超级军网美媒：亮兵器吧！亚洲海军竞赛谁称雄？
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/28 00:47:41
亮兵器吧！亚洲海军竞赛谁称雄？
Who Is Winning Asia’sGame of Battleship? Comparison of fleets
作者:病中乃知 发布日期:2012-09-24 浏览:11539
译文简介:
中国主导了本届战舰大赛，迄今为止，中国下的战舰最多，并表示还要下更多战舰。
译文来源:
原创翻译：龙腾网 h ttp://w ww.ltaaa.com 翻译：病中乃知 转载请注明出处
本贴论坛地址： ht tp://w ww.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-88677-1-1.html
原文链接：h ttp://ww w.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?217872-Who-Is-Winning-Asia%92s-Game-of-Battleship-Comparison-of-fleets
正文翻译:
T.Cruiser
China is currently leading Asia’s gameof battleship; they have the largest navy in the region and an ever-expandingfleet.
中国主导了本届战舰大赛，迄今为止，中国下的战舰最多，并表示还要下更多战舰。
评论翻译:
评论：
1、Beholder
Its like comparing Air force by number ofplanes,have amusing value.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。
2、TheKiwi
Size of a navy really isn't a good ameasure of a navy's competency at tasks. And in that the USN has the Chinesebeat hands down. As the British said, "it takes 3 years to build a ship,but 300 years to build a reputation".
海军的规模并不等同于其实际战力，美国海军可以碾压中国，英国人不是经常教导我们“十年造舰，百年扬威”嘛。
3、Andrew Chalmers
IMO - sort of a pointless numericalcomparison.
For example, looking at the charts - theTaiwanese Navy has 4 submarines, when in reality 2 are guppy class boats bettersuited as museums. The Korean Navy has some of the best modern surface ships.
我觉得比较数量没有多大的借鉴意义。
举个例子，拿这份图表来说，台湾海军有4艘潜艇，其中2艘海狮级潜艇是二战时期的古董。韩国海军则有几艘最先进的水面舰只。
4、DaveDash
The US has something like 61 active AEGISequipped Destroyers, the Arleigh Burke, which carry an enormous amount ofmissiles and firepower (roughly twice the number of missiles the best currentChinese Destroyers can carry). What's more important is the best ChineseDestroyers only carry 8 SSMs vs 98 customizable launch tubes on the ArleighBurke. The Chinese are working on a Type-053D which is significantly better,but still far behind the Arleigh Burke, and is planning to build 3 of them.
This comparison is moot. A better comparisonmight be how many missiles each navy can shoot at each other, and I think you'dfind the numbers there are significantly different.
阿利伯克级驱逐舰装载“宙斯盾”战斗系统，载弹量大（约是中国最先进驱逐舰载弹量的两倍），而这样的现役驱逐舰美国共有61艘。中国最先进的驱逐舰（只能携带8枚舰对舰导弹）PK有着98个导弹发射管的阿利伯克级，这是什么概念。中国目前正在研制053D型驱逐舰（计划建造3艘），虽说比以前有了长足的进步，但与阿利伯克相比，还有不小的差距。
这种对比的意义不大，还不如比较各个海军彼此对射的导弹是多少，这个差距是显而易见的。
5、junglejim
I'm not afraid of the Navy that has a needfor hundreds of ships to do its job, I'm afraid of the Navy that thinks it onlyneeds one. Philippines**** Yeah!
一支有着几百艘军舰的海军不可怕，可怕的是只有一艘军舰的海军。壮哉我大菲律宾无敌舰队！
6、A better comparison might be how many missiles each navy can shootat each other, and I think you'd find the numbers there are significantlydifferent.
还不如比较各个海军彼此对射的导弹是多少，这个差距是显而易见的。（引用）
How do you estimate how many of thosemissiles sink along with their ships? I think it would come down to the sidewhich can more effectively target the other and that would go to the UnitedStates IMHO.
你如何计算那些连同船只一起沉没的导弹有多少？我觉得关键还是要看谁能更迅速地定位对方，（这样的话）还是美国比较厉害。
7、DaveDash
You are absolutely right, but I am justtrying to illustrate that a simple number of ships comparison tells f*ck all ofthe story.
（回复6号评论）你说的对，我的意思是仅仅比较船只的数量有点思路广。
8、Laworkerbee
If they really wanted to publish a sky isfalling article they should have published the numbers of fighters China hasversus everyone else. It then would have ignited an F-22 debate
（回复7号评论）如果他们打算发表一篇天快塌了的文章，他们就应该公布一下中国用来对付他们的飞机数量是多少，然后就会开始关于F22的辩论。
9、DaveDash
China has1 billion people. We are doomed.
As a caveat, I would never, ever, everunder-estimate the Chinese in battle. And I'm sure the USN wouldn't either. Aswe know both from FC, all it takes is one submarine to really ruin your day.
（回复8号评论）中国有十亿人，我们死定了。
我永远也不会低估中国的战力，这可不是危言耸听。我想美国海军也不会，我们都知道，一艘潜艇就可以让我们万劫不复。
10、Az_esm
Amm, they forgot to count all Russianpacific fleet's subs. The rest fleet's numbers are correct?
呃，他们把俄罗斯太平洋舰队的潜艇忘算进去了。其他国家军舰数目没问题吗？
11、TheKiwi
Sort of. The Thai carrier pretty much neverputs to sea. The minsubs are about as much use as a tissue paper window in ahurricane except for landing secret agents. Taiwan's submarines (as pointed outby another member earlier) are half made up of museum pieces from WW2.
（回复10号评论）你真相了。泰国的航母几乎就没出过海。微型潜艇在暴风中就跟纸糊的一样，除了搭载间谍还有点用。台湾的一半潜艇是2战时期的古董
12、twinblade
Its like comparing Air force by number ofplanes,have amusing value.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。（引用）
Agreed. The article should have focused onmodern vessels only and also taken into consideration the acquisitions of newertypes by the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Indians.
我同意。这篇文章应该把重心放在现代化军舰上，同时也要把中国、日本、韩国和印度的最新型装备一并纳入考量范围。
13、MRAPer
Any comparison is meaningless withouttaking account of the land-based and air-launched missiles. For China,any war in the Western Pacific will be a missile war. The first thing the enemyencounters probably will be a saturation attack by China's land-based long-rangemissiles. How would any Navy fare under sustained saturation attacks? Nobodyknows. But I suspect it would not be pretty.
（回复12号评论）在不考虑岸基和空射导弹的情况下，任何比较都毫无意义。西太平洋发生的所有战争，中国都会用导弹来解决。首先，敌人很可能遭到中国陆基远程导弹的饱和打击。哪支海军可以在持续不断的饱和打击下幸存？谁也说不上来。不过我怀疑动武可能性不大。
14、Bloo
Oh boy one of these numeric charts again.Ironically it really doesn't give you a good picture of sea power at all. Oh North Koreahas 22 SSK's you say? That must mean their fleet is better than South Korea's!O wait.... Plus fails to include coastal support, naval aviation, fast attackcraft, and so on.
又见数据图表。说句难听的，这根本就不是一份合格的海上力量示意图。北韩有22艘常规潜艇？这就是说它们的舰队比南韩还大！另外，海岸巡逻、海军海空、导弹快艇这些都没有计算在内…
15、313230
This comparison is moot. A better comparisonmight be how many missiles each navy can shoot at each other, and I think you'dfind the numbers there are significantly different.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。（引用）
It seems that US doesn't have any dedicatedsuper sonic anti ship missile while Chinese follows the Russian way with many.I don't know how effective CWIS is, but super sonic has better chance toovercome it.
看样子美国还没有专门的超音速反舰导弹，而中国已经继俄罗斯之后囤了不少了。我不知道CWIS（估计是笔误，应该是某种防御系统）的效果如何，不过超音速应该更管用一些。
16、DaveDash
The US has a sea skimming and top downattack super sonic target called the GQM-163. It can and has been shot down bySAM's in NATO's inventory.
（回复15号评论）美国有一种掠海飞行、垂直攻击的超音速靶弹叫做GQM-163（草原狼），而北约的低空导弹曾经击落过这种导弹。
17、MRAPer
Any missile, when launched in large numbersin a short period of time, is difficult to defend.
（回复15号评论）不管什么导弹在短时间内大量发射，都很难防御。
18、rssmps
Also, China wouldn't even have to arm allthe missiles right? If they arm just certain amount, we would not know andwould have to expend resource to intercept all of it.
（回复17号评论）当然，中国不会装备所有的导弹对吧？如果他们仅装备了部分导弹，我们不知道到底是多少，却不得不消耗资源来防御全部导弹。
19、T.Cruiser
The first thing the enemy encountersprobably will be a saturation attack by China's land-based long-rangemissiles. How would any Navy fare under sustained saturation attacks? Nobodyknows. But I suspect it would not be pretty.
首先，敌人很可能遭到中国陆基远程导弹的饱和打击。哪支海军可以在持续不断的饱和打击下幸存？谁也说不上来。不过我怀疑动武可能性不大。（引用）
Given the state of China's missile technology, they'dbe just as likely to hit their own ships as the enemy's. And anyway, don't youthink it has been taken into account? You may find those launch sites quicklybecome smoking holes in the ground before they even get to launch.
