不去大肆宣传中国航母的五大理由

上一周，中国人民解放军海军第一艘航空母舰的新任舰长张铮在一个值得注意的坦率采访中承认：解放军海军若想将航母平台训练成军还需要很长一段路要走。这点我同意。
译文来源:

原创翻译：龙腾网  翻译：萝卜 转载请注明出处


By James R. Holmes  October 2, 2012


Last week Captain Zhang Zheng, the photogenic commanding officer of the PLA Navy’s first aircraft carrier, gave a remarkably frank interview in which he confessed that the PLA Navy has a long way to go before it operates carrier task forces proficiently. I agree.

上一周，中国人民解放军海军第一艘航空母舰的新任舰长张铮在一个值得注意的坦率采访中承认：解放军海军若想将航母平台训练成军还需要很长一段路要走。这点我同意。

I intend no slight; it takes time and trial-and-error to master an entirely new platform. But the hype that greeted the ship’s commissioning was decidedly premature. Now christened Liaoning, China’s flattop does not begin to approach the size or capability of U.S. Navy nuclear-powered carriers. Nor can its crew match the skill and experience of U.S. CVN crews. Herewith, my list of the Top 5 reasons why the Liaoning is outclassed by its American counterparts:

我的意愿并不重要。掌握一个全新的平台需要时间和试错，然而大肆炒作该航母交接入役绝对为时过早。已经命名为辽宁号的中国航母与美国海军核动力航母的规格和性能相去甚远，其船员的经验与技能也不能与美国CVN（CVN：美国海军核动力航空母舰）船员相比较。因此，我列出了辽宁号与美国航母相比不是同一级别的五大理由。

5. No air wing. At first blush this seems like the main hurdle to an effective carrier task force. The air wing constitutes a carrier’s “main battery,” or offensive punch, not to mention a major element of the fleet’s defense against aerial, surface, or subsurface attack. But the PLA Navy now possesses a working flattop and, apparently, combat aircraft capable of operating from its flight deck. The rest is a matter of doctrinal development and sheer practice for aircrews. These are soluble problems given ample time, resolve, and patience. Indeed, training will be the Liaoning’s chief function for the foreseeable future.

五、没有空军部队

乍一看，这似乎是航母有效载体成军的主要障碍。空军部队是航母的“舰上主炮塔”，或者说是攻击力量，更不用说一个舰队防御的主要元素来于空中、水面和水下攻击。然而解放军海军现在拥有一个可以工作的航母平台，显然，作战飞机能够从其飞行甲板起飞，剩下的就是为空勤人员提供学说教条发展和纯粹实践。这些都是需要足够的时间、决心和耐心的可溶性问题。事实上，在可预见的未来，训练仍是辽宁号的首要功能。

4. Size. The Liaoning displaces about two-thirds the tonnage of an American CVN. Its air wing is commensurately smaller. Built by the Soviet Union, it was designed to accommodate 28 fighter/attack aircraft, a fraction of the U.S. complement. A one-on-one shootout between the Liaoning and a U.S. flattop, then, would be no contest.

四、规格

辽宁号的排水量相当于美国CVN三分之二的排水量。它的空军部队在同等情况下却小得多。由前苏联建造，它的设计可容纳28架战斗机，只相当于美国补给舰载机的一部分。在辽宁号和美国航母的一对一的对比比赛中，毫无悬念。

3. Non-nuclear propulsion. Naval nuclear propulsion isn’t everything, but it does comprise a commanding advantage. U.S. CVNs are swifter, boast virtually unlimited cruising range, and steam for years without refueling. They do need to take on jet fuel every few days to conduct regular flight operations; their aircraft aren’t nuclear-powered. Still, reducing the logistical burden translates into greater tactical and operational flexibility for commanders.

三、无核动力

海军核动力不是一切，但是它确实拥有决定性优势。美国的CVN更快，拥有几乎无限的巡航半径，无需加油的多年蒸汽。为了执行日常的飞行操作，他们必须每隔几天就补充一次航空燃油。他们的航母没有核动力。。不过，减少后勤负担能够为指挥官带来更大的战术空间和操作灵活性。

2. Escorts and combat logistics. Carriers steam in company with a coterie of escorts and support vessels. The PLA Navy, however, has not yet filled out the remainder of a carrier task force. The navy’s newest guided-missile destroyers appear adequate for air-defense purposes, but anti-submarine warfare remains a puzzling shortfall—particularly since China’s likely adversaries, the United States and Japan, excel at undersea operations. Combat logistics—oilers, ammunition ships, refrigerated stores ships—remains another glaring shortcoming for the PLA Navy. These unglamorous but crucial vessels can replenish men-of-war, allowing them to stay at sea for long intervals without returning to port. Chinese task forces will remain vulnerable and tethered to shore logistical support until shipbuilders plug these gaps in the inventory.

二、护卫队和后勤作战

航母蒸汽主体需要与一群护卫舰和补给舰同时随行。但是解放军海军，还没有将航母作战平台的剩余空白部分填补。海军的最新两艘导弹驱逐舰的出现适合防空目的，但是反潜战仍是一个令人费解的缺口——尤其是中国最有可能的敌人，美国和日本，擅长海底作战。后勤作战——加油工、弹药船舶、冷藏存储船只——仍然是解放军海军的另一个明显缺点。这些乏味但至关重要的船舶可以为战斗中的人提供补给，允许他们在海上长时间隔离而不必回到港口。在造船商将这些空白补全之前，中国的作战部队将依靠脆弱的拴在海岸边的后勤支持。

1. Human excellence. As Theodore Roosevelt observed in his history of The Naval War of 1812, it takes the finest ships and the finest crews to make up a fleet capable of vying for maritime command. The finest weapon is no better than its wielder. Until the Liaoning ship’s company and air wing start operating regularly at sea, they are unlikely to develop the skills, habits, and esprit de corps necessary to contend with rivals like the U.S. Navy or Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. This may not matter that much for the foreseeable future, since the PLA Navy fleet will probably operate mainly within reach of extended-range shore fire support. But once the navy ventures beyond that protective aegis—and should competitors find ways to blunt the PLA’s anti-access weaponry—the human factor promises to become critical indeed.

