
正文翻译
要给出一个真正可靠的答案,需要关于中国驱逐舰真实能力的可靠信息。就目前情况而言,真正了解的人极少,而且他们不会透露。
评论翻译

There’s not a whole lot we know about the Chinese destroyers, and what we do know isn’t enough to make a definitive answer. The Type 55, which is the one I will be going over, is a little bigger than our Arleigh Burke destroyers (I will be using the Flight III variant, as it is our newest destroyer; only fair to use the newest against the newest) has a couple more missiles (112 VLS cells vs 96 VLS cells) and similar hangar facilities (Both can have 2 helicopters) On paper, the Type 55 is a little better.
我们对中国驱逐舰的了解并不多,而且我们所知的也不足以给出一个明确的答案。我将要讨论的055型(Type 55),比我们的阿利·伯克级驱逐舰(我将使用Flight III批次,因为这是我们最新的驱逐舰;用最新的对比最新的才公平)稍大一些,导弹也多几枚(112个垂发单元 vs 96个垂发单元),机库设施也相似(两者都能搭载2架直升机)。在纸面数据上,055型略胜一筹。

Dan T.
To give a really solid answer to this, one would need good information about the true capabilities of Chinese destroyers. As it stands, very few people really know and they aren't telling.
要给出一个真正可靠的答案,需要关于中国驱逐舰真实能力的可靠信息。就目前情况而言,真正了解的人极少,而且他们不会透露。
WolfSpirit99
Gotta be honest… we don’t know for sure.
说实话...我们确实无法确定。
Gotta be honest… we don’t know for sure.
说实话...我们确实无法确定。

There’s not a whole lot we know about the Chinese destroyers, and what we do know isn’t enough to make a definitive answer. The Type 55, which is the one I will be going over, is a little bigger than our Arleigh Burke destroyers (I will be using the Flight III variant, as it is our newest destroyer; only fair to use the newest against the newest) has a couple more missiles (112 VLS cells vs 96 VLS cells) and similar hangar facilities (Both can have 2 helicopters) On paper, the Type 55 is a little better.
我们对中国驱逐舰的了解并不多,而且我们所知的也不足以给出一个明确的答案。我将要讨论的055型(Type 55),比我们的阿利·伯克级驱逐舰(我将使用Flight III批次,因为这是我们最新的驱逐舰;用最新的对比最新的才公平)稍大一些,导弹也多几枚(112个垂发单元 vs 96个垂发单元),机库设施也相似(两者都能搭载2架直升机)。在纸面数据上,055型略胜一筹。
In practice, it’s anyone’s guess. Many people just look at the stats and call it a day. They neglect all other factors (which can be very hard to factor in, but they can be the deciding factor between a win and a loss) like weather, time of day, supporting ships, area, crew especially,etc. It’s near impossible to account for all of these things and come up with a clear answer. With no real way of finding out just how good the radar and other capabilities are for these systems (both nations keep this information under tight wraps, especially China)
在实践中,这就纯属猜测了。许多人只看数据就下结论。他们忽略了所有其他因素(这些因素可能很难量化,但它们可能是胜负的决定性因素),如天气、一天中的时间、支援舰艇、作战区域、尤其是舰员素质等等。几乎不可能考虑到所有这些因素并得出一个清晰的答案。而且,我们无法真正查明这些系统的雷达和其他能力究竟有多好(两国都对这些信息严格保密,尤其是中国)。
在实践中,这就纯属猜测了。许多人只看数据就下结论。他们忽略了所有其他因素(这些因素可能很难量化,但它们可能是胜负的决定性因素),如天气、一天中的时间、支援舰艇、作战区域、尤其是舰员素质等等。几乎不可能考虑到所有这些因素并得出一个清晰的答案。而且,我们无法真正查明这些系统的雷达和其他能力究竟有多好(两国都对这些信息严格保密,尤其是中国)。
So to recap, how do they fare? The Type 55 seems to be a little more capable than the Arleigh Burke Flight III. However, there’s no way to know for 100% sure as of right now.