就中国的导弹技术而言，他们很可能想炸敌人的船，结果误伤了自己。难道你没有把这一点考虑进去？你会发现他们在发射导弹之前，发射场变得满目疮痍，浓烟滚滚。
20、DaveDash
From my understanding, AEGIS does threatassessment. If missiles are flying around aimlessly they're likely not going tobe engaged. You also have to know where to aim. A picket line from a carrierbattle group extends out to like 200nm, and you're trying to hit a bunch oftiny dots in the ocean moving at ~30knots. Good luck with that when firing abunch of missiles aimlessly.
I'm not saying these ships areinvulnerable. They are not. But they're not as helpless as some people in thisthread think, and it's not a pure numbers games.
据我所知，宙斯盾就是用来评估风险的。如果导弹漫无目的地飞来飞去，就不会将其击落。当然，起码要知道它飞往何处。一支航母编队的警戒线可向前推进约200海里，而（导弹）要打击的目标是大洋上以30节速度移动的一群小点。但愿这些无头苍蝇一般的导弹好运。
21、Silent Reader
The US has a sea skimming and top downattack super sonic target called the GQM-163. It can and has been shot down bySAM's in NATO's inventory.
美国有一种掠海飞行、垂直攻击的超音速靶弹叫做GQM-163（草原狼），而北约的低空导弹曾经击落过这种导弹。（引用）
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must havehad several tests. Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163acquired seems to be rather low... so my guess would be that they only testedfor one incoming missile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missilesthough.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。
22、TG211
If there are Navy people hear, can youexplain me the + and - of each class ? I mean, China concentrated in frigates. Isthere an advantage for it above cruisers ?
这里有海军的同志吗，谁能给我解释一下每个级别的优劣势？我的意思是中国专注护卫舰三十年，他们的巡洋舰有何优势？
23、sepheronx
No expert or anything, but I think it hasto do with displacement. The bigger the ship, the more it can carry. In a lotof cases, Cruisers can be nuclear propulsion and carry a **** ton of equipment.Making them massive missile ships. Frigates, being smaller, are limited to whatthey can carry and possibly be limited to endurance as well.
（回复22号评论）我不是专家，不过我认为更新换代是迟早的事。船越大，载重就大。在多数情况下，巡洋舰可以由核能驱动，装载巨量物资，相当于N艘导弹艇。护卫舰由于体型较小，被载重和续航时间所掣肘。
24、TheKiwi
These days it's all pretty arbitary. Thereare modern "destroyers" that are much larger than WW2 heavy cruisers.For a while some of the USN's nuke ships were classed as Frigates. The USN'sAegis cruisers were about the same size (not surprisingly as they used the samebasic hull) as the Spruance class ASW destroyers.
The classic role of a "cruiser"was discarded during/just after WW2 as airborne radar became prevelant. Inshort, check the capabilities, don't rely on the classification.
实在是不敢苟同。现代驱逐舰比二战的重型巡洋舰要大得多。目前，美国海军的一些核动力舰船被归为护卫舰。宙斯盾巡洋舰同斯普鲁恩斯级驱逐舰一般大小（不足为奇，因为二者使用的船体是相同的）。
随着机载雷达的兴起，“巡洋舰”的传统定位在二战时就被抛弃了。简而言之，不要注重类别，看的是能力。
25、SineJustitia
Interesting to see that a littoral conflictgives rise to a blue water navy comparison. Especially since ships that aredesigned for either blue or brown waters, are often deployable in both. So I'dlike to see this chart expanded with LHA's, LHD's, LPD's, OPV's, etc.
Then all we need to do is expand it withFCSS's, MCMV's, MPA's, AWACS, satellites, C4ISR, strategic airpower, multiplyit with economic endurance and divide it by political willpower, and we mighthave a hint of a good impression of the balance of power.
自从船只在设计的时候，往往兼顾了近海和远洋的需求，由于话题便从近海冲突转到了远洋海军。我倒想看看，有这张图表还会不会延伸到攻击型直升机航母（LHA）、多功能两栖船（LHD）、两栖登陆舰（LPD）、近海巡逻舰（OPV）等。
接下来我们还必须要增加FCSS（没查到）、MCMV（没查到）、MPA（密苏里州猪肉协会？海上巡逻机？）、AWACS（空中预警与控制系统）、卫星、指挥信息系统（C4ISR）、战略空军，再加上经济韧性以及政治上的考量，这样才能对势均力敌有一个大致的了解。
26、DaveDash
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must have had several tests.Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163 acquired seems to berather low... so my guess would be that they only tested for one incomingmissile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missiles though.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。（引用）
AEGIS is designed to protect against massattacks. It's an extremely versatile system, with the SM successfullyintercepting a wide variety of targets. There doesn't seem to be a huge urgencyfrom NATO countries to develop their own super sonic anti ship missiles.
Beyond that, everything is classified. Ibelieve Hezbollah fired Chinese super sonic missiles at an Israeli warship tono effect. Lets not forget the ability to find and track a warship, let aloneshoot at one, is something in itself.
宙斯盾旨在防御密集攻击，然而它是一个灵活性很高的系统，可以用战略导弹成功拦截各种目标。由此可见，北约似乎并不急于研究自己的超音速反舰导弹。
不光如此，其他东东也都是浮云。比如，真主党向以色列军舰发射白兔牌超音速导弹同样没有效果。他们能捕捉并定位一艘战舰就很了不起了，更别说击沉什么的。
27、fiorellabel
Yes, and putting all USN ships in and only Russia pacificfleet is quite uncorrect. Also they stopped at frigates, probaly putting alsocorvettes and FPB would change the size. Obviously the enormity is not innumbers but in their inerent quality, 60 AEGIS equipped destroyers are simplymore than all grossly equivalent ships in the World.
美国海军全部计算在内，俄罗斯只计算了太平洋舰队，这不科学。还有他们已经停止护卫舰，轻型巡洋舰和高速巡逻艇的尺寸也会改变。很明显，真正可怕的不是数量，而是实际战力，60艘宙斯盾驱逐舰与世界上其他等价的军舰相比，数量仅仅略微超过而已。
28、Szarko32c
First it's not asian navies, but east asiannavies comparision, so why summary gives us wrong idea that all five US Navyfleets station in East Asia, while Russiahave no submarines in Asia. It turned to betendentious ranking of size and quantity, where Vietnam has no navy.
首先，这不是亚洲海军而是东亚海军的对比，那么为什么美国的全部海军会出现在东亚，而俄罗斯在亚洲没有一艘潜艇。一味地按照（军舰）大小和数量排定位次，越南海军被你给吃了？
29、Ambassador （韩国）
Well to be fair only five East Asiancountries have actually been accounted for in the list. Most countries listedare from South and Southeast Asia.
But Korea has only one Aegis cruiseroperational? We have freaking three! And I'm also surprised at the number ofmini-submarines we have. We barely have two or three for special operations.
（回复28号评论）这份名单里只有5个东亚国家，其余大部分都是南亚或者东南亚国家。
韩国只有一艘宙斯盾巡洋舰吗？真奇怪，我们为什么会有三艘？另外使我感到蛋疼的是，哪里冒出来那么多微型潜艇，我们只有两三艘执行特种作战的微型潜艇而已。
30、Laworkerbee
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must have had several tests.Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163 acquired seems to berather low... so my guess would be that they only tested for one incomingmissile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missiles though.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。（引用）
Pretty sure they thought that one throughwhen they were faced with large numbers of Backfires and everything else in theSoviet arsenal in the Cold War.
这个基本可以确定。冷战时期，他们要面对的是苏联的逆火战略轰炸机群和其他军火库里的“要你命3000”。
31、Beholder
Ask him how China will get target acquisitionfor "saturation attacks".First they need to dominate or at least denyair. Pure fantasy even with numbers China have.IMO
（回复30号评论）中国是如何捕获目标进行饱和攻击的。首先他们需要有制空权，最少也要防得住。从中国所拥有的数量上来看，只是YY而已。
32、tluassa
The real question is how long China is going to finance the overblown USdefence budget
真正问题是中国还会继续为我们庞大的国防预算资助多长时间。
33、dbamil
I hear S Korearecently cut budget for air tanker and other projects but increased budget forcruise missiles and ballistic missiles. I think that's a smart move. Withships, 1 or 2 hit is enough to take it out of fight (along with dozens ofmissiles). But when you have hundreds of missiles scattered around, you canabsorb plenty of hits and still hit back.
And the increased budget for missiles alsogives their space launch related businesses (which they are trying to get into)need infusion of cash and experience.
我听说韩国最近削减了空中加油机和其他项目的预算，增加了巡航导弹和弹道导弹的预算。这是明智的选择。军舰挨上几发就失去了战斗能力（还有几打导弹），不过要是拥有数百枚分散在各地的导弹，就可以平摊伤害并予以反击。
另外，增加导弹预算对那些需要资金注入和经验的太空发射相关企业（试图进入这一领域）也是有好处的。
34、EdisonTrent
I hope the third KSLV launch goes well.Then we can wait for years for KSLV-2 then more failure! （Aerospace is hard）
希望罗老号第三次发射顺利。我们等了数年，结果第二次发射失败了。（回家好难啊）
35、T.C.P da Devil （孟加拉国）
We are going to retire 3 frigates and add4-6 very soon. And hopefully get our first sub by 2019.