一、人员素质

正如西奥多·罗斯福（前美国总统）在1812年的海军战争他的历史观察中得到结论，组成一个能够争夺海上制霸权的舰队需要最好的船只和最好的船员。最好的武器并不比其持用者更有用。在辽宁号与其空军部队经常在海上操练行军之前，面对其竞争对手美国海军和日本海上自卫队，他们不太可能发展与之匹敌的技能、习惯和团队精神。在可预见的未来这可能并不重要，因为中国人民解放军海军舰队可能会在其扩展性海岸火力支持范围内作战。但是一旦海军在此防护盾之外冒险作战——并且其竞争对手找到使解放军反介入武器迟钝的方法——人员因素事实上将成为关键保证。

【注：本文刊登于日本《外交官》杂志网站，作者James R.Holmes现任美国乔治亚大学国际贸易和安全中心高级研究员,先后任职于美国海军部、美国国务院、美国外交政策委员会、能源安全集团和乔治亚大学,即将调任海军战争学院教授.近年来发表了大量关于中国海权发展的有见地的论文,在美国有一定的影响力。】

评论翻译:
原创翻译：龙腾网

翻译：萝卜 转载请注明出处


评论:

vicOctober 2, 2012 at 2:00 pm
A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.
Congratulations to the PLA, you have come a long way from the days of the peasant army which responded to the call of a desperate people. Today you are now charged with the duty to build a navy to prevent marauding modern-day Viking ships from threatening the well-being of the Chinese people.  Again, congratulatiojns.

千里之行，始于足下。恭喜中国人民解放军，你花费了很长的一段时间脱离了回应绝望人民的农民军队。今天你被赋予了建立一支阻止现代海盗威胁中国人民美好生活的强大海军的历史职责，再一次，恭喜。

Reply
BradOctober 2, 2012 at 11:39 pm
hahaha, did they pay you to write that?  Did you read the article even?

哈哈哈，他们给你钱写这些了吗？你有读这篇文章吗？

Reply
OldertimerOctober 3, 2012 at 6:00 pm
"A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step."Well said. It could'nt be more true!
The Chinese said Liaoning; is a training platform, not a battlestation. Speculation is a fair game people play. There is no need to pay too much attenion to it.

“千里之行始于足下”，说得好！没有比这更真实的了！

中国说辽宁号是一个训练平台，并非作战部队。猜测是人们玩的公平游戏，没有必要在此花费太多注意力。

Reply


MattOctober 2, 2012 at 2:00 pm
The same people that are currently running around claiming they own the Western Pacific will be the ones giving directions to the Captain of the carrier. I wouldn't be surprised to see them use the carrier is some brash, idiotic way before they even learn how to use it. Most likely this will lead to a whole new reef called Great Liaoning Reef. China will then try to claim a 400 mile exclusion zone around it but no one will pay any attention.

类似的人正在四处声称他们拥有西太平洋，是能够指点江山的航空母舰舰长。在他们学习如何运用航母之前，我并不惊讶看到他们傲慢白痴的行为。很可能这将成为一个叫做大辽宁号礁的新礁石。中国将尝试在其周围建造一个400英里隔离区,但没有人会关注它。

Reply
Insulting CommentatorsOctober 3, 2012 at 5:18 am
Who paid you to be so insulting?  No wonder Americans – if you are not a pseudo-American ie – are hated in so many parts of the world.  Freedom of speech is for you nutcase right wing extremists neocon to insult othe nationalities?  I like the idea of you losing your freedom and liberty in the U.S. itself, it by bit under your glorious leader Obummner.

是谁允许你这样说出侮辱性的话？难怪美国人——如果你不是一个伪美国ie——如此讨厌这个世界上许多地方。言论自由是给你疯子右翼极端分子的新保守主义的权利去侮辱其他民族?我喜欢看到你失去自由以及美国自由本身，这一点符合你的光荣领袖奥巴马。

Reply
OldertimerOctober 3, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Talking about attempt to claim large area of the Pacific ocean as it's own by arbitrary means, you should look up "Okinotorishima rock" to see who are the greedy people.

谈论试图声称太平洋大面积区域能够任意来往，你应该去搜搜“冲鸟礁”，看看谁是贪婪的人。

Reply


BankotsuOctober 2, 2012 at 3:23 pm
It's just one untested aircraft carrier, there's no need to make a big fuss about it. Other countries are also building carriers.
Russian aircraft carrier 'Gorshkov' to be delivered to India in 2013
If China builds another 10 carriers and send them to Gulf of Mexico, maybe we can have something to say.
I think countries like Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa, Iran, Indonesia all should start building aircraft carriers.

这只是一个未经测试的航空母舰,没有必要小题大做。其他国家也在建立自己的航母。
俄罗斯航空母舰“戈尔什科夫”在2013年被运送到印度（后面是该新闻链接）
如果中国另外建造十艘航母并在墨西哥湾游曳，或许我们才可以说点什么。我认为国家如墨西哥、巴西、委内瑞拉、南非、伊朗、印尼都应该开始建造航空母舰。

ErrolOctober 2, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Actually, Brazil already has a carrier. Or was it two? Anyways, Brazil has one, and the others could use a carrier but is it feasible? Articles have been written that the twilight of the carrier ships will be approaching in a matter of decades. Case in point is the ASBM that Chinese bloggers love to tout so much. People often forget that a sword, or in this case a missile, can cut both ways. Both sides can develop weapons that can take out a carrier. Would a responsible government risk spending money on something that may end up as a reef for fish?

