055B还将配备更新版本的055双波段雷达。由于技术上的缺陷，这艘驱逐舰从未实现其潜在的能力。与此同时，中国正在展示如何有效地实现这些。
很赞 45
收藏