我们有3艘护卫舰就要退役了，然后再增加4至6艘，希望2019年前我们可以得到第一艘潜水艇。亮兵器吧！亚洲海军竞赛谁称雄？
Who Is Winning Asia’sGame of Battleship? Comparison of fleets
作者:病中乃知 发布日期:2012-09-24 浏览:11539
译文简介:
中国主导了本届战舰大赛，迄今为止，中国下的战舰最多，并表示还要下更多战舰。
译文来源:
原创翻译：龙腾网 h ttp://w ww.ltaaa.com 翻译：病中乃知 转载请注明出处
本贴论坛地址： ht tp://w ww.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-88677-1-1.html
原文链接：h ttp://ww w.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?217872-Who-Is-Winning-Asia%92s-Game-of-Battleship-Comparison-of-fleets
正文翻译:
T.Cruiser
China is currently leading Asia’s gameof battleship; they have the largest navy in the region and an ever-expandingfleet.
中国主导了本届战舰大赛，迄今为止，中国下的战舰最多，并表示还要下更多战舰。
评论翻译:
评论：
1、Beholder
Its like comparing Air force by number ofplanes,have amusing value.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。
2、TheKiwi
Size of a navy really isn't a good ameasure of a navy's competency at tasks. And in that the USN has the Chinesebeat hands down. As the British said, "it takes 3 years to build a ship,but 300 years to build a reputation".
海军的规模并不等同于其实际战力，美国海军可以碾压中国，英国人不是经常教导我们“十年造舰，百年扬威”嘛。
3、Andrew Chalmers
IMO - sort of a pointless numericalcomparison.
For example, looking at the charts - theTaiwanese Navy has 4 submarines, when in reality 2 are guppy class boats bettersuited as museums. The Korean Navy has some of the best modern surface ships.
我觉得比较数量没有多大的借鉴意义。
举个例子，拿这份图表来说，台湾海军有4艘潜艇，其中2艘海狮级潜艇是二战时期的古董。韩国海军则有几艘最先进的水面舰只。
4、DaveDash
The US has something like 61 active AEGISequipped Destroyers, the Arleigh Burke, which carry an enormous amount ofmissiles and firepower (roughly twice the number of missiles the best currentChinese Destroyers can carry). What's more important is the best ChineseDestroyers only carry 8 SSMs vs 98 customizable launch tubes on the ArleighBurke. The Chinese are working on a Type-053D which is significantly better,but still far behind the Arleigh Burke, and is planning to build 3 of them.
This comparison is moot. A better comparisonmight be how many missiles each navy can shoot at each other, and I think you'dfind the numbers there are significantly different.
阿利伯克级驱逐舰装载“宙斯盾”战斗系统，载弹量大（约是中国最先进驱逐舰载弹量的两倍），而这样的现役驱逐舰美国共有61艘。中国最先进的驱逐舰（只能携带8枚舰对舰导弹）PK有着98个导弹发射管的阿利伯克级，这是什么概念。中国目前正在研制053D型驱逐舰（计划建造3艘），虽说比以前有了长足的进步，但与阿利伯克相比，还有不小的差距。
这种对比的意义不大，还不如比较各个海军彼此对射的导弹是多少，这个差距是显而易见的。
5、junglejim
I'm not afraid of the Navy that has a needfor hundreds of ships to do its job, I'm afraid of the Navy that thinks it onlyneeds one. Philippines**** Yeah!
一支有着几百艘军舰的海军不可怕，可怕的是只有一艘军舰的海军。壮哉我大菲律宾无敌舰队！
6、A better comparison might be how many missiles each navy can shootat each other, and I think you'd find the numbers there are significantlydifferent.
还不如比较各个海军彼此对射的导弹是多少，这个差距是显而易见的。（引用）
How do you estimate how many of thosemissiles sink along with their ships? I think it would come down to the sidewhich can more effectively target the other and that would go to the UnitedStates IMHO.
你如何计算那些连同船只一起沉没的导弹有多少？我觉得关键还是要看谁能更迅速地定位对方，（这样的话）还是美国比较厉害。
7、DaveDash
You are absolutely right, but I am justtrying to illustrate that a simple number of ships comparison tells f*ck all ofthe story.
（回复6号评论）你说的对，我的意思是仅仅比较船只的数量有点思路广。
8、Laworkerbee
If they really wanted to publish a sky isfalling article they should have published the numbers of fighters China hasversus everyone else. It then would have ignited an F-22 debate
（回复7号评论）如果他们打算发表一篇天快塌了的文章，他们就应该公布一下中国用来对付他们的飞机数量是多少，然后就会开始关于F22的辩论。
9、DaveDash
China has1 billion people. We are doomed.
As a caveat, I would never, ever, everunder-estimate the Chinese in battle. And I'm sure the USN wouldn't either. Aswe know both from FC, all it takes is one submarine to really ruin your day.
（回复8号评论）中国有十亿人，我们死定了。
我永远也不会低估中国的战力，这可不是危言耸听。我想美国海军也不会，我们都知道，一艘潜艇就可以让我们万劫不复。
10、Az_esm
Amm, they forgot to count all Russianpacific fleet's subs. The rest fleet's numbers are correct?
呃，他们把俄罗斯太平洋舰队的潜艇忘算进去了。其他国家军舰数目没问题吗？
11、TheKiwi
Sort of. The Thai carrier pretty much neverputs to sea. The minsubs are about as much use as a tissue paper window in ahurricane except for landing secret agents. Taiwan's submarines (as pointed outby another member earlier) are half made up of museum pieces from WW2.
（回复10号评论）你真相了。泰国的航母几乎就没出过海。微型潜艇在暴风中就跟纸糊的一样，除了搭载间谍还有点用。台湾的一半潜艇是2战时期的古董
12、twinblade
Its like comparing Air force by number ofplanes,have amusing value.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。（引用）
Agreed. The article should have focused onmodern vessels only and also taken into consideration the acquisitions of newertypes by the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Indians.
我同意。这篇文章应该把重心放在现代化军舰上，同时也要把中国、日本、韩国和印度的最新型装备一并纳入考量范围。
13、MRAPer
Any comparison is meaningless withouttaking account of the land-based and air-launched missiles. For China,any war in the Western Pacific will be a missile war. The first thing the enemyencounters probably will be a saturation attack by China's land-based long-rangemissiles. How would any Navy fare under sustained saturation attacks? Nobodyknows. But I suspect it would not be pretty.
（回复12号评论）在不考虑岸基和空射导弹的情况下，任何比较都毫无意义。西太平洋发生的所有战争，中国都会用导弹来解决。首先，敌人很可能遭到中国陆基远程导弹的饱和打击。哪支海军可以在持续不断的饱和打击下幸存？谁也说不上来。不过我怀疑动武可能性不大。
14、Bloo
Oh boy one of these numeric charts again.Ironically it really doesn't give you a good picture of sea power at all. Oh North Koreahas 22 SSK's you say? That must mean their fleet is better than South Korea's!O wait.... Plus fails to include coastal support, naval aviation, fast attackcraft, and so on.
又见数据图表。说句难听的，这根本就不是一份合格的海上力量示意图。北韩有22艘常规潜艇？这就是说它们的舰队比南韩还大！另外，海岸巡逻、海军海空、导弹快艇这些都没有计算在内…
15、313230
This comparison is moot. A better comparisonmight be how many missiles each navy can shoot at each other, and I think you'dfind the numbers there are significantly different.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。（引用）
It seems that US doesn't have any dedicatedsuper sonic anti ship missile while Chinese follows the Russian way with many.I don't know how effective CWIS is, but super sonic has better chance toovercome it.
看样子美国还没有专门的超音速反舰导弹，而中国已经继俄罗斯之后囤了不少了。我不知道CWIS（估计是笔误，应该是某种防御系统）的效果如何，不过超音速应该更管用一些。
16、DaveDash
The US has a sea skimming and top downattack super sonic target called the GQM-163. It can and has been shot down bySAM's in NATO's inventory.
（回复15号评论）美国有一种掠海飞行、垂直攻击的超音速靶弹叫做GQM-163（草原狼），而北约的低空导弹曾经击落过这种导弹。
17、MRAPer
Any missile, when launched in large numbersin a short period of time, is difficult to defend.
（回复15号评论）不管什么导弹在短时间内大量发射，都很难防御。
18、rssmps
Also, China wouldn't even have to arm allthe missiles right? If they arm just certain amount, we would not know andwould have to expend resource to intercept all of it.
（回复17号评论）当然，中国不会装备所有的导弹对吧？如果他们仅装备了部分导弹，我们不知道到底是多少，却不得不消耗资源来防御全部导弹。
19、T.Cruiser
The first thing the enemy encountersprobably will be a saturation attack by China's land-based long-rangemissiles. How would any Navy fare under sustained saturation attacks? Nobodyknows. But I suspect it would not be pretty.
首先，敌人很可能遭到中国陆基远程导弹的饱和打击。哪支海军可以在持续不断的饱和打击下幸存？谁也说不上来。不过我怀疑动武可能性不大。（引用）
Given the state of China's missile technology, they'dbe just as likely to hit their own ships as the enemy's. And anyway, don't youthink it has been taken into account? You may find those launch sites quicklybecome smoking holes in the ground before they even get to launch.
就中国的导弹技术而言，他们很可能想炸敌人的船，结果误伤了自己。难道你没有把这一点考虑进去？你会发现他们在发射导弹之前，发射场变得满目疮痍，浓烟滚滚。
20、DaveDash
From my understanding, AEGIS does threatassessment. If missiles are flying around aimlessly they're likely not going tobe engaged. You also have to know where to aim. A picket line from a carrierbattle group extends out to like 200nm, and you're trying to hit a bunch oftiny dots in the ocean moving at ~30knots. Good luck with that when firing abunch of missiles aimlessly.