事实上，巴西已经有一艘航母了，或者曾经是两艘？不管怎样，巴西有一艘，其他国家可以拥有航母但不知可行否？有文章已经说了航母服役时间有数十年。典型的例子就是反舰弹道导弹，中国的博客写手们喜欢吹捧的太多。人们通常会忘记，一把剑或者说在这种情况下一个导弹，有利有弊。两方面都会促使在航母平台上开发出武器，一个负责任的政府会在最终成为钓鱼的礁石（比喻辽宁号）上花费大量金钱吗？



Reply
harryOctober 3, 2012 at 3:43 am
yes the entire world should have an nuclear arms and aircraft carrier arms race, who ever has more money wins, im putting my bet on the Chinese.

是的，整个世界需要一场核武器和航母的军备竞赛，谁的钱多谁就会赢，我把我的赌注押在中国。

Reply
Gutter OilOctober 4, 2012 at 12:06 am
@harry:
dude, no amount of money can put these chinese wannabes nowhere near a decent aircraft carrier. unless of course they will 'magically' obtain a 'blue print' from the russians or americans…
if i were you dude, take your money and run.  the nearest thing these chinese-wannabes can come up with is a tofu-like aircraft carrier which which only possible mission is large scale and ruthless slaughter of its own population.

楼上的老兄，再多的钱也不能押在中国这样远远没有一个像样的航空母舰的国家身上。当然除非他们能够“神奇”地从俄罗斯人或者美国人那里得到“蓝图”。如果我是你老兄，就拿钱走人。最近中国想要做出的东西是豆腐似的航母，而它的唯一可能的使命是大型和残酷的屠杀自己的人民。

Reply
JohnXOctober 4, 2012 at 1:35 am
I'll take that bet.
Now lets work out the cost of a friendly bet. I reckon $100 will do (small enough to not hurt, large enough to have more than one numeral).
Second is the time period. Lets say 20 years as China has already grown so much in the last ten that double that is realistic.
So we have a friendly wager?

我会打这个赌，现在我们来一个友好的赌注，我押100美元（这是个足够小不至于有太大损失的数目）现在是时间问题，在过去20年里中国已经取得了如此大的成就，在最近十年里中国成倍高速发展是可能的。所以我们来赌一把吧？


Reply
FrankOctober 2, 2012 at 3:28 pm
No air wing and  Non-nuclear propulsion should not be the concern.

没有空军部队和无核动力应该不是关注点。

Reply
ACTOctober 2, 2012 at 9:26 pm
@frank
agreed; the concern should not be its lack of performance, but how it will be used, as well as what it represents. Above all, a carrier is the modern day equivalent of a battleship, the surest sign of a nation that it wishes to have a blue-water navy with global reach, and an offensive one at that; this has implications that reach far beyond the East and South seas.

同意。中国航母的关注点不应该是其性能的缺乏，而是怎样使用它，即它的象征意义。首先，一个航母载体是一个现代化的作战舰平台，它是一个国家想拥有全球性覆盖蓝色海军的重要标志，这表明它的意义远远超出南海和东海海域。


Reply
oaOctober 2, 2012 at 3:30 pm
For China, first step better than no step..Another 10 yrs.you' will see them differently..
China now  is like US 1950s..but they will get there, given the size of China

对中国来说，第一步好过没有踏出一步。再给另外十年，你将会看到他们的改变。
中国现在就像美国的20世纪50年代，考虑到中国的规模潜力，他们会取得成功的。

Reply
ErrolOctober 2, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Er… try an earlier decade. The US had more than one carrier in the 50's.

呃，试试更早的年代。美国在50年代时已经不止一艘航母了。

Reply
David WolfOctober 4, 2012 at 8:46 am
The US Navy has a century of operational experience with aircraft, 90 years of experience operating aircraft carriers, and have more collective experience operating aircraft carriers in battle than every other naval force on the earth combined. I have a great deal of respect for the dedicated men and women of the PLAN, but they will need a bit more than 10 years to assemble a combat-effective carrier battle group and a chain of command that understands how to employ it to a degree where the USN needs to be shaking in its sea-boots.

美国海军已经有了一个世纪的飞机作战经验，九十年的航母作业经验。与其他所有地球上的海军力量相结合比，美国海军在战斗中有更多的集体操作航母的经验。我对解放军海军的男军人和女军人的贡献报以最大的尊敬，但是他们需要十几年的时间才能形成一个有有效战斗的航空母舰战斗群和有效的指挥链以及学会怎样使美国海军在他们的海靴里颤抖的时候把握一个度。（译注：指解放军海军拥有令美国海军害怕的实力尚需时日）

Reply


rmstx@att.netOctober 2, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Travis911 is aghast! How could this be? China carrier not strong?

Travis911是惊人的！这怎么可能呢？中国航母不强？
【译注:Travis911是什么，求高人解惑】


applesauceOctober 2, 2012 at 6:28 pm
i didnt think we needed have an article on this, everyone, even the most fevorant chinese fanboys admit that the carrier(even with its airwing) is no match for an american CVN. but non the less this is a significant first step that could in the decades down the line force the US to "split" the pacific with another power

我认为这文章没有写的必要，每个人，甚至是中国最狂热的崇拜者也得承认该航母（即使加上他的空军部队）远远不及美国CVN。但至少这是未来几十年内“迫使”美国重新划分太平洋势力的重要一步。

Reply
Leonard R.October 3, 2012 at 3:31 am
@applesauce: "…this is a significant first step that could in the decades down the line force the US to "split" the pacific with another power."
—–
By that, do you mean the US will be forced to surrender Guam to Beijing? Is that what Beijing plans to do?

