超级军网濒海战斗舰被黑了
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 03:58:16
原文地址:http://strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20130429.aspx#startofcomments龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com
原文标题:LCS Is Hacked龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com
（所有图片为译者网络搜集上传，非原文附图）龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com
自由级“自由”号
独立级“独立”号
April29, 2013: The U.S. Navy is encountering a seemingly endless list of problemswith their new "Littoral Combat Ship" (LCS). Last year it was decidedto put the ship into mass production. But it was recently revealed that lastyear the navy discovered that the computerized combat systems of the LCS werevulnerable to hacking. The navy understandably won’t provide details about thevulnerability or the fixes that have since been implemented. This sort ofvulnerability on U.S. warships has been hinted at for years, but navy officialshave largely been silent on the subject.
2013年4月29日报道：
美国海军新濒海战斗舰的麻烦不断。去年刚决定大批量生产，刚刚就有消息显示，海军去年就发现滨海战斗舰的信息化作战系统非常容易被入侵。海军有足够的理由不具体透露易受攻击的弱点和进行了哪些弥补工作。美国军舰这类问题多年来时有提及，但海军方面一直保持沉默。
Suchvulnerabilities have become more common as warships became more networked(internally and externally) over the last two decades and installed constantInternet connections for work and improving morale. The LCS problems wereencountered when one of the navy “red teams” (sometimes called “tiger teams”)played offence on the LCS electronics and found there was a way in thatprovided opportunities to do damage. The navy has no comment on thevulnerabilities with other ship classes.
随着过去20多年里军舰内外部信息网络的普及，和因工作需要及提高士气而不断增加的互联网接口，这样的薄弱之处也就越来越多。当海军“红队”（有时称“虎队”）“攻击”濒海战斗舰的网络系统时发现存在一些漏洞。海军没有对其他级别的船只的安全性做出评价。
译注：关于“红队”
TheLCS has been unique in many ways, and this has caused the navy all manner ofgrief in the media. The LCS is a new ship type and generating a larger numberof problems than older, more traditional ship designs. The media loves thisbecause problems with weapons grab attention and ad revenue. In response tothis media feeding frenzy, the navy has tried some damage control.
从很多方面来说濒海战斗舰都是独一无二的，媒体因此大肆报道海军的负面消息。濒海战斗舰是一种新型船只，它的问题比之前那些设计更传统的船只多。媒体喜欢炒作这个，因为武器系统的问题能够吸引注意力并产生广告收入。为应对媒体轰炸，海军一直都试图进行损害控制。
Threeyears ago the navy began warning officers and sailors involved with the LCS toavoid providing the media with anything that could be used to make the LCS lookbad. For example, there was an unresolved issue with stability andmaneuverability in the LCS (monohull) 1 design. This is not unusual and Americandestroyer designs have varied considerably in their stability andmaneuverability characteristics. New designs, especially for a new type ofship, are inherently risky. Project managers know that the media is alwayslooking for bad news. That sort of thing can also be leveraged into accusationsthat project managers are trying to deceive Congress and perpetuate a fraud onthe taxpayer. These accusations rarely pan out but they are much desired byeditors as they can get exciting stories going and keep them going for a while.The rather less exciting reality is that the LCS is just another new warshipdesign. The real story is the growing inability of American shipbuilders toconstruct warships competently. That story gets kicked around from time to timebut never seems to gain any traction.
3年前海军就要求和濒海战斗舰相关的官员和水兵不要给媒体提供能够能用于贬损濒海战斗舰的信息。比如，濒海战斗舰1型（单体船）设计上就有稳定性和操控性方面的问题尚待解决。这不是什么稀罕事，美军驱逐舰的设计上就有很多很明显的稳定性和操控性的问题。新设计尤其是新型船的设计是非常困难的，项目管理方知道媒体总在寻找坏消息。这种事情甚至会被宣扬成为项目方对国会和对纳税人的欺骗。虽然这些指控很少能奏效，但编辑们非常喜欢炒作，因为他们可以获得激动人心的爆料并持续很长一段时间。濒海战斗舰是新型军舰这种事情就不那么能吸引眼球了。实际情况是美国建造军舰的能力整体上是在逐步下降，关于这个问题的讨论从没有带来任何改善。
TheLCS has long been a good source of bad news and potentially explosiverevelations. In the last few years the LCS design has been found to havestructural and other flaws. The first LCS, the monohull USS Freedom, hassuffered five major problems since it entered service five years ago. Thelatest one was the software hacking vulnerability. Before that it was a leak ina propeller shaft seal, which caused some minor flooding. Despite this, Freedomwas able to get back to port under its own power. Two years ago cracks in thehull as long as 17 cm (6.5 inches) were discovered and the water-jet propulsionsystem broke down as well. Three years ago one of the gas turbine engines brokedown.
