美国军队应该担心中国的水下核武库吗？ [美国媒体]

每人一小段，翻译我也行！
每日新素材，等你来认领！ http://www.ltaaa.com/translation/ 

-------------译者：xiechengyang-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

By the end of this year, China’s nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs, or “boomers”) may take their first deterrent patrols.  How does this change the balance of power in the Pacific?

今年年末，中国的弹道导弹核潜艇可能进行首次威慑巡逻。这将会给太平洋地区的力量平衡带来什么改变？



原文地址：

-------------译者：tomandjerry-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Reality Check • 3 days ago
Robert Farley does not specialize in military strategy, as he spends most of his time in commerce.... Something peaceful.

Robert Farley并不精于军事战略，因为他把大多数时间花在商业上……一种和平的东西。

He made no mentioning of the PLA 3000-mile long underground tunnels, It is impossible to prevent such kind of retaliation, even with unlimited ammunition, as seen in those computer simulation. Hard to believe? Who can elaborate on this? There are a few who could.

他没有提到解放军3000英里长的地下通道。谁都不可能抵挡这种情况下的核报复，即使弹药无限，像计算机模拟中的那样。难以置信？谁能清楚解释？有几个可以。

The SSBNs have their advantages, but there are chances that they get spotted and tailed. Once that happens, they are the most vulnerable, as the hunters are just nearby. The intrinsic disadvantages, are the physical and psychological burdens to the crew-members, just imagine, 3 months without seeing the blue sky. That is worse than what astronauts would normally experience. How many times do you want do it in your lifetime?

战略核潜艇有自身的优势，但是它们也有被发现和跟踪的可能性。一旦发生这种情况，它们就是最脆弱的，因为猎杀者就在旁边。而最本质的缺陷，是船员的生理和心理负担，想象一下三个月见不到蓝天，这比宇航员通常的经历的还糟。你一辈子希望来个多少次呢？

The above applies to the navies of all major powers.

上述对所有大国的海军都适用。

The ground silos are vulnerable to precision strikes, even though they are fortified. So mobile launchers are optimal, the operators can still enjoy life to certain extend. Some argue that bombers can take them out preemptively, but not as easily. Both Russia and China position their roaming TEL trucks further inland. It would be impossible to take all of them out at once, or within a few minutes. Not even with ICBMs, because of the early warning systems.

地面发射井面对精确打击时非常脆弱，尽管它们都进行了防御加强。所以移动式发射器是最好的，操作员仍然可以享受某种程度的生活。有人认为轰炸机可以先发制人地消灭它们，但这并不容易。俄罗斯和中国都将他们的移动导弹发射车部署在非常内陆的地方。根本不可能全部立即消灭，或几分钟内消灭。用洲际导弹也不行，因为有前期预警系统。

The most important thing that amateurs tend to ignore, is nobody can deal with both Russia and China at the same time, or in tandem.

军迷们容易忽略的最重要的事情，就是谁也没法同时地或相继地对付俄罗斯和中国，

Initiating preemptive strikes among the top 3 is equivalent to suicide, less so for France and UK. If you want to do it to those less capable ones, Iran, etc., preemptive strikes can be carried out at ease, except for the political reasons.

三强国之间发动先发制人的攻击等同于自杀，对于法国和英国来说情况弱一些。如果你想对那些逊色些的国家下手，例如伊朗等国，先发制人打击就容易实施，如果不考虑政治原因的话。

Why not promote peace instead?

为何不转而提倡和平呢？

-------------译者：tomandjerry-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

AlexJW • 3 days ago
The CCP can't build decent jet engines, yet it's going to have high-quality subs? Get the popcorn ready.

 中共还没法制造优秀的喷气式引擎，就要有高档潜艇了？准备爆米花。

TDog  AlexJW • 2 days ago
Jet engines and submarines have different requirements to get their jobs done.

 造喷气式引擎和潜艇的要求并不相同。

hansolo_2012  TDog • a day ago
I agreed, (Sub and Jet Eng are different) however, do you think that the Chinese sort of culturally boasting too much of their capability? While the US is known to hide its true potential.

我同意潜艇和喷气引擎不同，但是，你不觉得中国人文化上是那种吹嘘太过的类型吗？而美国以隐藏实力着称。

TDog  hansolo_2012 • a day ago
It's weird that you claim the US hides its true potential because that is really not the case. As of late, the US tends to exaggerate claims, especially when the capabilities of hardware is concerned. Look at the F-35 - it's supposed to be this awesome plane, yet the vast majority of its tests had to be redefined, redone, or removed. It's late, over budget, and has had its capabilities changed so often that it went from being THE fighter jet of the next century to THE strike fighter of the first half of this century to THE force multiplier of the 2030's. Ad copy has taken the place of results where the Pentagon is concerned.