楼上，“迫使”美国重新划分太平洋势力的重要一步？你的意思是，北京将利用关岛使美国被迫投降吗？这是北京计划要做的？

Reply
applesauceOctober 4, 2012 at 3:51 am
no, the us will probably have its bases still. what i mean is that its operating area that is relativly free from threats will reduce from nearly all of the pacific to only the side closer to its own shores as the chinese build up more and more blue water assets, operating out to the first island chains then second island chains then furthur out to as far as hawaii

不，美国可能仍然有其他基地。我的意思是美国的太平洋可操作势力范围将随着中国建立越来越多的海军逐步减小，从覆盖几乎所有的太平洋海岸线退至第一岛链然后第二岛链最后直至夏威夷。

Reply


kleeOctober 3, 2012 at 12:25 am
Even this author is trying to compare China's only one carrier with the US's 11+ carriers. Everybody knows and the Chinese authority admitts that this carrier is for training. They will build another 5 to 6 in the later decade(s). But, this is a very important baby step to China to master the operation of a carrier fleet.  But, some short-sighted analysts still believe this is a waste of time & money. They are totally missed the big factor.
You can think about the space exploration which China started in 1990's. You could say that US had already landed astronauts on moon more than 30 years ago, why china bothered to waste money & time exploring space, building new rockets, space station, and sending astronauts to earth orbits. But, after 15 some years later, look at China's achievement in space today, although you can say China still lags behind the US. But, again you guys missed another major point which is more important than sending Chinese astronauts to the moon. That is nowadays, China has independent GPS system, call Beidou. Now China's ICBMs do not need to use US's GPS, but Beidou only. It is wrong & dangerous to use your competitor's navigation system in your military hardware. Do you get the point, guys??

即使这文章作者试图将中国唯一的航母与美国十一个以上的航母相对比，每个人都知道中国当局承认这艘航母只用于训练。在接下来的十年内或者数十年里他们将建造另外的五至六艘航母。这是中国向使用航母迈出的重要第一步。然而一些短视的分析家仍让认为这是浪费金钱和时间的项目，他们完全搞错了重点。

我们可以想想中国自20世纪90年代起步的航天事业。你可以说美国已经能够在30多年前在月球上降落宇航员，为什么中国还要不厌其烦地花费金钱和时间进行太空探索、建造新的火箭、新的空间站并将宇航员送至太空。然而在十五年之后，看看中国今天的太空探索成就，尽管你可以说中国仍然远远落后美国，但是伙计们，你们又搞错了重点，中国最主要的目的不是将宇航员送上月球。就现在，中国已经独立发展出了全球定位系统，叫做北斗。现在中国的洲际弹道导弹不再需要美国的GPS，而是北斗。在军事武器中使用你竞争对手的导航系统是非常愚蠢和危险的，抓住重点了吗，伙计们？

Reply
ZeusOctober 3, 2012 at 5:12 pm
It's not possible for the Chinese to master anything. History has proven: Chinese people do not have creative abilities.

中国完全自主掌握任何东西是不可能的，历史已经证明：中国人民不具有创造性。

Reply
BankotsuOctober 4, 2012 at 4:35 am
Your history on Chinese innovation is lacking.


你太不了解中国发明史了。（后附中国发明的维基百科链接）

Reply


Jonah CharsleyOctober 3, 2012 at 11:34 am
Fully concur with the author. Too many people here get carried away. The Chinese have right to be proud of what they have achieved in the past thirty years. I think we should pay more attention at where we are going ourselves rather than fapping about other people.

完全同意作者，这里太多的人得意忘形了。中国人完全有权利为他们在过去三十年内取得的成就自豪。我认为我们应该多多关注自己而不是打压别人。

Reply
gregOctober 4, 2012 at 2:57 am
I don't think any Chinese gets carried away by Liaoning. It's instead all these western (particularly American) analysts and pundits keep blowing these kind of non-sense ("China is wasting money," "It's no match to US CVG." blah blah).
People with no brain or with some preconceived notions just make up or assume things; like this one saying people (Chinese) got carried away by Lioaning or the another commenter on this page saying China has been touting about A2/AD capaibilites. China or Chinese have been very quiet about any A2/AD abiliteis, it's the Americans that keep talking about these things.
Do these give us some insight into what's really in their minds?

我不认为中国人因为辽宁号得意忘形，反倒是西方（尤其是美国）分析师和专家一直持有这些调调（中国浪费金钱啦，比不上美国的CVN啦Balala）。没有大脑的人或者先入为主的人总是爱脑补假设一些事情。就像这里说中国人因为辽宁号得意忘形或者在另一篇报道里评论中国A2/AD 武器一样，永远都是美国人在讨论这些事情（而不是中国人）。
我们的观点他们（中国人）真的介意？

Reply


dengue61October 4, 2012 at 5:49 pm
The Chinese should just concentrate on catching up economically with the United States. The Soviet Union went bankrupt because of excessive defense spending. Much of its military hardware are for sale if not rotting. The United States is now cutting its defense budget because of the recession. Former Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen said that the biggest security threat to the United States is its national debt.