那么总结一下,它们表现如何?055型似乎比阿利·伯克级Flight III稍强一些。然而,就目前而言,我们无法百分之百地确定。
那么总结一下,它们表现如何?055型似乎比阿利·伯克级Flight III稍强一些。然而,就目前而言,我们无法百分之百地确定。
EDIT: I decided to make it a little more clear that I was comparing the Type 55 to the Flight III.
注: 我决定更清楚地表明我是将055型与Flight III批次进行比较。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
注: 我决定更清楚地表明我是将055型与Flight III批次进行比较。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Martin
They are all built around a doctrine so direct comparisons are meaningless.
它们都是围绕各自的海军学说建造的,因此直接比较毫无意义。
They are all built around a doctrine so direct comparisons are meaningless.
它们都是围绕各自的海军学说建造的,因此直接比较毫无意义。
The US destroyers are generally a little bit bigger than the Chinese destroyers, packing more missiles because they have more silos. The Type-052 is the most common Chinese destroyer while the US has the well-known Alreigh Burke class destroyer. The Burkes have between 90 for the older Burkes and 96 from Flight IIA onwards. The Chinese have cruiser-class ships called Type 055 which are more similar in punching power to the Tico class. The Chinese generally hold more punching power compared to the US DDGs. They pack a lot more anti-ship missiles while that role is off-loaded to the submarines and aircrafts. The US DDGs pack a lot more air-defense weapons so in a direct 1vs1, given that we can believe the Chinese capabilities, it should be a draw. But that’s never how things work. Both are part of a doctrine so the question is which nation has a better doctrine.
美国驱逐舰通常比中国驱逐舰稍大一些,携带更多导弹,因为它们有更多的发射井(垂发单元)。052型是中国最常见的驱逐舰,而美国则拥有著名的阿利·伯克级驱逐舰。较老的伯克级有90个垂发单元,从Flight IIA批次开始有96个。中国有被称为055型的巡洋舰级别舰艇,其打击能力更接近提康德罗加级(Tico)。与美国驱逐舰(DDGs)相比,中国(055)通常拥有更强的打击能力。它们携带了多得多的反舰导弹,而(反舰)这个角色在美国海军中被卸载给了潜艇和飞机。美国驱逐舰则携带了多得多的防空武器,因此在一场直接的1对1对决中,假设我们相信中国(舰艇)的能力,那应该会是平局。但这从来不是事情运作的方式。两者都是各自海军学说的一部分,所以问题在于哪个国家拥有更好的海军学说。
美国驱逐舰通常比中国驱逐舰稍大一些,携带更多导弹,因为它们有更多的发射井(垂发单元)。052型是中国最常见的驱逐舰,而美国则拥有著名的阿利·伯克级驱逐舰。较老的伯克级有90个垂发单元,从Flight IIA批次开始有96个。中国有被称为055型的巡洋舰级别舰艇,其打击能力更接近提康德罗加级(Tico)。与美国驱逐舰(DDGs)相比,中国(055)通常拥有更强的打击能力。它们携带了多得多的反舰导弹,而(反舰)这个角色在美国海军中被卸载给了潜艇和飞机。美国驱逐舰则携带了多得多的防空武器,因此在一场直接的1对1对决中,假设我们相信中国(舰艇)的能力,那应该会是平局。但这从来不是事情运作的方式。两者都是各自海军学说的一部分,所以问题在于哪个国家拥有更好的海军学说。
William Yeo
1,055 Cruisers carry ASBMs that fly further than F-35.
so any 055 gets within 800 nmiles, your cruiser-voler is sunk.
055巡洋舰携带的反舰弹道导弹(ASBMs)射程比F-35更远。
所以任何一艘055只要进入800海里(1480公里)范围内,你们的“巡洋舰杀手”(指航母)就沉了。
1,055 Cruisers carry ASBMs that fly further than F-35.
so any 055 gets within 800 nmiles, your cruiser-voler is sunk.
055巡洋舰携带的反舰弹道导弹(ASBMs)射程比F-35更远。
所以任何一艘055只要进入800海里(1480公里)范围内,你们的“巡洋舰杀手”(指航母)就沉了。
2,yes, 055 are CRUISERS. or shall we say Large Destroyer or Destroyer Leader.
3, Burkes are simply OUTDATED.
4, the greatest danger is corruption: each 055 cruiser costs cheaper than an US frigate.