你说美国隐藏真正实力，这话很奇怪，因为这根本不是实情。近来美国总是夸大实力宣称，尤其是牵涉到硬件实力的时候。瞧瞧F-35——它本来是一种绝佳飞机，然而大量的主要实验不得不重订，重做，或者取消。它超期，超预算，特性变化太经常，甚至它从“下世纪的战斗机”变成了“本世纪上半页的攻击战斗机”，又变成了“2030年代的战力增幅器”。五角大楼关心的实验结果都变成了广告宣传语。

But let me not leave China out of this hatchet piece. Does China boast too much over its capabilities? Curiously enough, the answer is yes and no. A lot of the hype surrounding Chinese capabilities comes courtesy of American think tanks. Certainly many - and by that I mean almost all of them - Chinese netizens tend to crow about weapons in development that will kill this or kill that... as if a single non-nuclear missile really would take out all of Guam. Chinese weapons are great, they're the best, and blah, blah, blah... All the while they ignore the fact that Chinese engines tend to be the big Achilles heel of every domestic weapons platform they have. From tanks to ships to jets, China has the hardest time making reliable powerful engines.

我也不会再这篇喷文里面忘了中国。中国太夸大它的实力了吗？有趣的是，答案同时是“是”和“否”。围绕中国实力的大量宣传都来自美国智囊。当然也有很多——我的意思是其中大多数——中国网民喜欢嚷嚷他们开发中的武器能秒这个秒那个……仿佛一枚常规导弹就能炸掉整个关岛，中国武器好，最好，云云……但是他们忽视了这样一个事实：中国的发动机是他们所有国产武器平台的巨大阿基里斯之踵。从坦克到舰船到飞机，中国很难制造可靠的高性能引擎。

And in that respect, both nations suffer from their fair share of loudmouthed gear heads. ;-D

在这方面说，两个国家都受害于他们之中大量喜欢嚷嚷的榆木脑袋。;-D

-------------译者：龙腾翻译总管-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------
 
Justanotherviewer  TDog • a day ago
IMO, most of the bragging in China does not comes from official channels but rather from independent bloggers as you have stated, and they are quite free to beat their chests in that matter. If China was that overly confident I highly doubt that the recent US FON activity in the SCS would have ended with just 2 Chinese destroyers shadowing it. Of course it is not in interest of China to escalate tensions, but making a more determined stand towards the US is indicative of more muscle to back it up.
But the rest I agree with you, most of the people sounding the alarm bells are actually US based think tanks, most likely to justify continue wastage of funds on failed projects like the F-35 and LCS.
As for the engines, its only the turbofans that have problems . AFAIK, China's naval and vehicle engines do not have much of a problem.

在我看来，大部分的中国吹嘘并非来自官方渠道，而是来自独立的博主，这方面他们倒是可以自由的拍胸脯吹嘘。如果中国真的那么自信，那我认为美军最近在南海进行自由航行时中国不会只派遣两艘军舰尾随。当然，让局势变得更紧张并不符合中国利益，但是对美国采取了更加坚决的立场表明了中国拥有更多的力量来支持自己。
我赞同你剩余的观点，敲响警钟的人中大部分都是美国智库，他们这么做极有可能是为了继续浪费钱财在失败的项目上，比如F-35和LCS。
就引擎而言，只有涡轮风扇存在问题。据我所知，中国的海军和车辆发动机并不存在多大问题。

TDog  Justanotherviewer • 20 hours ago
If I recall correctly, their naval engines are somewhat out of date. They're serviceable, but not the most modern ones out there and they lack reliable nuclear power plants for their naval vessels, which makes long endurance trips somewhat more complicated than they have to be.

如果我没记错的话，他们的海军引擎某种程度上也是过时的。是还可以用，但不是最现代的，他们的海军舰艇缺乏可靠的核动力装置，所以让长途旅行变得更加复杂了。

-------------译者：光脚上街-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------
 
Justanotherviewer  TDog • 18 hours ago
Depends on what type of naval engine you are referring to. For their diesel electric submarines, they have been working on it since the 1970, plus they have technology transfers from Germany and the Kilo subs from Russia.
So it is a pretty safe guess that in that are they are far ahead. For their surface ships the configuration is less well known,but there is really nothing much to improve on the non-nuclear engines of the surface combatants. Even the Arleigh-Burke Class uses a engine that stems from 1960, modern does not mean superior in this area, China also have the a example of the said engine as well.
For nuclear engines I have not much to say as that area is pretty much a black box. For the most part, the Type 93 and Type 94 are much more capable compared to their predecessors which is the Type 91 and Type 92, we can expect this trend to continue in the Type 95 and Type 96 submarines due to financial support and accumulated experiences. The more you built, the better you get at it.
As for the aircraft carriers and amphibious landing ships, a gas electric turbine configuration would be expected for the first example being built, though China would not have much of a problem refitting a nuclear reactor from their subs on a surface ships, they would not have to deal with the constraints of space and lack of contingency plans.