I'm not saying these ships areinvulnerable. They are not. But they're not as helpless as some people in thisthread think, and it's not a pure numbers games.
据我所知，宙斯盾就是用来评估风险的。如果导弹漫无目的地飞来飞去，就不会将其击落。当然，起码要知道它飞往何处。一支航母编队的警戒线可向前推进约200海里，而（导弹）要打击的目标是大洋上以30节速度移动的一群小点。但愿这些无头苍蝇一般的导弹好运。
21、Silent Reader
The US has a sea skimming and top downattack super sonic target called the GQM-163. It can and has been shot down bySAM's in NATO's inventory.
美国有一种掠海飞行、垂直攻击的超音速靶弹叫做GQM-163（草原狼），而北约的低空导弹曾经击落过这种导弹。（引用）
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must havehad several tests. Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163acquired seems to be rather low... so my guess would be that they only testedfor one incoming missile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missilesthough.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。
22、TG211
If there are Navy people hear, can youexplain me the + and - of each class ? I mean, China concentrated in frigates. Isthere an advantage for it above cruisers ?
这里有海军的同志吗，谁能给我解释一下每个级别的优劣势？我的意思是中国专注护卫舰三十年，他们的巡洋舰有何优势？
23、sepheronx
No expert or anything, but I think it hasto do with displacement. The bigger the ship, the more it can carry. In a lotof cases, Cruisers can be nuclear propulsion and carry a **** ton of equipment.Making them massive missile ships. Frigates, being smaller, are limited to whatthey can carry and possibly be limited to endurance as well.
（回复22号评论）我不是专家，不过我认为更新换代是迟早的事。船越大，载重就大。在多数情况下，巡洋舰可以由核能驱动，装载巨量物资，相当于N艘导弹艇。护卫舰由于体型较小，被载重和续航时间所掣肘。
24、TheKiwi
These days it's all pretty arbitary. Thereare modern "destroyers" that are much larger than WW2 heavy cruisers.For a while some of the USN's nuke ships were classed as Frigates. The USN'sAegis cruisers were about the same size (not surprisingly as they used the samebasic hull) as the Spruance class ASW destroyers.
The classic role of a "cruiser"was discarded during/just after WW2 as airborne radar became prevelant. Inshort, check the capabilities, don't rely on the classification.
实在是不敢苟同。现代驱逐舰比二战的重型巡洋舰要大得多。目前，美国海军的一些核动力舰船被归为护卫舰。宙斯盾巡洋舰同斯普鲁恩斯级驱逐舰一般大小（不足为奇，因为二者使用的船体是相同的）。
随着机载雷达的兴起，“巡洋舰”的传统定位在二战时就被抛弃了。简而言之，不要注重类别，看的是能力。
25、SineJustitia
Interesting to see that a littoral conflictgives rise to a blue water navy comparison. Especially since ships that aredesigned for either blue or brown waters, are often deployable in both. So I'dlike to see this chart expanded with LHA's, LHD's, LPD's, OPV's, etc.
Then all we need to do is expand it withFCSS's, MCMV's, MPA's, AWACS, satellites, C4ISR, strategic airpower, multiplyit with economic endurance and divide it by political willpower, and we mighthave a hint of a good impression of the balance of power.
自从船只在设计的时候，往往兼顾了近海和远洋的需求，由于话题便从近海冲突转到了远洋海军。我倒想看看，有这张图表还会不会延伸到攻击型直升机航母（LHA）、多功能两栖船（LHD）、两栖登陆舰（LPD）、近海巡逻舰（OPV）等。
接下来我们还必须要增加FCSS（没查到）、MCMV（没查到）、MPA（密苏里州猪肉协会？海上巡逻机？）、AWACS（空中预警与控制系统）、卫星、指挥信息系统（C4ISR）、战略空军，再加上经济韧性以及政治上的考量，这样才能对势均力敌有一个大致的了解。
26、DaveDash
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must have had several tests.Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163 acquired seems to berather low... so my guess would be that they only tested for one incomingmissile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missiles though.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。（引用）
AEGIS is designed to protect against massattacks. It's an extremely versatile system, with the SM successfullyintercepting a wide variety of targets. There doesn't seem to be a huge urgencyfrom NATO countries to develop their own super sonic anti ship missiles.
Beyond that, everything is classified. Ibelieve Hezbollah fired Chinese super sonic missiles at an Israeli warship tono effect. Lets not forget the ability to find and track a warship, let aloneshoot at one, is something in itself.
宙斯盾旨在防御密集攻击，然而它是一个灵活性很高的系统，可以用战略导弹成功拦截各种目标。由此可见，北约似乎并不急于研究自己的超音速反舰导弹。
不光如此，其他东东也都是浮云。比如，真主党向以色列军舰发射白兔牌超音速导弹同样没有效果。他们能捕捉并定位一艘战舰就很了不起了，更别说击沉什么的。
27、fiorellabel
Yes, and putting all USN ships in and only Russia pacificfleet is quite uncorrect. Also they stopped at frigates, probaly putting alsocorvettes and FPB would change the size. Obviously the enormity is not innumbers but in their inerent quality, 60 AEGIS equipped destroyers are simplymore than all grossly equivalent ships in the World.
美国海军全部计算在内，俄罗斯只计算了太平洋舰队，这不科学。还有他们已经停止护卫舰，轻型巡洋舰和高速巡逻艇的尺寸也会改变。很明显，真正可怕的不是数量，而是实际战力，60艘宙斯盾驱逐舰与世界上其他等价的军舰相比，数量仅仅略微超过而已。
28、Szarko32c
First it's not asian navies, but east asiannavies comparision, so why summary gives us wrong idea that all five US Navyfleets station in East Asia, while Russiahave no submarines in Asia. It turned to betendentious ranking of size and quantity, where Vietnam has no navy.
首先，这不是亚洲海军而是东亚海军的对比，那么为什么美国的全部海军会出现在东亚，而俄罗斯在亚洲没有一艘潜艇。一味地按照（军舰）大小和数量排定位次，越南海军被你给吃了？
29、Ambassador （韩国）
Well to be fair only five East Asiancountries have actually been accounted for in the list. Most countries listedare from South and Southeast Asia.
But Korea has only one Aegis cruiseroperational? We have freaking three! And I'm also surprised at the number ofmini-submarines we have. We barely have two or three for special operations.
（回复28号评论）这份名单里只有5个东亚国家，其余大部分都是南亚或者东南亚国家。
韩国只有一艘宙斯盾巡洋舰吗？真奇怪，我们为什么会有三艘？另外使我感到蛋疼的是，哪里冒出来那么多微型潜艇，我们只有两三艘执行特种作战的微型潜艇而已。
30、Laworkerbee
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must have had several tests.Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163 acquired seems to berather low... so my guess would be that they only tested for one incomingmissile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missiles though.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。（引用）
Pretty sure they thought that one throughwhen they were faced with large numbers of Backfires and everything else in theSoviet arsenal in the Cold War.
这个基本可以确定。冷战时期，他们要面对的是苏联的逆火战略轰炸机群和其他军火库里的“要你命3000”。
31、Beholder
Ask him how China will get target acquisitionfor "saturation attacks".First they need to dominate or at least denyair. Pure fantasy even with numbers China have.IMO
（回复30号评论）中国是如何捕获目标进行饱和攻击的。首先他们需要有制空权，最少也要防得住。从中国所拥有的数量上来看，只是YY而已。
32、tluassa
The real question is how long China is going to finance the overblown USdefence budget
真正问题是中国还会继续为我们庞大的国防预算资助多长时间。
33、dbamil
I hear S Korearecently cut budget for air tanker and other projects but increased budget forcruise missiles and ballistic missiles. I think that's a smart move. Withships, 1 or 2 hit is enough to take it out of fight (along with dozens ofmissiles). But when you have hundreds of missiles scattered around, you canabsorb plenty of hits and still hit back.
And the increased budget for missiles alsogives their space launch related businesses (which they are trying to get into)need infusion of cash and experience.
我听说韩国最近削减了空中加油机和其他项目的预算，增加了巡航导弹和弹道导弹的预算。这是明智的选择。军舰挨上几发就失去了战斗能力（还有几打导弹），不过要是拥有数百枚分散在各地的导弹，就可以平摊伤害并予以反击。
另外，增加导弹预算对那些需要资金注入和经验的太空发射相关企业（试图进入这一领域）也是有好处的。
34、EdisonTrent
I hope the third KSLV launch goes well.Then we can wait for years for KSLV-2 then more failure! （Aerospace is hard）
希望罗老号第三次发射顺利。我们等了数年，结果第二次发射失败了。（回家好难啊）
35、T.C.P da Devil （孟加拉国）
We are going to retire 3 frigates and add4-6 very soon. And hopefully get our first sub by 2019.
我们有3艘护卫舰就要退役了，然后再增加4至6艘，希望2019年前我们可以得到第一艘潜水艇。
Who Is Winning Asia’sGame of Battleship? Comparison of fleets
作者:病中乃知 发布日期:2012-09-24 浏览:11539
译文简介:
中国主导了本届战舰大赛，迄今为止，中国下的战舰最多，并表示还要下更多战舰。
译文来源:
原创翻译：龙腾网 h ttp://w ww.ltaaa.com 翻译：病中乃知 转载请注明出处
本贴论坛地址： ht tp://w ww.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-88677-1-1.html
原文链接：h ttp://ww w.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?217872-Who-Is-Winning-Asia%92s-Game-of-Battleship-Comparison-of-fleets
正文翻译:
T.Cruiser
China is currently leading Asia’s gameof battleship; they have the largest navy in the region and an ever-expandingfleet.