Wake up yankees.
2. 是的,055是巡洋舰(CRUISERS)。或者我们也可以称其为大型驱逐舰或驱逐领舰。
3. 伯克级根本就是过时了。
4. 最大的危险是腐败(指美国军工):每艘055巡洋舰的成本比一艘美国护卫舰还便宜。
清醒点吧,美国佬(yankees)。
3, Burkes are simply OUTDATED.
4, the greatest danger is corruption: each 055 cruiser costs cheaper than an US frigate.
Wake up yankees.
2. 是的,055是巡洋舰(CRUISERS)。或者我们也可以称其为大型驱逐舰或驱逐领舰。
3. 伯克级根本就是过时了。
4. 最大的危险是腐败(指美国军工):每艘055巡洋舰的成本比一艘美国护卫舰还便宜。
清醒点吧,美国佬(yankees)。

Dan T.
To give a really solid answer to this, one would need good information about the true capabilities of Chinese destroyers. As it stands, very few people really know and they aren't telling.
要给出一个真正可靠的答案,需要关于中国驱逐舰真实能力的可靠信息。就目前情况而言,真正了解的人极少,而且他们不会透露。
A somewhat informed guess can be made by comparing the specs of military export products of the US and China. From these products we can infer that while China has the physical ability to build these ships, the subsystems that actually make them effective may be significantly inferior to those found on US ships. China is making AESA radars that can only match the capabilities of 30 year old US mechanical radars. This likely means the processing and software on the back end that makes such radars effective is significantly behind US standards. So there's a strong possibility that while China can build destroyers with VLS cells and AESA radars, those ships are nowhere near as capable as their US counterparts.
可以通过比较美国和中国的军事出口产品规格来做出一个略有依据的猜测。从这些产品中我们可以推断,虽然中国拥有建造这些舰艇的物质能力,但真正使其发挥效能的子系统可能远逊于美国舰艇上的同类系统。中国正在制造的有源相控阵雷达(AESA),其能力仅相当于30年前美国的机械扫描雷达。这可能意味着支撑这些雷达效能的后端处理和软件水平远远落后于美国标准。因此,很有可能的情况是,尽管中国能建造配备垂发单元和有源相控阵雷达的驱逐舰,但这些舰艇的能力远不如其美国对手。
可以通过比较美国和中国的军事出口产品规格来做出一个略有依据的猜测。从这些产品中我们可以推断,虽然中国拥有建造这些舰艇的物质能力,但真正使其发挥效能的子系统可能远逊于美国舰艇上的同类系统。中国正在制造的有源相控阵雷达(AESA),其能力仅相当于30年前美国的机械扫描雷达。这可能意味着支撑这些雷达效能的后端处理和软件水平远远落后于美国标准。因此,很有可能的情况是,尽管中国能建造配备垂发单元和有源相控阵雷达的驱逐舰,但这些舰艇的能力远不如其美国对手。
Larry Fontenot
US destroyers are much better. The USA puts a great deal of money and effort into making them that way.
US destroyers are usually specialized to do the specific tasks that they are intended to do. That makes them the best ships at doing their jobs. Other countries like China and Russia build their ships to be jacks-of-all-trades. That means they can do a wider variety of jobs but are not as good at doing any given one of them as the US’s ships are.
美国驱逐舰要好得多。美国投入了大量资金和努力才使它们达到这样的水平。
美国驱逐舰通常被专门设计来执行其预定的特定任务。这使得它们在完成本职工作时成为最优秀的舰艇。而像中国和俄罗斯这样的国家,建造的舰艇追求“万能”。这意味着它们能执行更多种类的任务,但在执行任何特定任务时,都不如美国的舰艇那么出色。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
US destroyers are much better. The USA puts a great deal of money and effort into making them that way.
US destroyers are usually specialized to do the specific tasks that they are intended to do. That makes them the best ships at doing their jobs. Other countries like China and Russia build their ships to be jacks-of-all-trades. That means they can do a wider variety of jobs but are not as good at doing any given one of them as the US’s ships are.