一直以来濒海战斗舰都被认为是坏消息的好题材并有可能爆出猛料。过去几年濒海战斗舰的设计上发现存在结构和其他方面的缺陷。美海军第一艘濒海战斗舰“自由”号单体船自5年前正式服役以来，共发现5个主要问题：最新发现的就是软件系统易受攻击的缺陷；此前曾发现螺旋桨传动轴密封不严，可能导致少量进水，但自由号仍然能够依靠自身动力返回港口；2年前曾发现船体上有17厘米（6.5英寸）大小的裂缝和喷水推进器存在问题；3年前曾有一个燃气涡轮发动机发生故障。
Themost serious problem is in the USS Independence, a radical trimaran design. Itseems that a "dissimilar metals" situation arose when salt water, thealuminum hull, and some other metals got into close proximity with each otherand extensive corrosion resulted. Aluminum hulls tend to corrode more thansteel but the problem became so bad with the USS Independence that, 18 monthsafter entering service, it was sent into dry dock for corrosion repairs anddesign changes to eliminate the problem.
最严重的问题是激进的三体船“独立号”（译注：濒海战斗舰2型舰）。当海水、铝壳和其他不同金属掺杂一起并遇到严重锈蚀情况时，“异种”金属的问题非常突出。虽然铝壳通常比钢的锈蚀严重，但“独立”号的情况特别严重。服役18个月之后它就需要进入干船坞进行锈蚀修复，并需要改进设计来解决这个问题。
Cracks,corrosion, and equipment breakdowns are common in new warship designs,especially designs that are radically different (like the broad trimaran shapeof the USS Independence). Usually, these problems can be fixed, but there'salways the risk that the new design will be seriously flawed, requiringextensive rework and a halt in building more ships of that class. So far, theU.S. Navy has not wavered in the face of potential design and constructionflaws.
在新军舰的设计过程中，裂缝、锈蚀和设备故障是常见问题，尤其是全面创新的设计（就像“独立”号的三体宽船体设计）。通常这些问题最终都会得以解决，但常常会因为非常严重的问题需要额外返工和暂停大规模投产。目前为止美海军并没有因为设计和制造方面的问题而畏缩不前。
Thisis all part of the expected years of uncertainty and experimentation as thisradical new combat ship design seeks to find out what works, to what degree,and what doesn't. There is some nervousness about all this. The U.S. Navy hasnot introduced a radical new design for nearly a century. The last such newdesign was the aircraft carrier, which required two decades of experimentationand a major war to nail down what worked. Even the nuclear submarines of thelate 1950s and early 60s were evolutionary compared to what the LCS is tryingto do.
充斥着不确定性和不停实验的数年时间，可以让这种激进的新军舰的设计弄清哪些是可行的、可以到达什么程度以及哪些是不可取的。美国海军近一个世纪以来都没有进行大胆的全新的军舰设计了，最近的一个新设计是航空母舰，它用了20年时间进行实验并通过一次大战验证了可行性。20世纪50年代末60年代初核潜艇的设计相对濒海战斗舰来说都只能算是改进。
Inthe last seven years two different LCS designs were built and put into service.Problems were encountered and that was expected. The much smaller crew requiredsome changes in how a crew ran a ship and how many sailors and civilians wererequired back on land to support a LCS at sea. It was found that theinterchangeable mission modules take far longer (2-3 days instead of 2-3 hours)to replace. The LCS has still not seen combat and the navy wants the firstviolent encounter to be successful, or at least not disastrous. It is expectedthat there will be surprises, which is about all that can be guaranteed at thispoint.
过去7年时间里有两种设计型号的濒海战斗舰分别投产并正式服役。发现了不少问题，但这本身就是预期的目的。如船员规模更小这点要求在几个方面做出改动：操作船只的方式、哪些船员和非军事人员需要调整部署到岸上来为濒海战斗舰服务。经过测试发现更换任务模块所需时间远比想象的长（2-3天而不是2-3个小时）。濒海战斗舰还没有经历实战，海军希望首战告捷，至少不是灾难性的。希望会有惊喜。
Thenavy surprised everyone three years ago by choosing both designs and requestingthat the fifty or so LCS ships be split between the two very different lookingships. While both ships look quite different (one is a traditional monohullwhile the other is a broader trimaran), they both share many common elements.One of the most important of these is the highly automated design and smallercrew. Both ships have accommodations for only 75 personnel. Normally, a ship ofthis size would have a crew of about 200. The basic LCS crew is 40, with the other35 berths occupied by operators of special equipment.
3年前海军同时选定两种设计方案并分别制造共计50艘左右的新濒海战斗舰让所有人大吃一惊。两种船只外形迥异（一种是传统的单体船，另一种是三体宽船体），但还是有很多共同点。最重要的就是高度自动化和更精简的船员，两种船都只需要75名船员。通常这种大小的船只需要200名左右船员。濒海战斗舰基础船员只有40人，其他35人都是任务人员。
TheLCS crews are also modularized so that specialized teams can be swapped in tooperate specific modules. Thus about 40 percent of the ship is empty, with alarge cargo hold into which the mission package gear is inserted (and thenremoved, along with the package crew, when it is no longer assigned to thatship). Thus the LCS has two crews when underway, the "ship" crew andthe mission package crew. The captain of the ship crew is in charge and theofficer commanding the mission package is simply the officer in charge of the largestequipment system on board. There are a variety of interchangeable modules(e.g., air defense, underwater warfare, special operations, surface attack,etc.), which allow the ships to be quickly reconfigured for various specializedmissions. Crews will also be modularized so that specialized teams can beswapped in to operate specific modules. The design and crew requirements forthese modules is still a work in progress but also shows a need for more peopleor more automation.