中国应该在经济上集中精力赶上美国，前苏联因为过度的国防开支解体。现在他的大部分武器正在出售，如果它们没有腐烂的话。现在美国因为经济衰退削减国防开支。前联合参谋长迈克马伦说，威胁美国安全的最大威胁是美国国债。

上一周，中国人民解放军海军第一艘航空母舰的新任舰长张铮在一个值得注意的坦率采访中承认：解放军海军若想将航母平台训练成军还需要很长一段路要走。这点我同意。
译文来源:

原创翻译：龙腾网  翻译：萝卜 转载请注明出处


By James R. Holmes  October 2, 2012


Last week Captain Zhang Zheng, the photogenic commanding officer of the PLA Navy’s first aircraft carrier, gave a remarkably frank interview in which he confessed that the PLA Navy has a long way to go before it operates carrier task forces proficiently. I agree.

上一周，中国人民解放军海军第一艘航空母舰的新任舰长张铮在一个值得注意的坦率采访中承认：解放军海军若想将航母平台训练成军还需要很长一段路要走。这点我同意。

I intend no slight; it takes time and trial-and-error to master an entirely new platform. But the hype that greeted the ship’s commissioning was decidedly premature. Now christened Liaoning, China’s flattop does not begin to approach the size or capability of U.S. Navy nuclear-powered carriers. Nor can its crew match the skill and experience of U.S. CVN crews. Herewith, my list of the Top 5 reasons why the Liaoning is outclassed by its American counterparts:

我的意愿并不重要。掌握一个全新的平台需要时间和试错，然而大肆炒作该航母交接入役绝对为时过早。已经命名为辽宁号的中国航母与美国海军核动力航母的规格和性能相去甚远，其船员的经验与技能也不能与美国CVN（CVN：美国海军核动力航空母舰）船员相比较。因此，我列出了辽宁号与美国航母相比不是同一级别的五大理由。

5. No air wing. At first blush this seems like the main hurdle to an effective carrier task force. The air wing constitutes a carrier’s “main battery,” or offensive punch, not to mention a major element of the fleet’s defense against aerial, surface, or subsurface attack. But the PLA Navy now possesses a working flattop and, apparently, combat aircraft capable of operating from its flight deck. The rest is a matter of doctrinal development and sheer practice for aircrews. These are soluble problems given ample time, resolve, and patience. Indeed, training will be the Liaoning’s chief function for the foreseeable future.

五、没有空军部队

乍一看，这似乎是航母有效载体成军的主要障碍。空军部队是航母的“舰上主炮塔”，或者说是攻击力量，更不用说一个舰队防御的主要元素来于空中、水面和水下攻击。然而解放军海军现在拥有一个可以工作的航母平台，显然，作战飞机能够从其飞行甲板起飞，剩下的就是为空勤人员提供学说教条发展和纯粹实践。这些都是需要足够的时间、决心和耐心的可溶性问题。事实上，在可预见的未来，训练仍是辽宁号的首要功能。

4. Size. The Liaoning displaces about two-thirds the tonnage of an American CVN. Its air wing is commensurately smaller. Built by the Soviet Union, it was designed to accommodate 28 fighter/attack aircraft, a fraction of the U.S. complement. A one-on-one shootout between the Liaoning and a U.S. flattop, then, would be no contest.

四、规格

辽宁号的排水量相当于美国CVN三分之二的排水量。它的空军部队在同等情况下却小得多。由前苏联建造，它的设计可容纳28架战斗机，只相当于美国补给舰载机的一部分。在辽宁号和美国航母的一对一的对比比赛中，毫无悬念。

3. Non-nuclear propulsion. Naval nuclear propulsion isn’t everything, but it does comprise a commanding advantage. U.S. CVNs are swifter, boast virtually unlimited cruising range, and steam for years without refueling. They do need to take on jet fuel every few days to conduct regular flight operations; their aircraft aren’t nuclear-powered. Still, reducing the logistical burden translates into greater tactical and operational flexibility for commanders.

三、无核动力

海军核动力不是一切，但是它确实拥有决定性优势。美国的CVN更快，拥有几乎无限的巡航半径，无需加油的多年蒸汽。为了执行日常的飞行操作，他们必须每隔几天就补充一次航空燃油。他们的航母没有核动力。。不过，减少后勤负担能够为指挥官带来更大的战术空间和操作灵活性。

2. Escorts and combat logistics. Carriers steam in company with a coterie of escorts and support vessels. The PLA Navy, however, has not yet filled out the remainder of a carrier task force. The navy’s newest guided-missile destroyers appear adequate for air-defense purposes, but anti-submarine warfare remains a puzzling shortfall—particularly since China’s likely adversaries, the United States and Japan, excel at undersea operations. Combat logistics—oilers, ammunition ships, refrigerated stores ships—remains another glaring shortcoming for the PLA Navy. These unglamorous but crucial vessels can replenish men-of-war, allowing them to stay at sea for long intervals without returning to port. Chinese task forces will remain vulnerable and tethered to shore logistical support until shipbuilders plug these gaps in the inventory.

二、护卫队和后勤作战

航母蒸汽主体需要与一群护卫舰和补给舰同时随行。但是解放军海军，还没有将航母作战平台的剩余空白部分填补。海军的最新两艘导弹驱逐舰的出现适合防空目的，但是反潜战仍是一个令人费解的缺口——尤其是中国最有可能的敌人，美国和日本，擅长海底作战。后勤作战——加油工、弹药船舶、冷藏存储船只——仍然是解放军海军的另一个明显缺点。这些乏味但至关重要的船舶可以为战斗中的人提供补给，允许他们在海上长时间隔离而不必回到港口。在造船商将这些空白补全之前，中国的作战部队将依靠脆弱的拴在海岸边的后勤支持。

1. Human excellence. As Theodore Roosevelt observed in his history of The Naval War of 1812, it takes the finest ships and the finest crews to make up a fleet capable of vying for maritime command. The finest weapon is no better than its wielder. Until the Liaoning ship’s company and air wing start operating regularly at sea, they are unlikely to develop the skills, habits, and esprit de corps necessary to contend with rivals like the U.S. Navy or Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. This may not matter that much for the foreseeable future, since the PLA Navy fleet will probably operate mainly within reach of extended-range shore fire support. But once the navy ventures beyond that protective aegis—and should competitors find ways to blunt the PLA’s anti-access weaponry—the human factor promises to become critical indeed.