中国主导了本届战舰大赛，迄今为止，中国下的战舰最多，并表示还要下更多战舰。
评论翻译:
评论：
1、Beholder
Its like comparing Air force by number ofplanes,have amusing value.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。
2、TheKiwi
Size of a navy really isn't a good ameasure of a navy's competency at tasks. And in that the USN has the Chinesebeat hands down. As the British said, "it takes 3 years to build a ship,but 300 years to build a reputation".
海军的规模并不等同于其实际战力，美国海军可以碾压中国，英国人不是经常教导我们“十年造舰，百年扬威”嘛。
3、Andrew Chalmers
IMO - sort of a pointless numericalcomparison.
For example, looking at the charts - theTaiwanese Navy has 4 submarines, when in reality 2 are guppy class boats bettersuited as museums. The Korean Navy has some of the best modern surface ships.
我觉得比较数量没有多大的借鉴意义。
举个例子，拿这份图表来说，台湾海军有4艘潜艇，其中2艘海狮级潜艇是二战时期的古董。韩国海军则有几艘最先进的水面舰只。
4、DaveDash
The US has something like 61 active AEGISequipped Destroyers, the Arleigh Burke, which carry an enormous amount ofmissiles and firepower (roughly twice the number of missiles the best currentChinese Destroyers can carry). What's more important is the best ChineseDestroyers only carry 8 SSMs vs 98 customizable launch tubes on the ArleighBurke. The Chinese are working on a Type-053D which is significantly better,but still far behind the Arleigh Burke, and is planning to build 3 of them.
This comparison is moot. A better comparisonmight be how many missiles each navy can shoot at each other, and I think you'dfind the numbers there are significantly different.
阿利伯克级驱逐舰装载“宙斯盾”战斗系统，载弹量大（约是中国最先进驱逐舰载弹量的两倍），而这样的现役驱逐舰美国共有61艘。中国最先进的驱逐舰（只能携带8枚舰对舰导弹）PK有着98个导弹发射管的阿利伯克级，这是什么概念。中国目前正在研制053D型驱逐舰（计划建造3艘），虽说比以前有了长足的进步，但与阿利伯克相比，还有不小的差距。
这种对比的意义不大，还不如比较各个海军彼此对射的导弹是多少，这个差距是显而易见的。
5、junglejim
I'm not afraid of the Navy that has a needfor hundreds of ships to do its job, I'm afraid of the Navy that thinks it onlyneeds one. Philippines**** Yeah!
一支有着几百艘军舰的海军不可怕，可怕的是只有一艘军舰的海军。壮哉我大菲律宾无敌舰队！
6、A better comparison might be how many missiles each navy can shootat each other, and I think you'd find the numbers there are significantlydifferent.
还不如比较各个海军彼此对射的导弹是多少，这个差距是显而易见的。（引用）
How do you estimate how many of thosemissiles sink along with their ships? I think it would come down to the sidewhich can more effectively target the other and that would go to the UnitedStates IMHO.
你如何计算那些连同船只一起沉没的导弹有多少？我觉得关键还是要看谁能更迅速地定位对方，（这样的话）还是美国比较厉害。
7、DaveDash
You are absolutely right, but I am justtrying to illustrate that a simple number of ships comparison tells f*ck all ofthe story.
（回复6号评论）你说的对，我的意思是仅仅比较船只的数量有点思路广。
8、Laworkerbee
If they really wanted to publish a sky isfalling article they should have published the numbers of fighters China hasversus everyone else. It then would have ignited an F-22 debate
（回复7号评论）如果他们打算发表一篇天快塌了的文章，他们就应该公布一下中国用来对付他们的飞机数量是多少，然后就会开始关于F22的辩论。
9、DaveDash
China has1 billion people. We are doomed.
As a caveat, I would never, ever, everunder-estimate the Chinese in battle. And I'm sure the USN wouldn't either. Aswe know both from FC, all it takes is one submarine to really ruin your day.
（回复8号评论）中国有十亿人，我们死定了。
我永远也不会低估中国的战力，这可不是危言耸听。我想美国海军也不会，我们都知道，一艘潜艇就可以让我们万劫不复。
10、Az_esm
Amm, they forgot to count all Russianpacific fleet's subs. The rest fleet's numbers are correct?
呃，他们把俄罗斯太平洋舰队的潜艇忘算进去了。其他国家军舰数目没问题吗？
11、TheKiwi
Sort of. The Thai carrier pretty much neverputs to sea. The minsubs are about as much use as a tissue paper window in ahurricane except for landing secret agents. Taiwan's submarines (as pointed outby another member earlier) are half made up of museum pieces from WW2.
（回复10号评论）你真相了。泰国的航母几乎就没出过海。微型潜艇在暴风中就跟纸糊的一样，除了搭载间谍还有点用。台湾的一半潜艇是2战时期的古董
12、twinblade
Its like comparing Air force by number ofplanes,have amusing value.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。（引用）
Agreed. The article should have focused onmodern vessels only and also taken into consideration the acquisitions of newertypes by the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Indians.
我同意。这篇文章应该把重心放在现代化军舰上，同时也要把中国、日本、韩国和印度的最新型装备一并纳入考量范围。
13、MRAPer
Any comparison is meaningless withouttaking account of the land-based and air-launched missiles. For China,any war in the Western Pacific will be a missile war. The first thing the enemyencounters probably will be a saturation attack by China's land-based long-rangemissiles. How would any Navy fare under sustained saturation attacks? Nobodyknows. But I suspect it would not be pretty.
（回复12号评论）在不考虑岸基和空射导弹的情况下，任何比较都毫无意义。西太平洋发生的所有战争，中国都会用导弹来解决。首先，敌人很可能遭到中国陆基远程导弹的饱和打击。哪支海军可以在持续不断的饱和打击下幸存？谁也说不上来。不过我怀疑动武可能性不大。
14、Bloo
Oh boy one of these numeric charts again.Ironically it really doesn't give you a good picture of sea power at all. Oh North Koreahas 22 SSK's you say? That must mean their fleet is better than South Korea's!O wait.... Plus fails to include coastal support, naval aviation, fast attackcraft, and so on.
又见数据图表。说句难听的，这根本就不是一份合格的海上力量示意图。北韩有22艘常规潜艇？这就是说它们的舰队比南韩还大！另外，海岸巡逻、海军海空、导弹快艇这些都没有计算在内…
15、313230
This comparison is moot. A better comparisonmight be how many missiles each navy can shoot at each other, and I think you'dfind the numbers there are significantly different.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。（引用）
It seems that US doesn't have any dedicatedsuper sonic anti ship missile while Chinese follows the Russian way with many.I don't know how effective CWIS is, but super sonic has better chance toovercome it.
看样子美国还没有专门的超音速反舰导弹，而中国已经继俄罗斯之后囤了不少了。我不知道CWIS（估计是笔误，应该是某种防御系统）的效果如何，不过超音速应该更管用一些。
16、DaveDash
The US has a sea skimming and top downattack super sonic target called the GQM-163. It can and has been shot down bySAM's in NATO's inventory.
（回复15号评论）美国有一种掠海飞行、垂直攻击的超音速靶弹叫做GQM-163（草原狼），而北约的低空导弹曾经击落过这种导弹。
17、MRAPer
Any missile, when launched in large numbersin a short period of time, is difficult to defend.
（回复15号评论）不管什么导弹在短时间内大量发射，都很难防御。
18、rssmps
Also, China wouldn't even have to arm allthe missiles right? If they arm just certain amount, we would not know andwould have to expend resource to intercept all of it.
（回复17号评论）当然，中国不会装备所有的导弹对吧？如果他们仅装备了部分导弹，我们不知道到底是多少，却不得不消耗资源来防御全部导弹。
19、T.Cruiser
The first thing the enemy encountersprobably will be a saturation attack by China's land-based long-rangemissiles. How would any Navy fare under sustained saturation attacks? Nobodyknows. But I suspect it would not be pretty.
首先，敌人很可能遭到中国陆基远程导弹的饱和打击。哪支海军可以在持续不断的饱和打击下幸存？谁也说不上来。不过我怀疑动武可能性不大。（引用）
Given the state of China's missile technology, they'dbe just as likely to hit their own ships as the enemy's. And anyway, don't youthink it has been taken into account? You may find those launch sites quicklybecome smoking holes in the ground before they even get to launch.
就中国的导弹技术而言，他们很可能想炸敌人的船，结果误伤了自己。难道你没有把这一点考虑进去？你会发现他们在发射导弹之前，发射场变得满目疮痍，浓烟滚滚。
20、DaveDash
From my understanding, AEGIS does threatassessment. If missiles are flying around aimlessly they're likely not going tobe engaged. You also have to know where to aim. A picket line from a carrierbattle group extends out to like 200nm, and you're trying to hit a bunch oftiny dots in the ocean moving at ~30knots. Good luck with that when firing abunch of missiles aimlessly.
I'm not saying these ships areinvulnerable. They are not. But they're not as helpless as some people in thisthread think, and it's not a pure numbers games.
