如何击沉美国航母 中国向法国要点子 [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：围观已一年-审核者：文所未闻------------



Early in 2015, a curious and disturbing report surfaced briefly and then disappeared—almost without a trace. The report, apparently published and then quickly retracted, had been posted by the French Ministry of Defense and concerned the successful operations of the French nuclear submarine Safir in an exercise pitting it against the U.S. Navy’s Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier battle group. The somewhat shocking content of the report—that the French submarine had succeeded in sinking “half the battle group” during the exercise—may explain its rapid purging from the internet.  After all, close brothers in arms may demonstrate their tactical and operational prowess in a naval drill, but they should not gloat about that, and especially not in public, right?

在2015年早期，一份奇怪又搅乱人心的报告短暂出现又几乎毫无踪迹地消失了。这份由法国国防部公开出版然后迅速撤回的报告中提及到了法国核潜艇Safir与美国海军西奥多罗斯福航母战斗群的对抗演习中取胜的过程。这份报告某种程度令人震惊的内容是法国潜艇在演习中成功击沉了半数的战斗群，这或许解释了为什么这份报告快速的从互联网上消失了。毕竟，作为亲密盟友可以展示自己在海军演习中所具有的战术和操作实力，但是不应对此得意忘形，特别是不应该拿到公开场合上来说，不是吗？

 -------------译者：围观已一年-审核者：文所未闻------------

The revelation that a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier group could be so vulnerable to a nuclear submarine did not make the mainstream media, and no mention was made by the many attentive defense analysts on this site, so it seems. However, the Chinese defense media does not miss much, especially concerning the capabilities of U.S. Navy carrier groups. In fact, a special issue of 兵工科技[Ordnance Industry Science and Technology] (2015, no. 8) covered this “event,” featuring an interview with Chinese Submarine Academy professor 迟国仓 [Chi Guocang] as its cover story under the title: “A Single Nuclear Submarine ‘Sinks’ Half of an Aircraft Carrier Battle Group.”

看起来，美国海军航母群容易受克于核潜艇这回事没有被披露在主流媒体上，也没有在本站引起相关防卫分析家的关注。然而，中国的相关媒体没有错过，特别是当涉及到美国航母战斗群的作战能力时。其实，这款名为兵工科技（军用工业科学和技术）的杂志在2015年第八期报道了这个“事件”，并采访了中国潜艇学院教授 迟国仓，该期的封面标题是《一艘核潜艇‘击沉’一半的航母战斗群》。

-------------译者：老墨-审核者：文所未闻------------

Prof. Chi makes clear that he understands that “演习无法与实战相比 [an exercise can hardly be compared to real combat] and that, moreover, he evaluates U.S. Navy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) to be a “highly efficient” and “harmonized” system comprised of multiple layers of defense for an aircraft carrier. Yet, he concludes in the interview that the French report “有比较大的可信度” [has a reasonably high degree of credibility] and this edition of Dragon Eye will examine his logic in this respect, attempting to gain insights into emergent Chinese views on the utility of nuclear submarines in modern naval warfare.

迟教授指出了演习与实战的差异性，并高度评价美国海军的反潜作战（ASW）中，航空母舰的”高效“和”协调“的多层防御系统。但在采访最后他总结到，法国的报道仍有较大可信度，本期《龙眼》（Dragon Eye）将试图窥探中国核潜艇在现代海战中的使用策略，而他的有关逻辑将会被进一步证实。


-------------译者：围观已一年-审核者：文所未闻------------

RT Myths Debunked • 10 hours ago
? I don't think anyone has ever seriously made the case that modern aircraft carriers are unsinkable, or that they could be.
The point is that successfully sinking one would only serve to escalate a conflict on a massive scale and/or guarantee that the US is fully committed to the conflict.

我认为没有人说过现代航母是无法击沉的。
重点是成功击沉一艘航母能够引起状况恶化成大规模冲突，是激起美国下决心全力进行武力干预的前提。
 
Marcus Aurelius  RT Myths Debunked • 2 hours ago
Wrong, I will sink without you "permission" , next minute USS aircraft carrier - 5,000 sailor and soldiers dead or injured.
Anytime U.S. provocation could make WW3, mate ! !