一、人员素质

正如西奥多·罗斯福（前美国总统）在1812年的海军战争他的历史观察中得到结论，组成一个能够争夺海上制霸权的舰队需要最好的船只和最好的船员。最好的武器并不比其持用者更有用。在辽宁号与其空军部队经常在海上操练行军之前，面对其竞争对手美国海军和日本海上自卫队，他们不太可能发展与之匹敌的技能、习惯和团队精神。在可预见的未来这可能并不重要，因为中国人民解放军海军舰队可能会在其扩展性海岸火力支持范围内作战。但是一旦海军在此防护盾之外冒险作战——并且其竞争对手找到使解放军反介入武器迟钝的方法——人员因素事实上将成为关键保证。

【注：本文刊登于日本《外交官》杂志网站，作者James R.Holmes现任美国乔治亚大学国际贸易和安全中心高级研究员,先后任职于美国海军部、美国国务院、美国外交政策委员会、能源安全集团和乔治亚大学,即将调任海军战争学院教授.近年来发表了大量关于中国海权发展的有见地的论文,在美国有一定的影响力。】

评论翻译:
原创翻译：龙腾网

翻译：萝卜 转载请注明出处


评论:

vicOctober 2, 2012 at 2:00 pm
A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.
Congratulations to the PLA, you have come a long way from the days of the peasant army which responded to the call of a desperate people. Today you are now charged with the duty to build a navy to prevent marauding modern-day Viking ships from threatening the well-being of the Chinese people.  Again, congratulatiojns.

千里之行，始于足下。恭喜中国人民解放军，你花费了很长的一段时间脱离了回应绝望人民的农民军队。今天你被赋予了建立一支阻止现代海盗威胁中国人民美好生活的强大海军的历史职责，再一次，恭喜。

Reply
BradOctober 2, 2012 at 11:39 pm
hahaha, did they pay you to write that?  Did you read the article even?

哈哈哈，他们给你钱写这些了吗？你有读这篇文章吗？

Reply
OldertimerOctober 3, 2012 at 6:00 pm
"A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step."Well said. It could'nt be more true!
The Chinese said Liaoning; is a training platform, not a battlestation. Speculation is a fair game people play. There is no need to pay too much attenion to it.

“千里之行始于足下”，说得好！没有比这更真实的了！

中国说辽宁号是一个训练平台，并非作战部队。猜测是人们玩的公平游戏，没有必要在此花费太多注意力。

Reply


MattOctober 2, 2012 at 2:00 pm
The same people that are currently running around claiming they own the Western Pacific will be the ones giving directions to the Captain of the carrier. I wouldn't be surprised to see them use the carrier is some brash, idiotic way before they even learn how to use it. Most likely this will lead to a whole new reef called Great Liaoning Reef. China will then try to claim a 400 mile exclusion zone around it but no one will pay any attention.

类似的人正在四处声称他们拥有西太平洋，是能够指点江山的航空母舰舰长。在他们学习如何运用航母之前，我并不惊讶看到他们傲慢白痴的行为。很可能这将成为一个叫做大辽宁号礁的新礁石。中国将尝试在其周围建造一个400英里隔离区,但没有人会关注它。

Reply
Insulting CommentatorsOctober 3, 2012 at 5:18 am
Who paid you to be so insulting?  No wonder Americans – if you are not a pseudo-American ie – are hated in so many parts of the world.  Freedom of speech is for you nutcase right wing extremists neocon to insult othe nationalities?  I like the idea of you losing your freedom and liberty in the U.S. itself, it by bit under your glorious leader Obummner.

是谁允许你这样说出侮辱性的话？难怪美国人——如果你不是一个伪美国ie——如此讨厌这个世界上许多地方。言论自由是给你疯子右翼极端分子的新保守主义的权利去侮辱其他民族?我喜欢看到你失去自由以及美国自由本身，这一点符合你的光荣领袖奥巴马。

Reply
OldertimerOctober 3, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Talking about attempt to claim large area of the Pacific ocean as it's own by arbitrary means, you should look up "Okinotorishima rock" to see who are the greedy people.

谈论试图声称太平洋大面积区域能够任意来往，你应该去搜搜“冲鸟礁”，看看谁是贪婪的人。

Reply


BankotsuOctober 2, 2012 at 3:23 pm
It's just one untested aircraft carrier, there's no need to make a big fuss about it. Other countries are also building carriers.
Russian aircraft carrier 'Gorshkov' to be delivered to India in 2013
If China builds another 10 carriers and send them to Gulf of Mexico, maybe we can have something to say.
I think countries like Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa, Iran, Indonesia all should start building aircraft carriers.

这只是一个未经测试的航空母舰,没有必要小题大做。其他国家也在建立自己的航母。
俄罗斯航空母舰“戈尔什科夫”在2013年被运送到印度（后面是该新闻链接）
如果中国另外建造十艘航母并在墨西哥湾游曳，或许我们才可以说点什么。我认为国家如墨西哥、巴西、委内瑞拉、南非、伊朗、印尼都应该开始建造航空母舰。

ErrolOctober 2, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Actually, Brazil already has a carrier. Or was it two? Anyways, Brazil has one, and the others could use a carrier but is it feasible? Articles have been written that the twilight of the carrier ships will be approaching in a matter of decades. Case in point is the ASBM that Chinese bloggers love to tout so much. People often forget that a sword, or in this case a missile, can cut both ways. Both sides can develop weapons that can take out a carrier. Would a responsible government risk spending money on something that may end up as a reef for fish?