这取决于你说的是哪种发动机，如果是常规柴电发动机，自1970年以来，中国一直在进行研究和开发，再加上从德国的技术和俄罗斯的基洛级技术。
因此，比较肯定的说，在这方面，中国是领先的。 对于水面舰艇，对其配置知之甚少，但真的没有什么大的提升空间在常规动力水面舰艇上了。
连阿利 伯克级都是使用的1960年的发动机技术，在这个领域，现代并不意味之领先。
中国同样有这样老的发动机，对于核动力发动及，我没有是太多的可以会所，因为这方面的信息就像黑盒子，大体上，93和94型核潜艇要不91和92型厉害。
并且，因为军费充裕和经验累积，这样的趋势会继续延续在95型和96型上,建的越多，就越熟练,对于航空母舰和两栖登陆舰，常规燃气涡轮配置会出现在在建的第一艘样品上，虽然，对中国来说，将核潜艇上的核反应堆改装到水面舰艇上没什么多大困难，他们不需要处理空间限制或者缺少应急计划。

-------------译者：龙腾翻译总管-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------
 
drkkrw  hansolo_2012 • a day ago
U r projetcting. All the "chinese boasts" are from western "Analysts"....paid by Lobby groups to ensure High and rising Military spending eveyhwere.

你这是在猜测。所有的“中国吹嘘”都来自西方“分析家”。。受雇于游说团体，以确保增加军事开销。
 
hansolo_2012  drkkrw • a day ago
No, how did you come to that?
I was just talking with pure intellectual norms.

不，你怎么得出这一点的？
我刚才是以纯粹学术标准来讨论的。
 
drkkrw  hansolo_2012 • a day ago
given that all these boasting reports/articles come from non Chinese media and sources, am not sure how you came to ask your question in the first place. lack of transparency and secrecy is precisely a problem with the Chinese military. we know a lot about western capabilities and nothing of Chinese (what we know actually suggest they are no match), but all these scaremongering reports keep flooding in. for what purpose? pretty obvious.

考虑到这些吹嘘报道/文章来自非中文媒体和来源，所以我不知道你为什么要问那个问题。缺乏透明性和隐蔽性是中国军队存在的一个问题。我们了解了很多西方的军事能力，但是对中国军事一点都不了解（而就我们所知道的而言，根本无法和西方军力对抗），但是所有这些扰乱民心的报道一直在大量出现。为了什么？显而易见。

-------------译者：hongweimax-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

hansolo_2012  drkkrw • 11 hours ago
I guess that you don't think so. And not even a little bit.
But you see, there are call for stop "boasting" in China
and in the US, calls are usually something like "rights to information".
Anyway, go back, I was just asking you know.

我想你不是真的这么想， 一点儿也不。 但是你瞧， 中国有呼声要停止“吹牛”， 并且在美国， 人们通常呼吁要有“知情权”。 无论如何， 回过头来， 你知道我只是说说而已

life form  drkkrw • a day ago
he's joking, he's agreeing with you, at least in part.

 他是在开玩笑， 他同意你的看法， 至少是部分同意

Patrick  AlexJW • 2 days ago
Do you believe they cant build jet engine after they have built space station and moon robot? Since their economy is as big as US, they can build and make anything that US can make. Their tanks, missiles and submarine is among one of the best money can buy, everybody in global arm market knows it

你认为他们在制造了太空站和月球机器人之后还不能造出来飞机引擎？因为他们的经济规模跟美国一样大， 他们能制造和生产美国制造的一切。 他们的坦克， 导弹和潜水艇是钱能买到的最好的武器之一， 国际军火市场上的人都知道

-------------译者：hongweimax-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

SJMWilco  Patrick • 2 days ago
all of the technology you mention was either stolen from the US or purchased second hand from russia. their aircraft are second rate, their space technology 40 years old and no, the international arms markets are not impressed.

 所有你提及的技术都是从美国偷窃而来或者是从俄国买来的二手货。 他们的飞机是次货， 太空技术是四十年前的。 在国际军火市场上没有什么影响

Patrick  SJMWilco • 2 days ago
Where do you think US get their rocket program from? you are right, stolen from German scientists. Last time I checked, US is incapable of sending man into space for decades, so you can stop bragging about "i was once strong and prime player in my high school football team". As for international arm market's impression for the Chinese weapons, Chinese is the third largest exporter, which means people from all over the world buy Chinese tanks, ships and missiles, one reason people choose them is these weapon beat US by half or one third of the price for same or similar performance, so i guess i will only trust the stats :)

你认为美国从哪儿搞来的火箭技术？ 没错儿， 从德国科学家那儿偷来的。 我所看到的是， 美国十几年来一直没有能力把宇航员送入太空。 所以你可以停止吹嘘“我曾经是高中球队里强壮的首发队员”了。 至于中国武器对国际军火市场的影响，中国是世界第三大军火出口国， 这意味着来自全世界的人都在买中国的坦克，军舰和导弹。 人们选择中国武器的一个原因是这些武器的价格只有同样或近似性能的美国武器的价格的一半或三分之一， 所以我认为我只会信任这些数据。