 错，我将在没你的“批准”下击沉你，下一分钟美国航母-5000水手和水兵死的死伤的伤。
不管美国什么时候挑衅都可能引发第三次世界大战，小伙伴！
 
WHOHE  Marcus Aurelius • 2 hours ago
Lol. SeaWolf Class and Virginia Class will do to russian subs what russian subs do best.... blow up, sink and kill its crew. These two advance US Subs will never let any rusting russian sub near a CBG.

 呵呵，海狼级和弗吉尼亚级潜艇将对俄罗斯潜艇使出俄罗斯潜艇的绝招...爆炸，击沉和杀掉全部船员。这两种级别的核潜艇不会让任何锈迹斑斑的俄罗斯潜艇靠近航母战斗群。
 
Spectator of Geopolitics  RT Myths Debunked • 6 hours ago
Wrong idea.
In Vietnam, 56000 US troops were killed in action, that is more than 11 carriers sunk, combined! What did US do? What did the American people urged the government to do?

那是错觉。
在越南，56000美国士兵死于那次战斗，相当于11多个航母的总和。加起来！美国又做了什么？美国公民有敦促美国政府采取什么行动吗？

 -------------译者：文所未闻-审核者：文所未闻------------

Sinbad2  Spectator of Geopolitics • 6 hours ago
Soldiers are cheap, carriers are expensive.
That's not my view, but it is the view of those in power. The only reason most politicians don't like casualties is the voter backlash.

士兵是廉价的，航母是昂贵的。
这不是我的观点，而是当权者的观点。大部分政客之所以不喜欢人员伤亡，唯一的原因是因为他们害怕选民们不给他们投票。

MMCRailgun  Spectator of Geopolitics • 3 hours ago
That happened during a full blown war. How do you want to escalate Vietnam further then what it was at its height? Nukes? Bad idea. Also, many Americans at that time, particularly the protesters, were smoked up idiots with no understanding of war or politics in general. In Vietnam politics, particularly from these idiots but also coward politicians, is why we lost. The NVA suffered much greater casualties and, say what you want, were the cause of most civilian casualties since they fought like terrorists by hiding behind women and children. We also knew the whole time where their supply lines were but refused to hit them because the politicians are idiots.

在一场全面战争中是会发生这种事情的。难道你想让越战升级到使用核武器的程度？那不是个好主意。此外，当时的很多美国人，尤其是抗议者基本是不懂战争和政治的白痴。越南战争，正是由于这些白痴特别是因为这些懦弱的政治家才导致我们失败。北越军队的损失更加惨重，他们才是导致了更多无辜民众的伤亡，因为他们像恐怖分子一样躲藏在妇女和小孩背后战斗。我们自始至终都知道他们的补给线在哪里，就因为我们的政治家是白痴，才没有攻击这些补给线。

 -------------译者：budgecyrus-审核者：文所未闻------------

Spectator of Geopolitics  MMCRailgun • an hour ago
The US was about to use nukes against the north Vietnamese, but each could kill 100 soldier hiding in the jungles, it would cost 3000 nukes / year, too expensive, so it was given up.

美国可是本想用核弹打北越的，但是每颗核弹只能杀100个藏在雨林里的士兵，这样每年需要3000颗核弹，这太贵了，所以这计划被放弃了。 
 
concepab  Spectator of Geopolitics • 2 hours ago
You forgot to count the Vietnamese died in that non-sense war, they'are humans too.

你还没算上那些在这场无意义战争中死去的越南人，他们也是人。 
 
Spectator of Geopolitics  concepab • an hour ago
The context was "5000 US seamen killed in action are too many".

原文是“5000名美国海军在行动中死亡这一数量太多了。” 
 
Dan H  Spectator of Geopolitics • 6 hours ago
Nixon then went to china to pry the chinese from the Soviets and Viets.

尼克松之后就去中国挖苏联和越南的墙角了。 
 
Sinbad2  Dan H • 6 hours ago
Nixon went to China because the US needed a new market for American business interests. Johnson almost bankrupted the US in Vietnam.

尼克松去中国是因为美国需要为其商业利益寻求新的市场，肯尼迪几乎把美国在越南搞得破产了。

-------------译者：魔哥598543214-审核者：文所未闻------------

Dan H  Sinbad2 • 5 hours ago
The US had plenty of money for Vietnam. The space race cost more.