事实上，巴西已经有一艘航母了，或者曾经是两艘？不管怎样，巴西有一艘，其他国家可以拥有航母但不知可行否？有文章已经说了航母服役时间有数十年。典型的例子就是反舰弹道导弹，中国的博客写手们喜欢吹捧的太多。人们通常会忘记，一把剑或者说在这种情况下一个导弹，有利有弊。两方面都会促使在航母平台上开发出武器，一个负责任的政府会在最终成为钓鱼的礁石（比喻辽宁号）上花费大量金钱吗？



Reply
harryOctober 3, 2012 at 3:43 am
yes the entire world should have an nuclear arms and aircraft carrier arms race, who ever has more money wins, im putting my bet on the Chinese.

是的，整个世界需要一场核武器和航母的军备竞赛，谁的钱多谁就会赢，我把我的赌注押在中国。

Reply
Gutter OilOctober 4, 2012 at 12:06 am
@harry:
dude, no amount of money can put these chinese wannabes nowhere near a decent aircraft carrier. unless of course they will 'magically' obtain a 'blue print' from the russians or americans…
if i were you dude, take your money and run.  the nearest thing these chinese-wannabes can come up with is a tofu-like aircraft carrier which which only possible mission is large scale and ruthless slaughter of its own population.

楼上的老兄，再多的钱也不能押在中国这样远远没有一个像样的航空母舰的国家身上。当然除非他们能够“神奇”地从俄罗斯人或者美国人那里得到“蓝图”。如果我是你老兄，就拿钱走人。最近中国想要做出的东西是豆腐似的航母，而它的唯一可能的使命是大型和残酷的屠杀自己的人民。

Reply
JohnXOctober 4, 2012 at 1:35 am
I'll take that bet.
Now lets work out the cost of a friendly bet. I reckon $100 will do (small enough to not hurt, large enough to have more than one numeral).
Second is the time period. Lets say 20 years as China has already grown so much in the last ten that double that is realistic.
So we have a friendly wager?

我会打这个赌，现在我们来一个友好的赌注，我押100美元（这是个足够小不至于有太大损失的数目）现在是时间问题，在过去20年里中国已经取得了如此大的成就，在最近十年里中国成倍高速发展是可能的。所以我们来赌一把吧？


Reply
FrankOctober 2, 2012 at 3:28 pm
No air wing and  Non-nuclear propulsion should not be the concern.

没有空军部队和无核动力应该不是关注点。

Reply
ACTOctober 2, 2012 at 9:26 pm
@frank
agreed; the concern should not be its lack of performance, but how it will be used, as well as what it represents. Above all, a carrier is the modern day equivalent of a battleship, the surest sign of a nation that it wishes to have a blue-water navy with global reach, and an offensive one at that; this has implications that reach far beyond the East and South seas.

同意。中国航母的关注点不应该是其性能的缺乏，而是怎样使用它，即它的象征意义。首先，一个航母载体是一个现代化的作战舰平台，它是一个国家想拥有全球性覆盖蓝色海军的重要标志，这表明它的意义远远超出南海和东海海域。


Reply
oaOctober 2, 2012 at 3:30 pm
For China, first step better than no step..Another 10 yrs.you' will see them differently..
China now  is like US 1950s..but they will get there, given the size of China

对中国来说，第一步好过没有踏出一步。再给另外十年，你将会看到他们的改变。
中国现在就像美国的20世纪50年代，考虑到中国的规模潜力，他们会取得成功的。

Reply
ErrolOctober 2, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Er… try an earlier decade. The US had more than one carrier in the 50's.

呃，试试更早的年代。美国在50年代时已经不止一艘航母了。

Reply
David WolfOctober 4, 2012 at 8:46 am
The US Navy has a century of operational experience with aircraft, 90 years of experience operating aircraft carriers, and have more collective experience operating aircraft carriers in battle than every other naval force on the earth combined. I have a great deal of respect for the dedicated men and women of the PLAN, but they will need a bit more than 10 years to assemble a combat-effective carrier battle group and a chain of command that understands how to employ it to a degree where the USN needs to be shaking in its sea-boots.

美国海军已经有了一个世纪的飞机作战经验，九十年的航母作业经验。与其他所有地球上的海军力量相结合比，美国海军在战斗中有更多的集体操作航母的经验。我对解放军海军的男军人和女军人的贡献报以最大的尊敬，但是他们需要十几年的时间才能形成一个有有效战斗的航空母舰战斗群和有效的指挥链以及学会怎样使美国海军在他们的海靴里颤抖的时候把握一个度。（译注：指解放军海军拥有令美国海军害怕的实力尚需时日）

Reply


rmstx@att.netOctober 2, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Travis911 is aghast! How could this be? China carrier not strong?

Travis911是惊人的！这怎么可能呢？中国航母不强？
【译注:Travis911是什么，求高人解惑】


applesauceOctober 2, 2012 at 6:28 pm
i didnt think we needed have an article on this, everyone, even the most fevorant chinese fanboys admit that the carrier(even with its airwing) is no match for an american CVN. but non the less this is a significant first step that could in the decades down the line force the US to "split" the pacific with another power

我认为这文章没有写的必要，每个人，甚至是中国最狂热的崇拜者也得承认该航母（即使加上他的空军部队）远远不及美国CVN。但至少这是未来几十年内“迫使”美国重新划分太平洋势力的重要一步。

Reply
Leonard R.October 3, 2012 at 3:31 am
@applesauce: "…this is a significant first step that could in the decades down the line force the US to "split" the pacific with another power."
—–
By that, do you mean the US will be forced to surrender Guam to Beijing? Is that what Beijing plans to do?