美国驱逐舰要好得多。美国投入了大量资金和努力才使它们达到这样的水平。
美国驱逐舰通常被专门设计来执行其预定的特定任务。这使得它们在完成本职工作时成为最优秀的舰艇。而像中国和俄罗斯这样的国家,建造的舰艇追求“万能”。这意味着它们能执行更多种类的任务,但在执行任何特定任务时,都不如美国的舰艇那么出色。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Steve Kosier
USN ships have up to most advanced technology and electronics. The Chinese try to copy/steal everything.
The Chinese are on par with the USN from approx 20–30 years ago BUT constantly improving
美国海军(USN)舰艇拥有最先进的技术和电子设备。中国人试图复制/窃取一切。
中国(海军)大约相当于20-30年前的美国海军水平,但他们在不断进步。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
USN ships have up to most advanced technology and electronics. The Chinese try to copy/steal everything.
The Chinese are on par with the USN from approx 20–30 years ago BUT constantly improving
美国海军(USN)舰艇拥有最先进的技术和电子设备。中国人试图复制/窃取一切。
中国(海军)大约相当于20-30年前的美国海军水平,但他们在不断进步。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
David A Hanscom
Longer ranged, and (on American and allied paper), better overall. Chinese and friends paper, doomed to annihilation.
The only true test is fighting each other. Not a good idea on anybody’s (at least anybody who thinks nuclear war is a bad idea) paper.
(美国驱逐舰)射程更远,并且(在美国及其盟友的纸上推演中)整体上更优。(在)中国及其朋友(的兵棋推演中),(美国驱逐舰)注定被歼灭。
唯一真实的检验方式是互相打一仗。这在任何人的(至少是任何认为核战争是坏主意的人的)兵棋推演中都不是个好主意。
Longer ranged, and (on American and allied paper), better overall. Chinese and friends paper, doomed to annihilation.
The only true test is fighting each other. Not a good idea on anybody’s (at least anybody who thinks nuclear war is a bad idea) paper.
(美国驱逐舰)射程更远,并且(在美国及其盟友的纸上推演中)整体上更优。(在)中国及其朋友(的兵棋推演中),(美国驱逐舰)注定被歼灭。
唯一真实的检验方式是互相打一仗。这在任何人的(至少是任何认为核战争是坏主意的人的)兵棋推演中都不是个好主意。
Danial
The US Navy's destroyers and the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) destroyers have distinct capabilities, reflecting their respective naval doctrines and technological advancements. Here's a comparison of their characteristics:
美国海军驱逐舰与中国人民解放军海军(PLAN)驱逐舰具有不同的能力,这反映了它们各自的海军学说和技术进步。以下是它们特性的比较:
The US Navy's destroyers and the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) destroyers have distinct capabilities, reflecting their respective naval doctrines and technological advancements. Here's a comparison of their characteristics:
美国海军驱逐舰与中国人民解放军海军(PLAN)驱逐舰具有不同的能力,这反映了它们各自的海军学说和技术进步。以下是它们特性的比较:
US Navy Destroyers (Arleigh Burke-class)
Displacement: Approximately 9,000 tons
Length: 510 feet (155 meters)
Beam: 59 feet (18 meters)
Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM2500 gas turbines
Speed: Over 30 knots (56 km/h)
Crew: Around 300 sailors
Armament:
1 x 5-inch (127mm) gun
2 x Phalanx CIWS
2 x Mk 41 VLS (96 cells)
2 x Mk 32 triple torpedo tubes
美国海军驱逐舰(阿利·伯克级)
排水量:约9,000吨
长度:510英尺(155米)
宽度:59英尺(18米)
推进系统:4台通用电气LM2500燃气轮机
航速:超过30节(56公里/小时)
舰员:约300名水兵
武装:
1门5英寸(127mm)舰炮
2套密集阵近防武器系统(CIWS)
2套Mk 41垂直发射系统(VLS)(96个单元)
2座Mk 32三联装鱼雷发射管
Displacement: Approximately 9,000 tons
Length: 510 feet (155 meters)
Beam: 59 feet (18 meters)
Propulsion: 4 General Electric LM2500 gas turbines