濒海战斗舰船员也是模块化的，可以通过更换特定小组来操作特殊任务模块。因此船体40%的部分是空着的，可以随时装备任务模块组件（当不需要时也可以拆卸组件并撤离任务人员）。因此濒海战斗舰活动时有两组人员，“船员”和任务人员。船员指挥官负责指挥，任务指挥官只负责船上的装备系统。有很多种不同的可更换装备模块（如防空、水下作战、特种任务、水面战争等），可让船只快速重配适应不同的任务。船员也可以更换以便不同的小组操作不同的组件。这需要在设计和船员素质方面继续进行改进，同时也需要更多专业人员和高度自动化。
Thetwo different LCS designs are from Lockheed-Martin (monohull) and GeneralDynamics (trimaran). The first LCS, the monohull USS Freedom, completed its seatrials and acceptance inspections four years ago. The ship did very well, withfar fewer (about 90 percent fewer) problems (or "materialdeficiencies") than is usual with the first warship in a class. USSIndependence (LCS-2) was laid down by General Dynamics in late 2005, andcommissioned in January 2010. Corrosion and hull cracks were expected eventuallybut appeared much earlier than anticipated.
两种不同的设计分别来自洛马（单体）和通用动力（三体）。第一艘濒海战斗舰“自由”号单体船4年前完成海试通过验收。结果非常成功，和同级别的军舰首舰相比，问题（“材料”方面）很少（少了大概90%）。2005年底通用开始建造“独立”号（濒海战斗舰2号船）并于2010年1月完成。锈蚀和船体裂缝是预料中会出现的，但是出现的时间比预期早得多。
BothLCS designs were supposed to be for ships displacing 2,500 tons, with a fullload draft of under 3.3 meters (ten feet), permitting access to very shallow"green" and even "brown" coastal and riverine waters wheremost naval operations have taken place in the past generation. Top speed was expectedto be over 80 kilometers with a range of 2,700 kilometers. Basic endurance is21 days and final displacement was closer to 3,000 tons.
濒海战斗舰设计上的主要用途是取代过去2500吨级、满载吃水3.3米深、能到非常浅的“绿水”甚至“黄水”濒海或内河区域传统海战主要发生地活动的船只。最高预期速度将超过80千米/小时，航程2700千米。正常续航时间21天，满载排水量接近3000吨。
LCSis currently armed with a 57mm gun, four 12.7mm machine-guns, two 30mmautocannons, and a 21 cell SeaRam system for aircraft and missile defense. TheRAM (RIM-116 "Rolling Air Frame") missiles replace Phalanxautocannon. SeaRAM has a longer range (7.5 kilometers) than the Phalanx (twokilometers). Last year, the navy decided to equip LCS with a surface launchedversion of the Griffin air-to-surface missile. The Griffin is an alternative tothe Hellfire II, which weighs 48.2 kg (106 pounds) and carries a 9 kg (20pound) warhead and has a range of 8,000 meters. In contrast, the Griffin weighsonly 16 kg (35 pounds), with a 5.9 kg (13 pound) warhead which is larger, inproportion to its size, than the one carried by the larger Hellfire missile.Griffin has pop-out wings, allowing it to glide, and thus has a longer range(15 kilometers) than Hellfire. UAVs can carry more of the smaller missiles,typically two of them in place of one Hellfire. The surface-launched Griffinweighs about twice as much as the air launched version because of the additionof a rocket to get it into the air, after which it can glide to the target. AnLCS can also carry two MH-60 helicopters and an MQ-8 helicopter UAV (that canbe armed with Griffin).
濒海战斗舰普遍装备1门57毫米舰炮、4门12.7毫米机枪、2门30毫米机炮和1套21管“海拉姆”防空反导系统。拉姆（RIM-116“滚体导弹”）系统将取代密集阵机炮系统。海拉姆比密集阵射程更远（7.5公里VS 2公里）。去年海军决定在濒海战斗舰上配备格里芬空对地导弹的舰上发射版。格里芬和全重48.2公斤、弹头重9公斤、射程8000米的地狱火II都是考虑对象，但格里芬全重仅有16公斤、弹头5.9公斤，弹头全重比高于地狱火导弹。格里芬导弹有弹翼可以滑翔，因此射程也比地狱火更远（15公里）。装1个地狱火的位置能装下2个格里芬，无人机可以携带更多的小导弹。格里芬舰上发射版比空中发射版重1倍，因为需要加装1级火箭把它先发射到空中然后再飞向目标。1艘濒海战斗舰还能搭载2架MH-60直升机（译注：黑鹰系列中的“海鹰”）和1架可携带格里芬导弹的MQ-8直升机（译注：火力侦察兵垂直起降无人机）。
Thenavy hoped to have between 50 and 60 LCSs by 2014-18, at a cost of $460 million(after the first five). The USS Freedom ended up costing nearly $600 million,about twice what the first ship in the class was supposed to have cost. Thenavy believes it has the cost down to under $450 million each as massproduction begins.