  美国在越战上花了大把的钱，太空竞备上花了更多。

Tribunal-Orders-Rape • 10 hours ago
Hmm, subs are important, but air power especially a huge reserve of air power (the US built >300,000 military aircraft by 1945) s far more critical for ensuring victory. At Midway, four attacking carriers were vanquished in one go by primitive (by today's standards) aircraft flown by very determined pilots.

 嗯，潜艇很重要，但空中力量，特别是强大的空中储备力量（至1945年美国造了30多万架飞机）是确保胜利的更为关键的因素。在中途岛海战中，下定决心的飞行员开着原始的（以今天标准来看）的飞机击沉了四艘攻击型航母。 

Geo  Tribunal-Orders-Rape • 5 hours ago
Navy is important in projecting power! Air-force is constrained by range and their usage does not project power but rather tend to instigate wars. Thus, if subs are able to neutralize carrier strike groups; then the US ability to project power is greatly diminished.

​海军在兵力投送上有重要作用，空军受航程限制，而且一般不用来投放力量，而是用来发动战争。因此，如果潜艇能够遏制航母战斗群，那么美军的投送能力会被大大削弱。

-------------译者：魔哥598543214-审核者：文所未闻------------
 
WHOHE  Andre • 9 hours ago
Easy.... 1.
In a state of high tensions with china or russia a CBG is not going to allow a sub to get near it unlike in peace time patrols. You're going to have LA Class, Virginia Class or SeaWolf Class subs hunting these enemies subs. And the P-8s are really a game changer.

当与中国或者俄罗斯的关系高度紧张的情况下，一个航母战斗群不会像平时巡逻一样让一艘潜艇靠近它，你会有洛杉矶级、弗吉尼亚级、海狼级核潜艇攻击这些敌军潜艇，P8反潜机也是一张王牌。 

Intul i5  WHOHE • 5 hours ago
Indian Kilo toy submarine was able to sink an American SSN. Oh yea I agree the game has changed alright lol.
$10 billion Nuclear boomers getting slap by cheap battery powered toy subs. It is ironic really.

 印度的基洛级潜艇可以击沉一艘美国攻击型核潜艇，呵呵，这样的话，游戏规则真是改了。 
100亿美元的核动力​大杀器被廉价的电池供电的玩具潜艇搞掉，真是太讽刺了。

WHOHE  Intul i5 • 2 hours ago
They sunk a US sub? Really? How many died? And in what world in your imagination did it take place?

有人击沉了一艘美国潜艇？真的假的？死了多少人？这发生在你幻想的几次元世界了？

-------------译者：文所未闻-审核者：文所未闻------------

Spectator of Geopolitics  WHOHE • 6 hours ago
Again you sound like an idiot.
The greater the range of an ASM (r), the harder it is to find the sub. The area for the ASW cover is:
area = π r2
Given YJ-18' range of 500km, Harpoon, 100km(approx.), it is not 5 times but 25 times harder to find the sub launching YJ-18 at the maximum range.
'RT Myths Debunked' is a submarine weapons kind of guy. He's got a much better answer than you.

你说的话就像个白痴似的。
空对地导弹射程越长，就越难发现潜艇。反潜战的覆盖范围是：
范围 = π r2
考虑到YJ-18射程是500公里，鱼叉是100公里，那么要想发现在最远射程处发射JY-18的潜艇的话，难度就不是5倍而是25倍了。

WHOHE  Spectator of Geopolitics • 2 hours ago
Lol. Idiot. YJ-18s range (which is BS but I'll bite) is only good if it has an air asset. Surface radar, including ship, can't see over the horizon. It can't track over the horizon. IT's called line of sight.
F-18Es flying CAP with E-2s wont allow any aircraft to get near a CBG. E-2 alone has a 400km detection range and it will be flying ahead of the CBG.

楼上的才是白痴吖。YJ-18的射程只有在具备空中有利条件时才有好处。地点雷达，包括舰船，无法看到地平线以外的地方。追踪范围无法超越地平线。这叫做瞄准线。
E-2鹰眼和F18E不会让任何飞机接近航母战斗群。单单E-2就具有400公里的探测范围，而且将飞在航母战斗群前面。
 
 
Spectator of Geopolitics  WHOHE • an hour ago
YJ-18 can be fired by attack subs, and the location of the ship can be found by other means.

JY-18可以由攻击型潜艇发射，而航母的所在地可以通过其他方式来发现。