据我所知，宙斯盾就是用来评估风险的。如果导弹漫无目的地飞来飞去，就不会将其击落。当然，起码要知道它飞往何处。一支航母编队的警戒线可向前推进约200海里，而（导弹）要打击的目标是大洋上以30节速度移动的一群小点。但愿这些无头苍蝇一般的导弹好运。
21、Silent Reader
The US has a sea skimming and top downattack super sonic target called the GQM-163. It can and has been shot down bySAM's in NATO's inventory.
美国有一种掠海飞行、垂直攻击的超音速靶弹叫做GQM-163（草原狼），而北约的低空导弹曾经击落过这种导弹。（引用）
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must havehad several tests. Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163acquired seems to be rather low... so my guess would be that they only testedfor one incoming missile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missilesthough.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。
22、TG211
If there are Navy people hear, can youexplain me the + and - of each class ? I mean, China concentrated in frigates. Isthere an advantage for it above cruisers ?
这里有海军的同志吗，谁能给我解释一下每个级别的优劣势？我的意思是中国专注护卫舰三十年，他们的巡洋舰有何优势？
23、sepheronx
No expert or anything, but I think it hasto do with displacement. The bigger the ship, the more it can carry. In a lotof cases, Cruisers can be nuclear propulsion and carry a **** ton of equipment.Making them massive missile ships. Frigates, being smaller, are limited to whatthey can carry and possibly be limited to endurance as well.
（回复22号评论）我不是专家，不过我认为更新换代是迟早的事。船越大，载重就大。在多数情况下，巡洋舰可以由核能驱动，装载巨量物资，相当于N艘导弹艇。护卫舰由于体型较小，被载重和续航时间所掣肘。
24、TheKiwi
These days it's all pretty arbitary. Thereare modern "destroyers" that are much larger than WW2 heavy cruisers.For a while some of the USN's nuke ships were classed as Frigates. The USN'sAegis cruisers were about the same size (not surprisingly as they used the samebasic hull) as the Spruance class ASW destroyers.
The classic role of a "cruiser"was discarded during/just after WW2 as airborne radar became prevelant. Inshort, check the capabilities, don't rely on the classification.
实在是不敢苟同。现代驱逐舰比二战的重型巡洋舰要大得多。目前，美国海军的一些核动力舰船被归为护卫舰。宙斯盾巡洋舰同斯普鲁恩斯级驱逐舰一般大小（不足为奇，因为二者使用的船体是相同的）。
随着机载雷达的兴起，“巡洋舰”的传统定位在二战时就被抛弃了。简而言之，不要注重类别，看的是能力。
25、SineJustitia
Interesting to see that a littoral conflictgives rise to a blue water navy comparison. Especially since ships that aredesigned for either blue or brown waters, are often deployable in both. So I'dlike to see this chart expanded with LHA's, LHD's, LPD's, OPV's, etc.
Then all we need to do is expand it withFCSS's, MCMV's, MPA's, AWACS, satellites, C4ISR, strategic airpower, multiplyit with economic endurance and divide it by political willpower, and we mighthave a hint of a good impression of the balance of power.
自从船只在设计的时候，往往兼顾了近海和远洋的需求，由于话题便从近海冲突转到了远洋海军。我倒想看看，有这张图表还会不会延伸到攻击型直升机航母（LHA）、多功能两栖船（LHD）、两栖登陆舰（LPD）、近海巡逻舰（OPV）等。
接下来我们还必须要增加FCSS（没查到）、MCMV（没查到）、MPA（密苏里州猪肉协会？海上巡逻机？）、AWACS（空中预警与控制系统）、卫星、指挥信息系统（C4ISR）、战略空军，再加上经济韧性以及政治上的考量，这样才能对势均力敌有一个大致的了解。
26、DaveDash
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must have had several tests.Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163 acquired seems to berather low... so my guess would be that they only tested for one incomingmissile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missiles though.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。（引用）
AEGIS is designed to protect against massattacks. It's an extremely versatile system, with the SM successfullyintercepting a wide variety of targets. There doesn't seem to be a huge urgencyfrom NATO countries to develop their own super sonic anti ship missiles.
Beyond that, everything is classified. Ibelieve Hezbollah fired Chinese super sonic missiles at an Israeli warship tono effect. Lets not forget the ability to find and track a warship, let aloneshoot at one, is something in itself.
宙斯盾旨在防御密集攻击，然而它是一个灵活性很高的系统，可以用战略导弹成功拦截各种目标。由此可见，北约似乎并不急于研究自己的超音速反舰导弹。
不光如此，其他东东也都是浮云。比如，真主党向以色列军舰发射白兔牌超音速导弹同样没有效果。他们能捕捉并定位一艘战舰就很了不起了，更别说击沉什么的。
27、fiorellabel
Yes, and putting all USN ships in and only Russia pacificfleet is quite uncorrect. Also they stopped at frigates, probaly putting alsocorvettes and FPB would change the size. Obviously the enormity is not innumbers but in their inerent quality, 60 AEGIS equipped destroyers are simplymore than all grossly equivalent ships in the World.
美国海军全部计算在内，俄罗斯只计算了太平洋舰队，这不科学。还有他们已经停止护卫舰，轻型巡洋舰和高速巡逻艇的尺寸也会改变。很明显，真正可怕的不是数量，而是实际战力，60艘宙斯盾驱逐舰与世界上其他等价的军舰相比，数量仅仅略微超过而已。
28、Szarko32c
First it's not asian navies, but east asiannavies comparision, so why summary gives us wrong idea that all five US Navyfleets station in East Asia, while Russiahave no submarines in Asia. It turned to betendentious ranking of size and quantity, where Vietnam has no navy.
首先，这不是亚洲海军而是东亚海军的对比，那么为什么美国的全部海军会出现在东亚，而俄罗斯在亚洲没有一艘潜艇。一味地按照（军舰）大小和数量排定位次，越南海军被你给吃了？
29、Ambassador （韩国）
Well to be fair only five East Asiancountries have actually been accounted for in the list. Most countries listedare from South and Southeast Asia.
But Korea has only one Aegis cruiseroperational? We have freaking three! And I'm also surprised at the number ofmini-submarines we have. We barely have two or three for special operations.
（回复28号评论）这份名单里只有5个东亚国家，其余大部分都是南亚或者东南亚国家。
韩国只有一艘宙斯盾巡洋舰吗？真奇怪，我们为什么会有三艘？另外使我感到蛋疼的是，哪里冒出来那么多微型潜艇，我们只有两三艘执行特种作战的微型潜艇而已。
30、Laworkerbee
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must have had several tests.Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163 acquired seems to berather low... so my guess would be that they only tested for one incomingmissile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missiles though.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。（引用）
Pretty sure they thought that one throughwhen they were faced with large numbers of Backfires and everything else in theSoviet arsenal in the Cold War.
这个基本可以确定。冷战时期，他们要面对的是苏联的逆火战略轰炸机群和其他军火库里的“要你命3000”。
31、Beholder
Ask him how China will get target acquisitionfor "saturation attacks".First they need to dominate or at least denyair. Pure fantasy even with numbers China have.IMO
（回复30号评论）中国是如何捕获目标进行饱和攻击的。首先他们需要有制空权，最少也要防得住。从中国所拥有的数量上来看，只是YY而已。
32、tluassa
The real question is how long China is going to finance the overblown USdefence budget
真正问题是中国还会继续为我们庞大的国防预算资助多长时间。
33、dbamil
I hear S Korearecently cut budget for air tanker and other projects but increased budget forcruise missiles and ballistic missiles. I think that's a smart move. Withships, 1 or 2 hit is enough to take it out of fight (along with dozens ofmissiles). But when you have hundreds of missiles scattered around, you canabsorb plenty of hits and still hit back.
And the increased budget for missiles alsogives their space launch related businesses (which they are trying to get into)need infusion of cash and experience.
我听说韩国最近削减了空中加油机和其他项目的预算，增加了巡航导弹和弹道导弹的预算。这是明智的选择。军舰挨上几发就失去了战斗能力（还有几打导弹），不过要是拥有数百枚分散在各地的导弹，就可以平摊伤害并予以反击。
另外，增加导弹预算对那些需要资金注入和经验的太空发射相关企业（试图进入这一领域）也是有好处的。
34、EdisonTrent
I hope the third KSLV launch goes well.Then we can wait for years for KSLV-2 then more failure! （Aerospace is hard）
希望罗老号第三次发射顺利。我们等了数年，结果第二次发射失败了。（回家好难啊）
35、T.C.P da Devil （孟加拉国）
We are going to retire 3 frigates and add4-6 very soon. And hopefully get our first sub by 2019.
我们有3艘护卫舰就要退役了，然后再增加4至6艘，希望2019年前我们可以得到第一艘潜水艇。亮兵器吧！亚洲海军竞赛谁称雄？
Who Is Winning Asia’sGame of Battleship? Comparison of fleets
作者:病中乃知 发布日期:2012-09-24 浏览:11539
译文简介:
中国主导了本届战舰大赛，迄今为止，中国下的战舰最多，并表示还要下更多战舰。
译文来源:
原创翻译：龙腾网 h ttp://w ww.ltaaa.com 翻译：病中乃知 转载请注明出处
本贴论坛地址： ht tp://w ww.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-88677-1-1.html
原文链接：h ttp://ww w.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?217872-Who-Is-Winning-Asia%92s-Game-of-Battleship-Comparison-of-fleets
正文翻译:
T.Cruiser
China is currently leading Asia’s gameof battleship; they have the largest navy in the region and an ever-expandingfleet.