海军希望以每艘4.6亿美元（前面5艘除外）的造价，在2014-2018年间共建造50-60艘濒海战斗舰。“自由”号全部造价将近6亿美元，大概是同级别船只造价的2倍。海军相信大规模生产后每艘的造价会降到4.5亿美元以下。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
龙腾:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-187281-1-1.html
原文地址:http://strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20130429.aspx#startofcomments龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com
原文标题:LCS Is Hacked龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com
（所有图片为译者网络搜集上传，非原文附图）龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com
自由级“自由”号
独立级“独立”号
April29, 2013: The U.S. Navy is encountering a seemingly endless list of problemswith their new "Littoral Combat Ship" (LCS). Last year it was decidedto put the ship into mass production. But it was recently revealed that lastyear the navy discovered that the computerized combat systems of the LCS werevulnerable to hacking. The navy understandably won’t provide details about thevulnerability or the fixes that have since been implemented. This sort ofvulnerability on U.S. warships has been hinted at for years, but navy officialshave largely been silent on the subject.
2013年4月29日报道：
美国海军新濒海战斗舰的麻烦不断。去年刚决定大批量生产，刚刚就有消息显示，海军去年就发现滨海战斗舰的信息化作战系统非常容易被入侵。海军有足够的理由不具体透露易受攻击的弱点和进行了哪些弥补工作。美国军舰这类问题多年来时有提及，但海军方面一直保持沉默。
Suchvulnerabilities have become more common as warships became more networked(internally and externally) over the last two decades and installed constantInternet connections for work and improving morale. The LCS problems wereencountered when one of the navy “red teams” (sometimes called “tiger teams”)played offence on the LCS electronics and found there was a way in thatprovided opportunities to do damage. The navy has no comment on thevulnerabilities with other ship classes.
随着过去20多年里军舰内外部信息网络的普及，和因工作需要及提高士气而不断增加的互联网接口，这样的薄弱之处也就越来越多。当海军“红队”（有时称“虎队”）“攻击”濒海战斗舰的网络系统时发现存在一些漏洞。海军没有对其他级别的船只的安全性做出评价。
译注：关于“红队”
TheLCS has been unique in many ways, and this has caused the navy all manner ofgrief in the media. The LCS is a new ship type and generating a larger numberof problems than older, more traditional ship designs. The media loves thisbecause problems with weapons grab attention and ad revenue. In response tothis media feeding frenzy, the navy has tried some damage control.
从很多方面来说濒海战斗舰都是独一无二的，媒体因此大肆报道海军的负面消息。濒海战斗舰是一种新型船只，它的问题比之前那些设计更传统的船只多。媒体喜欢炒作这个，因为武器系统的问题能够吸引注意力并产生广告收入。为应对媒体轰炸，海军一直都试图进行损害控制。
Threeyears ago the navy began warning officers and sailors involved with the LCS toavoid providing the media with anything that could be used to make the LCS lookbad. For example, there was an unresolved issue with stability andmaneuverability in the LCS (monohull) 1 design. This is not unusual and Americandestroyer designs have varied considerably in their stability andmaneuverability characteristics. New designs, especially for a new type ofship, are inherently risky. Project managers know that the media is alwayslooking for bad news. That sort of thing can also be leveraged into accusationsthat project managers are trying to deceive Congress and perpetuate a fraud onthe taxpayer. These accusations rarely pan out but they are much desired byeditors as they can get exciting stories going and keep them going for a while.The rather less exciting reality is that the LCS is just another new warshipdesign. The real story is the growing inability of American shipbuilders toconstruct warships competently. That story gets kicked around from time to timebut never seems to gain any traction.
3年前海军就要求和濒海战斗舰相关的官员和水兵不要给媒体提供能够能用于贬损濒海战斗舰的信息。比如，濒海战斗舰1型（单体船）设计上就有稳定性和操控性方面的问题尚待解决。这不是什么稀罕事，美军驱逐舰的设计上就有很多很明显的稳定性和操控性的问题。新设计尤其是新型船的设计是非常困难的，项目管理方知道媒体总在寻找坏消息。这种事情甚至会被宣扬成为项目方对国会和对纳税人的欺骗。虽然这些指控很少能奏效，但编辑们非常喜欢炒作，因为他们可以获得激动人心的爆料并持续很长一段时间。濒海战斗舰是新型军舰这种事情就不那么能吸引眼球了。实际情况是美国建造军舰的能力整体上是在逐步下降，关于这个问题的讨论从没有带来任何改善。
TheLCS has long been a good source of bad news and potentially explosiverevelations. In the last few years the LCS design has been found to havestructural and other flaws. The first LCS, the monohull USS Freedom, hassuffered five major problems since it entered service five years ago. Thelatest one was the software hacking vulnerability. Before that it was a leak ina propeller shaft seal, which caused some minor flooding. Despite this, Freedomwas able to get back to port under its own power. Two years ago cracks in thehull as long as 17 cm (6.5 inches) were discovered and the water-jet propulsionsystem broke down as well. Three years ago one of the gas turbine engines brokedown.