Speed: Over 30 knots (56 km/h)
Crew: Around 300 sailors
Armament:
1 x 5-inch (127mm) gun
2 x Phalanx CIWS
2 x Mk 41 VLS (96 cells)
2 x Mk 32 triple torpedo tubes
美国海军驱逐舰(阿利·伯克级)
排水量:约9,000吨
长度:510英尺(155米)
宽度:59英尺(18米)
推进系统:4台通用电气LM2500燃气轮机
航速:超过30节(56公里/小时)
舰员:约300名水兵
武装:
1门5英寸(127mm)舰炮
2套密集阵近防武器系统(CIWS)
2套Mk 41垂直发射系统(VLS)(96个单元)
2座Mk 32三联装鱼雷发射管
Air Defense: Aegis Combat System with SM-2 and SM-6 missiles
Anti-Submarine Warfare: SH-60R Seahawk helicopters and Mk 46 torpedoes
防空:宙斯盾作战系统,配备SM-2和SM-6导弹
反潜战:SH-60R海鹰直升机和Mk 46鱼雷
Anti-Submarine Warfare: SH-60R Seahawk helicopters and Mk 46 torpedoes
防空:宙斯盾作战系统,配备SM-2和SM-6导弹
反潜战:SH-60R海鹰直升机和Mk 46鱼雷
Chinese Destroyers (Type 055 and Type 052D)
Displacement: Type 055: approximately 12,000-13,000 tons; Type 052D: around 7,500 tons
Length: Type 055: 590 feet (180 meters); Type 052D: 510 feet (155 meters)
Beam: Type 055: 69 feet (21 meters); Type 052D: 59 feet (18 meters)
Propulsion: Type 055: 4 QC-280 gas turbines; Type 052D: 2 QC-280 gas turbines
Speed: Over 30 knots (56 km/h)
Crew: Around 300-400 sailors
Armament:
1 x 130mm (Type 055) or 100mm (Type 052D) gun
2 x Type 1130 CIWS
2 x Universal Vertical Launchers (64-112 cells)
2 x Type 87 anti-submarine rocket launchers
中国驱逐舰(055型和052D型)
排水量:055型:约12,000-13,000吨;052D型:约7,500吨
长度:055型:590英尺(180米);052D型:510英尺(155米)
宽度:055型:69英尺(21米);052D型:59英尺(18米)
推进系统:055型:4台QC-280燃气轮机;052D型:2台QC-280燃气轮机
航速:超过30节(56公里/小时)
舰员:约300-400名水兵
武装:
1门130mm(055型)或100mm(052D型)舰炮
2套1130型近防炮系统(CIWS)
2套通用垂直发射系统(64-112个单元)
2座87式反潜火箭深弹发射器
Displacement: Type 055: approximately 12,000-13,000 tons; Type 052D: around 7,500 tons
Length: Type 055: 590 feet (180 meters); Type 052D: 510 feet (155 meters)
Beam: Type 055: 69 feet (21 meters); Type 052D: 59 feet (18 meters)
Propulsion: Type 055: 4 QC-280 gas turbines; Type 052D: 2 QC-280 gas turbines
Speed: Over 30 knots (56 km/h)
Crew: Around 300-400 sailors
Armament:
1 x 130mm (Type 055) or 100mm (Type 052D) gun
2 x Type 1130 CIWS
2 x Universal Vertical Launchers (64-112 cells)
2 x Type 87 anti-submarine rocket launchers
中国驱逐舰(055型和052D型)
排水量:055型:约12,000-13,000吨;052D型:约7,500吨
长度:055型:590英尺(180米);052D型:510英尺(155米)
宽度:055型:69英尺(21米);052D型:59英尺(18米)
推进系统:055型:4台QC-280燃气轮机;052D型:2台QC-280燃气轮机
航速:超过30节(56公里/小时)
舰员:约300-400名水兵
武装:
1门130mm(055型)或100mm(052D型)舰炮
2套1130型近防炮系统(CIWS)
2套通用垂直发射系统(64-112个单元)
2座87式反潜火箭深弹发射器
Air Defense: Type 055: uses a variant of the Russian S-300 system; Type 052D: uses the HHQ-9B system
Anti-Submarine Warfare: Z-9C or Z-20 helicopters and Yu-7 torpedoes
防空:055型:使用俄罗斯S-300系统的变种;052D型:使用海红旗-9B(HHQ-9B)系统
反潜战:直-9C(Z-9C)或直-20(Z-20)直升机和鱼-7(Yu-7)鱼雷
Anti-Submarine Warfare: Z-9C or Z-20 helicopters and Yu-7 torpedoes
防空:055型:使用俄罗斯S-300系统的变种;052D型:使用海红旗-9B(HHQ-9B)系统
反潜战:直-9C(Z-9C)或直-20(Z-20)直升机和鱼-7(Yu-7)鱼雷
Key Differences
Size and Displacement: Chinese destroyers, especially the Type 055, are larger and more heavily armed than their US counterparts.