中国主导了本届战舰大赛，迄今为止，中国下的战舰最多，并表示还要下更多战舰。
评论翻译:
评论：
1、Beholder
Its like comparing Air force by number ofplanes,have amusing value.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。
2、TheKiwi
Size of a navy really isn't a good ameasure of a navy's competency at tasks. And in that the USN has the Chinesebeat hands down. As the British said, "it takes 3 years to build a ship,but 300 years to build a reputation".
海军的规模并不等同于其实际战力，美国海军可以碾压中国，英国人不是经常教导我们“十年造舰，百年扬威”嘛。
3、Andrew Chalmers
IMO - sort of a pointless numericalcomparison.
For example, looking at the charts - theTaiwanese Navy has 4 submarines, when in reality 2 are guppy class boats bettersuited as museums. The Korean Navy has some of the best modern surface ships.
我觉得比较数量没有多大的借鉴意义。
举个例子，拿这份图表来说，台湾海军有4艘潜艇，其中2艘海狮级潜艇是二战时期的古董。韩国海军则有几艘最先进的水面舰只。
4、DaveDash
The US has something like 61 active AEGISequipped Destroyers, the Arleigh Burke, which carry an enormous amount ofmissiles and firepower (roughly twice the number of missiles the best currentChinese Destroyers can carry). What's more important is the best ChineseDestroyers only carry 8 SSMs vs 98 customizable launch tubes on the ArleighBurke. The Chinese are working on a Type-053D which is significantly better,but still far behind the Arleigh Burke, and is planning to build 3 of them.
This comparison is moot. A better comparisonmight be how many missiles each navy can shoot at each other, and I think you'dfind the numbers there are significantly different.
阿利伯克级驱逐舰装载“宙斯盾”战斗系统，载弹量大（约是中国最先进驱逐舰载弹量的两倍），而这样的现役驱逐舰美国共有61艘。中国最先进的驱逐舰（只能携带8枚舰对舰导弹）PK有着98个导弹发射管的阿利伯克级，这是什么概念。中国目前正在研制053D型驱逐舰（计划建造3艘），虽说比以前有了长足的进步，但与阿利伯克相比，还有不小的差距。
这种对比的意义不大，还不如比较各个海军彼此对射的导弹是多少，这个差距是显而易见的。
5、junglejim
I'm not afraid of the Navy that has a needfor hundreds of ships to do its job, I'm afraid of the Navy that thinks it onlyneeds one. Philippines**** Yeah!
一支有着几百艘军舰的海军不可怕，可怕的是只有一艘军舰的海军。壮哉我大菲律宾无敌舰队！
6、A better comparison might be how many missiles each navy can shootat each other, and I think you'd find the numbers there are significantlydifferent.
还不如比较各个海军彼此对射的导弹是多少，这个差距是显而易见的。（引用）
How do you estimate how many of thosemissiles sink along with their ships? I think it would come down to the sidewhich can more effectively target the other and that would go to the UnitedStates IMHO.
你如何计算那些连同船只一起沉没的导弹有多少？我觉得关键还是要看谁能更迅速地定位对方，（这样的话）还是美国比较厉害。
7、DaveDash
You are absolutely right, but I am justtrying to illustrate that a simple number of ships comparison tells f*ck all ofthe story.
（回复6号评论）你说的对，我的意思是仅仅比较船只的数量有点思路广。
8、Laworkerbee
If they really wanted to publish a sky isfalling article they should have published the numbers of fighters China hasversus everyone else. It then would have ignited an F-22 debate
（回复7号评论）如果他们打算发表一篇天快塌了的文章，他们就应该公布一下中国用来对付他们的飞机数量是多少，然后就会开始关于F22的辩论。
9、DaveDash
China has1 billion people. We are doomed.
As a caveat, I would never, ever, everunder-estimate the Chinese in battle. And I'm sure the USN wouldn't either. Aswe know both from FC, all it takes is one submarine to really ruin your day.
（回复8号评论）中国有十亿人，我们死定了。
我永远也不会低估中国的战力，这可不是危言耸听。我想美国海军也不会，我们都知道，一艘潜艇就可以让我们万劫不复。
10、Az_esm
Amm, they forgot to count all Russianpacific fleet's subs. The rest fleet's numbers are correct?
呃，他们把俄罗斯太平洋舰队的潜艇忘算进去了。其他国家军舰数目没问题吗？
11、TheKiwi
Sort of. The Thai carrier pretty much neverputs to sea. The minsubs are about as much use as a tissue paper window in ahurricane except for landing secret agents. Taiwan's submarines (as pointed outby another member earlier) are half made up of museum pieces from WW2.
（回复10号评论）你真相了。泰国的航母几乎就没出过海。微型潜艇在暴风中就跟纸糊的一样，除了搭载间谍还有点用。台湾的一半潜艇是2战时期的古董
12、twinblade
Its like comparing Air force by number ofplanes,have amusing value.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。（引用）
Agreed. The article should have focused onmodern vessels only and also taken into consideration the acquisitions of newertypes by the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Indians.
我同意。这篇文章应该把重心放在现代化军舰上，同时也要把中国、日本、韩国和印度的最新型装备一并纳入考量范围。
13、MRAPer
Any comparison is meaningless withouttaking account of the land-based and air-launched missiles. For China,any war in the Western Pacific will be a missile war. The first thing the enemyencounters probably will be a saturation attack by China's land-based long-rangemissiles. How would any Navy fare under sustained saturation attacks? Nobodyknows. But I suspect it would not be pretty.
（回复12号评论）在不考虑岸基和空射导弹的情况下，任何比较都毫无意义。西太平洋发生的所有战争，中国都会用导弹来解决。首先，敌人很可能遭到中国陆基远程导弹的饱和打击。哪支海军可以在持续不断的饱和打击下幸存？谁也说不上来。不过我怀疑动武可能性不大。
14、Bloo
Oh boy one of these numeric charts again.Ironically it really doesn't give you a good picture of sea power at all. Oh North Koreahas 22 SSK's you say? That must mean their fleet is better than South Korea's!O wait.... Plus fails to include coastal support, naval aviation, fast attackcraft, and so on.
又见数据图表。说句难听的，这根本就不是一份合格的海上力量示意图。北韩有22艘常规潜艇？这就是说它们的舰队比南韩还大！另外，海岸巡逻、海军海空、导弹快艇这些都没有计算在内…
15、313230
This comparison is moot. A better comparisonmight be how many missiles each navy can shoot at each other, and I think you'dfind the numbers there are significantly different.
这就好比对空军品头论足时只看飞机数量，仅博一笑耳。（引用）
It seems that US doesn't have any dedicatedsuper sonic anti ship missile while Chinese follows the Russian way with many.I don't know how effective CWIS is, but super sonic has better chance toovercome it.
看样子美国还没有专门的超音速反舰导弹，而中国已经继俄罗斯之后囤了不少了。我不知道CWIS（估计是笔误，应该是某种防御系统）的效果如何，不过超音速应该更管用一些。
16、DaveDash
The US has a sea skimming and top downattack super sonic target called the GQM-163. It can and has been shot down bySAM's in NATO's inventory.
（回复15号评论）美国有一种掠海飞行、垂直攻击的超音速靶弹叫做GQM-163（草原狼），而北约的低空导弹曾经击落过这种导弹。
17、MRAPer
Any missile, when launched in large numbersin a short period of time, is difficult to defend.
（回复15号评论）不管什么导弹在短时间内大量发射，都很难防御。
18、rssmps
Also, China wouldn't even have to arm allthe missiles right? If they arm just certain amount, we would not know andwould have to expend resource to intercept all of it.
（回复17号评论）当然，中国不会装备所有的导弹对吧？如果他们仅装备了部分导弹，我们不知道到底是多少，却不得不消耗资源来防御全部导弹。
19、T.Cruiser
The first thing the enemy encountersprobably will be a saturation attack by China's land-based long-rangemissiles. How would any Navy fare under sustained saturation attacks? Nobodyknows. But I suspect it would not be pretty.
首先，敌人很可能遭到中国陆基远程导弹的饱和打击。哪支海军可以在持续不断的饱和打击下幸存？谁也说不上来。不过我怀疑动武可能性不大。（引用）
Given the state of China's missile technology, they'dbe just as likely to hit their own ships as the enemy's. And anyway, don't youthink it has been taken into account? You may find those launch sites quicklybecome smoking holes in the ground before they even get to launch.
就中国的导弹技术而言，他们很可能想炸敌人的船，结果误伤了自己。难道你没有把这一点考虑进去？你会发现他们在发射导弹之前，发射场变得满目疮痍，浓烟滚滚。
20、DaveDash
From my understanding, AEGIS does threatassessment. If missiles are flying around aimlessly they're likely not going tobe engaged. You also have to know where to aim. A picket line from a carrierbattle group extends out to like 200nm, and you're trying to hit a bunch oftiny dots in the ocean moving at ~30knots. Good luck with that when firing abunch of missiles aimlessly.
I'm not saying these ships areinvulnerable. They are not. But they're not as helpless as some people in thisthread think, and it's not a pure numbers games.