一直以来濒海战斗舰都被认为是坏消息的好题材并有可能爆出猛料。过去几年濒海战斗舰的设计上发现存在结构和其他方面的缺陷。美海军第一艘濒海战斗舰“自由”号单体船自5年前正式服役以来，共发现5个主要问题：最新发现的就是软件系统易受攻击的缺陷；此前曾发现螺旋桨传动轴密封不严，可能导致少量进水，但自由号仍然能够依靠自身动力返回港口；2年前曾发现船体上有17厘米（6.5英寸）大小的裂缝和喷水推进器存在问题；3年前曾有一个燃气涡轮发动机发生故障。
Themost serious problem is in the USS Independence, a radical trimaran design. Itseems that a "dissimilar metals" situation arose when salt water, thealuminum hull, and some other metals got into close proximity with each otherand extensive corrosion resulted. Aluminum hulls tend to corrode more thansteel but the problem became so bad with the USS Independence that, 18 monthsafter entering service, it was sent into dry dock for corrosion repairs anddesign changes to eliminate the problem.
最严重的问题是激进的三体船“独立号”（译注：濒海战斗舰2型舰）。当海水、铝壳和其他不同金属掺杂一起并遇到严重锈蚀情况时，“异种”金属的问题非常突出。虽然铝壳通常比钢的锈蚀严重，但“独立”号的情况特别严重。服役18个月之后它就需要进入干船坞进行锈蚀修复，并需要改进设计来解决这个问题。
Cracks,corrosion, and equipment breakdowns are common in new warship designs,especially designs that are radically different (like the broad trimaran shapeof the USS Independence). Usually, these problems can be fixed, but there'salways the risk that the new design will be seriously flawed, requiringextensive rework and a halt in building more ships of that class. So far, theU.S. Navy has not wavered in the face of potential design and constructionflaws.
在新军舰的设计过程中，裂缝、锈蚀和设备故障是常见问题，尤其是全面创新的设计（就像“独立”号的三体宽船体设计）。通常这些问题最终都会得以解决，但常常会因为非常严重的问题需要额外返工和暂停大规模投产。目前为止美海军并没有因为设计和制造方面的问题而畏缩不前。
Thisis all part of the expected years of uncertainty and experimentation as thisradical new combat ship design seeks to find out what works, to what degree,and what doesn't. There is some nervousness about all this. The U.S. Navy hasnot introduced a radical new design for nearly a century. The last such newdesign was the aircraft carrier, which required two decades of experimentationand a major war to nail down what worked. Even the nuclear submarines of thelate 1950s and early 60s were evolutionary compared to what the LCS is tryingto do.
充斥着不确定性和不停实验的数年时间，可以让这种激进的新军舰的设计弄清哪些是可行的、可以到达什么程度以及哪些是不可取的。美国海军近一个世纪以来都没有进行大胆的全新的军舰设计了，最近的一个新设计是航空母舰，它用了20年时间进行实验并通过一次大战验证了可行性。20世纪50年代末60年代初核潜艇的设计相对濒海战斗舰来说都只能算是改进。
Inthe last seven years two different LCS designs were built and put into service.Problems were encountered and that was expected. The much smaller crew requiredsome changes in how a crew ran a ship and how many sailors and civilians wererequired back on land to support a LCS at sea. It was found that theinterchangeable mission modules take far longer (2-3 days instead of 2-3 hours)to replace. The LCS has still not seen combat and the navy wants the firstviolent encounter to be successful, or at least not disastrous. It is expectedthat there will be surprises, which is about all that can be guaranteed at thispoint.
过去7年时间里有两种设计型号的濒海战斗舰分别投产并正式服役。发现了不少问题，但这本身就是预期的目的。如船员规模更小这点要求在几个方面做出改动：操作船只的方式、哪些船员和非军事人员需要调整部署到岸上来为濒海战斗舰服务。经过测试发现更换任务模块所需时间远比想象的长（2-3天而不是2-3个小时）。濒海战斗舰还没有经历实战，海军希望首战告捷，至少不是灾难性的。希望会有惊喜。
Thenavy surprised everyone three years ago by choosing both designs and requestingthat the fifty or so LCS ships be split between the two very different lookingships. While both ships look quite different (one is a traditional monohullwhile the other is a broader trimaran), they both share many common elements.One of the most important of these is the highly automated design and smallercrew. Both ships have accommodations for only 75 personnel. Normally, a ship ofthis size would have a crew of about 200. The basic LCS crew is 40, with the other35 berths occupied by operators of special equipment.
3年前海军同时选定两种设计方案并分别制造共计50艘左右的新濒海战斗舰让所有人大吃一惊。两种船只外形迥异（一种是传统的单体船，另一种是三体宽船体），但还是有很多共同点。最重要的就是高度自动化和更精简的船员，两种船都只需要75名船员。通常这种大小的船只需要200名左右船员。濒海战斗舰基础船员只有40人，其他35人都是任务人员。
TheLCS crews are also modularized so that specialized teams can be swapped in tooperate specific modules. Thus about 40 percent of the ship is empty, with alarge cargo hold into which the mission package gear is inserted (and thenremoved, along with the package crew, when it is no longer assigned to thatship). Thus the LCS has two crews when underway, the "ship" crew andthe mission package crew. The captain of the ship crew is in charge and theofficer commanding the mission package is simply the officer in charge of the largestequipment system on board. There are a variety of interchangeable modules(e.g., air defense, underwater warfare, special operations, surface attack,etc.), which allow the ships to be quickly reconfigured for various specializedmissions. Crews will also be modularized so that specialized teams can beswapped in to operate specific modules. The design and crew requirements forthese modules is still a work in progress but also shows a need for more peopleor more automation.