楼上，“迫使”美国重新划分太平洋势力的重要一步？你的意思是，北京将利用关岛使美国被迫投降吗？这是北京计划要做的？

Reply
applesauceOctober 4, 2012 at 3:51 am
no, the us will probably have its bases still. what i mean is that its operating area that is relativly free from threats will reduce from nearly all of the pacific to only the side closer to its own shores as the chinese build up more and more blue water assets, operating out to the first island chains then second island chains then furthur out to as far as hawaii

不，美国可能仍然有其他基地。我的意思是美国的太平洋可操作势力范围将随着中国建立越来越多的海军逐步减小，从覆盖几乎所有的太平洋海岸线退至第一岛链然后第二岛链最后直至夏威夷。

Reply


kleeOctober 3, 2012 at 12:25 am
Even this author is trying to compare China's only one carrier with the US's 11+ carriers. Everybody knows and the Chinese authority admitts that this carrier is for training. They will build another 5 to 6 in the later decade(s). But, this is a very important baby step to China to master the operation of a carrier fleet.  But, some short-sighted analysts still believe this is a waste of time & money. They are totally missed the big factor.
You can think about the space exploration which China started in 1990's. You could say that US had already landed astronauts on moon more than 30 years ago, why china bothered to waste money & time exploring space, building new rockets, space station, and sending astronauts to earth orbits. But, after 15 some years later, look at China's achievement in space today, although you can say China still lags behind the US. But, again you guys missed another major point which is more important than sending Chinese astronauts to the moon. That is nowadays, China has independent GPS system, call Beidou. Now China's ICBMs do not need to use US's GPS, but Beidou only. It is wrong & dangerous to use your competitor's navigation system in your military hardware. Do you get the point, guys??

即使这文章作者试图将中国唯一的航母与美国十一个以上的航母相对比，每个人都知道中国当局承认这艘航母只用于训练。在接下来的十年内或者数十年里他们将建造另外的五至六艘航母。这是中国向使用航母迈出的重要第一步。然而一些短视的分析家仍让认为这是浪费金钱和时间的项目，他们完全搞错了重点。

我们可以想想中国自20世纪90年代起步的航天事业。你可以说美国已经能够在30多年前在月球上降落宇航员，为什么中国还要不厌其烦地花费金钱和时间进行太空探索、建造新的火箭、新的空间站并将宇航员送至太空。然而在十五年之后，看看中国今天的太空探索成就，尽管你可以说中国仍然远远落后美国，但是伙计们，你们又搞错了重点，中国最主要的目的不是将宇航员送上月球。就现在，中国已经独立发展出了全球定位系统，叫做北斗。现在中国的洲际弹道导弹不再需要美国的GPS，而是北斗。在军事武器中使用你竞争对手的导航系统是非常愚蠢和危险的，抓住重点了吗，伙计们？

Reply
ZeusOctober 3, 2012 at 5:12 pm
It's not possible for the Chinese to master anything. History has proven: Chinese people do not have creative abilities.

中国完全自主掌握任何东西是不可能的，历史已经证明：中国人民不具有创造性。

Reply
BankotsuOctober 4, 2012 at 4:35 am
Your history on Chinese innovation is lacking.


你太不了解中国发明史了。（后附中国发明的维基百科链接）

Reply


Jonah CharsleyOctober 3, 2012 at 11:34 am
Fully concur with the author. Too many people here get carried away. The Chinese have right to be proud of what they have achieved in the past thirty years. I think we should pay more attention at where we are going ourselves rather than fapping about other people.

完全同意作者，这里太多的人得意忘形了。中国人完全有权利为他们在过去三十年内取得的成就自豪。我认为我们应该多多关注自己而不是打压别人。

Reply
gregOctober 4, 2012 at 2:57 am
I don't think any Chinese gets carried away by Liaoning. It's instead all these western (particularly American) analysts and pundits keep blowing these kind of non-sense ("China is wasting money," "It's no match to US CVG." blah blah).
People with no brain or with some preconceived notions just make up or assume things; like this one saying people (Chinese) got carried away by Lioaning or the another commenter on this page saying China has been touting about A2/AD capaibilites. China or Chinese have been very quiet about any A2/AD abiliteis, it's the Americans that keep talking about these things.
Do these give us some insight into what's really in their minds?

我不认为中国人因为辽宁号得意忘形，反倒是西方（尤其是美国）分析师和专家一直持有这些调调（中国浪费金钱啦，比不上美国的CVN啦Balala）。没有大脑的人或者先入为主的人总是爱脑补假设一些事情。就像这里说中国人因为辽宁号得意忘形或者在另一篇报道里评论中国A2/AD 武器一样，永远都是美国人在讨论这些事情（而不是中国人）。
我们的观点他们（中国人）真的介意？

Reply


dengue61October 4, 2012 at 5:49 pm
The Chinese should just concentrate on catching up economically with the United States. The Soviet Union went bankrupt because of excessive defense spending. Much of its military hardware are for sale if not rotting. The United States is now cutting its defense budget because of the recession. Former Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen said that the biggest security threat to the United States is its national debt.

中国应该在经济上集中精力赶上美国，前苏联因为过度的国防开支解体。现在他的大部分武器正在出售，如果它们没有腐烂的话。现在美国因为经济衰退削减国防开支。前联合参谋长迈克马伦说，威胁美国安全的最大威胁是美国国债。