据我所知，宙斯盾就是用来评估风险的。如果导弹漫无目的地飞来飞去，就不会将其击落。当然，起码要知道它飞往何处。一支航母编队的警戒线可向前推进约200海里，而（导弹）要打击的目标是大洋上以30节速度移动的一群小点。但愿这些无头苍蝇一般的导弹好运。
21、Silent Reader
The US has a sea skimming and top downattack super sonic target called the GQM-163. It can and has been shot down bySAM's in NATO's inventory.
美国有一种掠海飞行、垂直攻击的超音速靶弹叫做GQM-163（草原狼），而北约的低空导弹曾经击落过这种导弹。（引用）
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must havehad several tests. Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163acquired seems to be rather low... so my guess would be that they only testedfor one incoming missile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missilesthough.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。
22、TG211
If there are Navy people hear, can youexplain me the + and - of each class ? I mean, China concentrated in frigates. Isthere an advantage for it above cruisers ?
这里有海军的同志吗，谁能给我解释一下每个级别的优劣势？我的意思是中国专注护卫舰三十年，他们的巡洋舰有何优势？
23、sepheronx
No expert or anything, but I think it hasto do with displacement. The bigger the ship, the more it can carry. In a lotof cases, Cruisers can be nuclear propulsion and carry a **** ton of equipment.Making them massive missile ships. Frigates, being smaller, are limited to whatthey can carry and possibly be limited to endurance as well.
（回复22号评论）我不是专家，不过我认为更新换代是迟早的事。船越大，载重就大。在多数情况下，巡洋舰可以由核能驱动，装载巨量物资，相当于N艘导弹艇。护卫舰由于体型较小，被载重和续航时间所掣肘。
24、TheKiwi
These days it's all pretty arbitary. Thereare modern "destroyers" that are much larger than WW2 heavy cruisers.For a while some of the USN's nuke ships were classed as Frigates. The USN'sAegis cruisers were about the same size (not surprisingly as they used the samebasic hull) as the Spruance class ASW destroyers.
The classic role of a "cruiser"was discarded during/just after WW2 as airborne radar became prevelant. Inshort, check the capabilities, don't rely on the classification.
实在是不敢苟同。现代驱逐舰比二战的重型巡洋舰要大得多。目前，美国海军的一些核动力舰船被归为护卫舰。宙斯盾巡洋舰同斯普鲁恩斯级驱逐舰一般大小（不足为奇，因为二者使用的船体是相同的）。
随着机载雷达的兴起，“巡洋舰”的传统定位在二战时就被抛弃了。简而言之，不要注重类别，看的是能力。
25、SineJustitia
Interesting to see that a littoral conflictgives rise to a blue water navy comparison. Especially since ships that aredesigned for either blue or brown waters, are often deployable in both. So I'dlike to see this chart expanded with LHA's, LHD's, LPD's, OPV's, etc.
Then all we need to do is expand it withFCSS's, MCMV's, MPA's, AWACS, satellites, C4ISR, strategic airpower, multiplyit with economic endurance and divide it by political willpower, and we mighthave a hint of a good impression of the balance of power.
自从船只在设计的时候，往往兼顾了近海和远洋的需求，由于话题便从近海冲突转到了远洋海军。我倒想看看，有这张图表还会不会延伸到攻击型直升机航母（LHA）、多功能两栖船（LHD）、两栖登陆舰（LPD）、近海巡逻舰（OPV）等。
接下来我们还必须要增加FCSS（没查到）、MCMV（没查到）、MPA（密苏里州猪肉协会？海上巡逻机？）、AWACS（空中预警与控制系统）、卫星、指挥信息系统（C4ISR）、战略空军，再加上经济韧性以及政治上的考量，这样才能对势均力敌有一个大致的了解。
26、DaveDash
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must have had several tests.Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163 acquired seems to berather low... so my guess would be that they only tested for one incomingmissile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missiles though.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。（引用）
AEGIS is designed to protect against massattacks. It's an extremely versatile system, with the SM successfullyintercepting a wide variety of targets. There doesn't seem to be a huge urgencyfrom NATO countries to develop their own super sonic anti ship missiles.
Beyond that, everything is classified. Ibelieve Hezbollah fired Chinese super sonic missiles at an Israeli warship tono effect. Lets not forget the ability to find and track a warship, let aloneshoot at one, is something in itself.
宙斯盾旨在防御密集攻击，然而它是一个灵活性很高的系统，可以用战略导弹成功拦截各种目标。由此可见，北约似乎并不急于研究自己的超音速反舰导弹。
不光如此，其他东东也都是浮云。比如，真主党向以色列军舰发射白兔牌超音速导弹同样没有效果。他们能捕捉并定位一艘战舰就很了不起了，更别说击沉什么的。
27、fiorellabel
Yes, and putting all USN ships in and only Russia pacificfleet is quite uncorrect. Also they stopped at frigates, probaly putting alsocorvettes and FPB would change the size. Obviously the enormity is not innumbers but in their inerent quality, 60 AEGIS equipped destroyers are simplymore than all grossly equivalent ships in the World.
美国海军全部计算在内，俄罗斯只计算了太平洋舰队，这不科学。还有他们已经停止护卫舰，轻型巡洋舰和高速巡逻艇的尺寸也会改变。很明显，真正可怕的不是数量，而是实际战力，60艘宙斯盾驱逐舰与世界上其他等价的军舰相比，数量仅仅略微超过而已。
28、Szarko32c
First it's not asian navies, but east asiannavies comparision, so why summary gives us wrong idea that all five US Navyfleets station in East Asia, while Russiahave no submarines in Asia. It turned to betendentious ranking of size and quantity, where Vietnam has no navy.
首先，这不是亚洲海军而是东亚海军的对比，那么为什么美国的全部海军会出现在东亚，而俄罗斯在亚洲没有一艘潜艇。一味地按照（军舰）大小和数量排定位次，越南海军被你给吃了？
29、Ambassador （韩国）
Well to be fair only five East Asiancountries have actually been accounted for in the list. Most countries listedare from South and Southeast Asia.
But Korea has only one Aegis cruiseroperational? We have freaking three! And I'm also surprised at the number ofmini-submarines we have. We barely have two or three for special operations.
（回复28号评论）这份名单里只有5个东亚国家，其余大部分都是南亚或者东南亚国家。
韩国只有一艘宙斯盾巡洋舰吗？真奇怪，我们为什么会有三艘？另外使我感到蛋疼的是，哪里冒出来那么多微型潜艇，我们只有两三艘执行特种作战的微型潜艇而已。
30、Laworkerbee
Have they ever tested for saturationattacks?
On the net I only found one test of asingle GQM-163 shot down by a French Horizon. Although the US must have had several tests.Can't find any results though. But the number of GQM-163 acquired seems to berather low... so my guess would be that they only tested for one incomingmissile... maybe there were one or two tests with two missiles though.
他们做过饱和攻击的试验吗？
我只在网上见过一枚GQM-163被法国的“地平线”（导弹驱逐舰）击落的实验，想必美国也已实验多次了，只是还没有什么线索。不过GQM-163的数量非常少…所以我猜GQM-163只模拟一枚导弹来袭的实验…也有可能做了一两次两枚导弹（来袭）的实验。（引用）
Pretty sure they thought that one throughwhen they were faced with large numbers of Backfires and everything else in theSoviet arsenal in the Cold War.
这个基本可以确定。冷战时期，他们要面对的是苏联的逆火战略轰炸机群和其他军火库里的“要你命3000”。
31、Beholder
Ask him how China will get target acquisitionfor "saturation attacks".First they need to dominate or at least denyair. Pure fantasy even with numbers China have.IMO
（回复30号评论）中国是如何捕获目标进行饱和攻击的。首先他们需要有制空权，最少也要防得住。从中国所拥有的数量上来看，只是YY而已。
32、tluassa
The real question is how long China is going to finance the overblown USdefence budget
真正问题是中国还会继续为我们庞大的国防预算资助多长时间。
33、dbamil
I hear S Korearecently cut budget for air tanker and other projects but increased budget forcruise missiles and ballistic missiles. I think that's a smart move. Withships, 1 or 2 hit is enough to take it out of fight (along with dozens ofmissiles). But when you have hundreds of missiles scattered around, you canabsorb plenty of hits and still hit back.
And the increased budget for missiles alsogives their space launch related businesses (which they are trying to get into)need infusion of cash and experience.
我听说韩国最近削减了空中加油机和其他项目的预算，增加了巡航导弹和弹道导弹的预算。这是明智的选择。军舰挨上几发就失去了战斗能力（还有几打导弹），不过要是拥有数百枚分散在各地的导弹，就可以平摊伤害并予以反击。
另外，增加导弹预算对那些需要资金注入和经验的太空发射相关企业（试图进入这一领域）也是有好处的。
34、EdisonTrent
I hope the third KSLV launch goes well.Then we can wait for years for KSLV-2 then more failure! （Aerospace is hard）
希望罗老号第三次发射顺利。我们等了数年，结果第二次发射失败了。（回家好难啊）
35、T.C.P da Devil （孟加拉国）
We are going to retire 3 frigates and add4-6 very soon. And hopefully get our first sub by 2019.
我们有3艘护卫舰就要退役了，然后再增加4至6艘，希望2019年前我们可以得到第一艘潜水艇。
真有看热闹不嫌事大的。。。
毛子悲催的被直接无视了。。。
台湾有巡洋舰？
美国人这学术真够严谨的！北棒子的军力都可以显得这么强大。。。
不要光看数量，更要注重质量！