濒海战斗舰船员也是模块化的，可以通过更换特定小组来操作特殊任务模块。因此船体40%的部分是空着的，可以随时装备任务模块组件（当不需要时也可以拆卸组件并撤离任务人员）。因此濒海战斗舰活动时有两组人员，“船员”和任务人员。船员指挥官负责指挥，任务指挥官只负责船上的装备系统。有很多种不同的可更换装备模块（如防空、水下作战、特种任务、水面战争等），可让船只快速重配适应不同的任务。船员也可以更换以便不同的小组操作不同的组件。这需要在设计和船员素质方面继续进行改进，同时也需要更多专业人员和高度自动化。
Thetwo different LCS designs are from Lockheed-Martin (monohull) and GeneralDynamics (trimaran). The first LCS, the monohull USS Freedom, completed its seatrials and acceptance inspections four years ago. The ship did very well, withfar fewer (about 90 percent fewer) problems (or "materialdeficiencies") than is usual with the first warship in a class. USSIndependence (LCS-2) was laid down by General Dynamics in late 2005, andcommissioned in January 2010. Corrosion and hull cracks were expected eventuallybut appeared much earlier than anticipated.
两种不同的设计分别来自洛马（单体）和通用动力（三体）。第一艘濒海战斗舰“自由”号单体船4年前完成海试通过验收。结果非常成功，和同级别的军舰首舰相比，问题（“材料”方面）很少（少了大概90%）。2005年底通用开始建造“独立”号（濒海战斗舰2号船）并于2010年1月完成。锈蚀和船体裂缝是预料中会出现的，但是出现的时间比预期早得多。
BothLCS designs were supposed to be for ships displacing 2,500 tons, with a fullload draft of under 3.3 meters (ten feet), permitting access to very shallow"green" and even "brown" coastal and riverine waters wheremost naval operations have taken place in the past generation. Top speed was expectedto be over 80 kilometers with a range of 2,700 kilometers. Basic endurance is21 days and final displacement was closer to 3,000 tons.
濒海战斗舰设计上的主要用途是取代过去2500吨级、满载吃水3.3米深、能到非常浅的“绿水”甚至“黄水”濒海或内河区域传统海战主要发生地活动的船只。最高预期速度将超过80千米/小时，航程2700千米。正常续航时间21天，满载排水量接近3000吨。
LCSis currently armed with a 57mm gun, four 12.7mm machine-guns, two 30mmautocannons, and a 21 cell SeaRam system for aircraft and missile defense. TheRAM (RIM-116 "Rolling Air Frame") missiles replace Phalanxautocannon. SeaRAM has a longer range (7.5 kilometers) than the Phalanx (twokilometers). Last year, the navy decided to equip LCS with a surface launchedversion of the Griffin air-to-surface missile. The Griffin is an alternative tothe Hellfire II, which weighs 48.2 kg (106 pounds) and carries a 9 kg (20pound) warhead and has a range of 8,000 meters. In contrast, the Griffin weighsonly 16 kg (35 pounds), with a 5.9 kg (13 pound) warhead which is larger, inproportion to its size, than the one carried by the larger Hellfire missile.Griffin has pop-out wings, allowing it to glide, and thus has a longer range(15 kilometers) than Hellfire. UAVs can carry more of the smaller missiles,typically two of them in place of one Hellfire. The surface-launched Griffinweighs about twice as much as the air launched version because of the additionof a rocket to get it into the air, after which it can glide to the target. AnLCS can also carry two MH-60 helicopters and an MQ-8 helicopter UAV (that canbe armed with Griffin).
濒海战斗舰普遍装备1门57毫米舰炮、4门12.7毫米机枪、2门30毫米机炮和1套21管“海拉姆”防空反导系统。拉姆（RIM-116“滚体导弹”）系统将取代密集阵机炮系统。海拉姆比密集阵射程更远（7.5公里VS 2公里）。去年海军决定在濒海战斗舰上配备格里芬空对地导弹的舰上发射版。格里芬和全重48.2公斤、弹头重9公斤、射程8000米的地狱火II都是考虑对象，但格里芬全重仅有16公斤、弹头5.9公斤，弹头全重比高于地狱火导弹。格里芬导弹有弹翼可以滑翔，因此射程也比地狱火更远（15公里）。装1个地狱火的位置能装下2个格里芬，无人机可以携带更多的小导弹。格里芬舰上发射版比空中发射版重1倍，因为需要加装1级火箭把它先发射到空中然后再飞向目标。1艘濒海战斗舰还能搭载2架MH-60直升机（译注：黑鹰系列中的“海鹰”）和1架可携带格里芬导弹的MQ-8直升机（译注：火力侦察兵垂直起降无人机）。
Thenavy hoped to have between 50 and 60 LCSs by 2014-18, at a cost of $460 million(after the first five). The USS Freedom ended up costing nearly $600 million,about twice what the first ship in the class was supposed to have cost. Thenavy believes it has the cost down to under $450 million each as massproduction begins.