Air Defense Systems: The US Navy's Aegis Combat System is considered more advanced and capable than the Chinese air defense systems.
Anti-Submarine Warfare: The US Navy has a more established and proven anti-submarine warfare capability, with more advanced helicopters and torpedoes.
C4ISR and Networking: The US Navy has a more developed and integrated C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) architecture, enabling better networking and coordination between ships and other assets.
主要差异
尺寸和排水量:中国驱逐舰,尤其是055型,比其美国对手更大、武装更重。
防空系统:美国海军的宙斯盾作战系统被认为比中国的防空系统更先进、能力更强。
反潜战:美国海军拥有更成熟、更经实战检验的反潜战能力,配备更先进的直升机和鱼雷。
C4ISR与网络化:美国海军拥有更发达、更集成的C4ISR(指挥、控制、通信、计算机、情报、监视与侦察)架构,能够在舰艇及其他资产之间实现更好的网络连接和协调。
Size and Displacement: Chinese destroyers, especially the Type 055, are larger and more heavily armed than their US counterparts.
Air Defense Systems: The US Navy's Aegis Combat System is considered more advanced and capable than the Chinese air defense systems.
Anti-Submarine Warfare: The US Navy has a more established and proven anti-submarine warfare capability, with more advanced helicopters and torpedoes.
C4ISR and Networking: The US Navy has a more developed and integrated C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) architecture, enabling better networking and coordination between ships and other assets.
主要差异
尺寸和排水量:中国驱逐舰,尤其是055型,比其美国对手更大、武装更重。
防空系统:美国海军的宙斯盾作战系统被认为比中国的防空系统更先进、能力更强。
反潜战:美国海军拥有更成熟、更经实战检验的反潜战能力,配备更先进的直升机和鱼雷。
C4ISR与网络化:美国海军拥有更发达、更集成的C4ISR(指挥、控制、通信、计算机、情报、监视与侦察)架构,能够在舰艇及其他资产之间实现更好的网络连接和协调。
Conclusion
While Chinese destroyers have made significant strides in terms of size, firepower, and technology, the US Navy's destroyers remain highly advanced and capable warships. The US Navy's advantages in air defense, anti-submarine warfare, and C4ISR give them an edge in a hypothetical conflict. However, the Chinese Navy's rapid modernization and expansion efforts are narrowing the gap, and their destroyers should not be underestimated.
结论
尽管中国驱逐舰在尺寸、火力和技术方面取得了显著进步,但美国海军的驱逐舰仍然是高度先进且能力强大的战舰。美国海军在防空、反潜战和C4ISR方面的优势,使其在假想冲突中占据上风。然而,中国海军的快速现代化和扩军努力正在缩小这一差距,其驱逐舰实力不容低估。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
While Chinese destroyers have made significant strides in terms of size, firepower, and technology, the US Navy's destroyers remain highly advanced and capable warships. The US Navy's advantages in air defense, anti-submarine warfare, and C4ISR give them an edge in a hypothetical conflict. However, the Chinese Navy's rapid modernization and expansion efforts are narrowing the gap, and their destroyers should not be underestimated.
结论
尽管中国驱逐舰在尺寸、火力和技术方面取得了显著进步,但美国海军的驱逐舰仍然是高度先进且能力强大的战舰。美国海军在防空、反潜战和C4ISR方面的优势,使其在假想冲突中占据上风。然而,中国海军的快速现代化和扩军努力正在缩小这一差距,其驱逐舰实力不容低估。
原创翻译:龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
很赞 19
收藏