海军希望以每艘4.6亿美元（前面5艘除外）的造价，在2014-2018年间共建造50-60艘濒海战斗舰。“自由”号全部造价将近6亿美元，大概是同级别船只造价的2倍。海军相信大规模生产后每艘的造价会降到4.5亿美元以下。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
龙腾:http://www.ltaaa.com/bbs/thread-187281-1-1.html
——————————————————————————————————
评论不多，按照时间顺序翻译如下：
——————————————————————————————————
WarNerd 4/29/2013 9:59:16 AM
Theability to be hacked probably is tied to the use of networks to operate withother vessels, and as such may be a general problem for the whole fleet whenupgraded to use it.
Betthat they have the potential for a similar problem in the Army and AirForce. It is probably a property of anyinformation system with external access.
容易被黑很有可能是因为要和其他舰船协同而使用的网络吧，这有可能是整个舰队都要面临的问题。
我想陆空军也被类似的问题所困扰。这大概是任何需要数据外联的信息化系统都无法避免的。
——————————————————————————————————
Chris 4/29/2013 10:51:10 AM
TheLCS has had its problems, many of which are of the navy's own making. And while it is fair to say that there areproblems with ships of a new class, there are several basic issues that aremost difficult to address:
1. The LCS is only built to the level-1 navystandard, and cannot withstand the shock that a fleet oiler can.
2. The LCS is very lightly armed, even with itsmission packages. There are many navieswith boats of similar size (and smaller) that are far more heavily armed, arestealthy, and will easily clean the LCS's clock.
3. The LCS is very lightly armored, and as suchlacks the ability to take a punch.
4. The cost of LCS is staggering. The British have designed a stealth frigatewith longer legs, is a full military design, and costs 1/3 less than LCS.
5. The LCS program is also guilty of the severecost overruns that plague our armed forces.
6. The reviews/evaluations of LCS are bad enoughto that all of the potential US allied purchasers have all since walked away.
Hence- the criticisms of the evil press are largely accurate, and clearlydemonstrate that the US taxpayers are getting a lousy deal for the amount ofmoney being spent on this program.
@importurl(http://www.strategypage.com/Cute ... ntaxHighlighter.css);
濒海战斗舰存在不少问题，很多是海军自己造成的。虽然说新型船只总会面临很多问题，但以下这些根本问题很难解决：
1、濒海战斗舰设计上只达到海军标准的Level1级别，油料补给船能承受的伤害都比它高；
2、即便算上任务装备，濒海战斗舰的火力还是不够。很多大小相似的（甚至更小）船只的火力更强、隐形性能更好，能轻易搞定濒海战斗舰；
3、火力不够导致攻击能力不强；
4、价格出奇的贵。英国设计了一款隐形护卫舰，航程更远且全军事化设计，价格却只有1/3；
5、濒海战斗舰项目同样存在我们所有军事项目都有的经费超支问题；
6、濒海战斗舰项目的审查和评估结果令人失望，很多美国潜在的盟友买家已经放弃；
因此邪恶的媒体的批评绝大部分都是对的，事实证明美国纳税人在这个项目上浪费了大笔资金，做了一笔糟糕的买卖。
译注：
尽管濒海战斗舰带有“战斗”一词，但绝非被设想为传统意义上的作战舰艇。某种程度上，一艘具备作战能力的舰艇通常能够承受一定的战损并继续战斗，而濒海战斗舰无法达到这种标准。美国海军指出，濒海战斗舰应当具备最低程度的持续性——即“Level1+”的水平，意味着生存能力处于1～3之间，因此“Level1+”暗指带有额外防护的“Level1”水平，但没有达到“Level2”的全面生存能力水平。这使濒海战斗舰的生存能力低于它们替换的“佩里”级护卫舰。濒海战斗舰额外的防护意味着，如果遭到敌军破坏，有能力从区域内撤离。选择更低防护意味着成本更低，而“Level1”生存能力仅仅比商船高一点儿。
但是，两种型号的濒海战斗舰都没有更便宜。实际上，濒海战斗舰的最初成本是2.2亿美元，但现在它们的成本已攀升至生存能力为“Level3”的“伯克”级驱逐舰一半的水平。
Toosh 4/29/2013 12:55:26 PM
Andwhich British frigate is that?
你说的是哪款英国护卫舰？
WarNerd 4/29/2013 1:53:37 PM
1and 5 are uncontested. 6 is problematic as the LCS did not match therequirements of our allies.
2– The light armament is the inevitable results of the requirements for a smallhull and the hanger to support two (2) helicopters
3– All modern warships lack significant armor, and a ship the size of thepre-growth LCS could not have withstood the impact of most modern antishipweapons even if it were.
4– The British vessel you are referring to must be the Type 26, which won’tstart construction for at least another 2 years. Cost growth is inevitablebased on the history of previous British frigate programs, and because, as withthe LCS program, requirements have not been locked at this point in theprogram. Other issues may make it unsuitable as a replacement for the LCSinclude:
itis designed for deepwater, not for littorals.
itonly carries one (1) helicopter.
itsdesign speed is lower than the standard for US warships.
1、1-5条没有异议。但是第6条不准确，盟友不购买的原因是因为不符合他们的要求。
2、为了减少船员和给2款直升机腾出空间，火力不足问题无法避免；
3、所有现代军舰都缺乏装甲防护，像濒海战斗舰这种大小的船只，即使有装甲防护也无法承受现代反舰武器的打击；
4、你提到的英国船应该是试验26号（译注：已经建造测试的是“海神”号三体试验船），它2年内都不会开工建设。至于成本上升则无法避免，之前英国护卫舰项目已经有先例，还有一个原因是濒海战斗舰的设计要求会不断增强。其他各种型号的船只不能取代濒海战斗舰地位的原因包括：
设计用于深水区域，无法在濒海区域活动；
只能携带1架直升机；
设计速度低于美国海军军舰标准。
VisigothCAS 4/29/2013 2:02:20 PM
Letme add that the version of the LCS I once saw was also extremely LOUD. I wasstaying in a hotel in Mobile, Alabama which was just across the Mobile Riverfrom the Austal facility. The room filled with this racket like the maid wasusing a vacuum cleaner by the door but it was coming from outside. I looked outand saw the LCS headed down river into the bay. As loud as that thing was 20stories up and maybe half a mile ground level distance, it would stand out likea sore thumb on sonar to an enemy sub. And no, the ship wasn't moving very fastat the time, only a few knots.
我来补充一点，濒海战斗舰1型的噪音也非常大。有次我住在阿拉巴马州的木比耳市的一家宾馆里，它正好从奥斯塔公司出来穿越木比耳河。房间里噪音震耳欲聋，感觉就像服务员在隔壁房间使用吸尘器一样，但其实噪音来自房子外面。我往外看，看到正它沿着河道开进港口。距离半英里外而且在20层楼高的地方都有这么大的声响，我觉得敌方潜艇的声纳系统肯定能轻松发现。而且船只走的也不快，只有几节吧。
译注：濒海1型为单体船，但是奥斯塔公司好像是为三体的2型船生产龙骨？所以这里可能是评论者弄错了？
——————————————————————————————————
VisigothCAS 4/29/2013 1:56:07 PM
Goodpoints already made here.
Backin the day the Navy had a localized radio communication system for carrier andother groups. It was relatively short range which was an advantage since it washarder to interfere with. As I understand it, that was discarded in favor ofsatellite communications. Given all the relays that system requires, there areplenty of opportunities for hackers to get in. I might make sense to build amodern version of the old, localized system while at the same time unpluggingmost systems from the internet. Otherwise, hackers could monkey with a ship atjust the right time leaving it vulnerable to attack, which wouldn't be thathard given what a large, barely defended, tin-foil target the ship is to beginwith.
这有好的提议：
早先航母和其他作战群都使用传输距离有限的无线电系统。它的距离相对较短，反而因为抗干扰能力强而具有优势。我知道是因为对卫星通信的偏好而抛弃了这种通信手段。卫星通信系统需要很多的中继站，这就给黑客入侵提供了不少机会。我更倾向再建一个老式的通信距离有限的系统，同时把很多系统和互联网进行物理隔离。否则黑客可以入侵军舰让它脆弱易受攻击，而一个体型庞大、基本上没有防护的铝壳目标可是很容易得手的。
——————————————————————————————————
Toosh 4/29/2013 4:44:45 PM
Anyship in the 3000 ton range is not going to survive a hit from a high speedanti-ship missle. To me, a lot of the talk about the LCS lack of survivabilityis just so much hooey. Ships that have to be light to have a shallow draft aregoing to be vuneralbe from a defensive and damage control point of view.....nomatter who build them.
任何一艘3000吨级的船都无法承受高速反舰导弹的打击。在我看来，关于濒海战斗舰生存性能不足的讨论都是放屁。任何适用于浅水区域的轻型船从防御和损管方面看都是非常脆弱的……和谁建造没关系。
Reactive 4/29/2013 6:23:32 PM
No~3000 tonne ship is going to be fare well against a heavy torpedo or a largeASHM but how much time it gives the crew to abandon ship before it sinks orexplodes is what matters - and don't forget there's plenty of lesser threats,from RPG's, shoulder fired missiles, suicide boats, heavy machine guns,medium-calibre guns etc.. damage containment, compartmentalization andfire-suppression are important characteristics.
任何3000吨级的船在遭受重型鱼雷或是大型高速反舰导弹的打击后都会情况不妙，关键是在船只沉没或是爆炸前能给船员多少时间来弃舰逃生，而且还有其他危害程度更低的威胁，如榴弹、肩扛式导弹、自杀式攻击船、重型机炮、中型口径机枪等。损管和灭火等都是非常重要的。
Chris And one other observation... 4/29/2013 7:19:08 PM
TheUSA used to build ships for littoral combat during WW2, and they did very well. If you look at the PT boats, they were bothheavily armed and shallow draft (albeit without much protection outside ofspeed). But the heavy armament and speedgave those boats the ability to make a mess of ships many times theirsize/tonnage and armament.
TheLCS does not garner that kind of respect.
二战时期美国就建造了适合滨海战斗的船只，而且效果良好。看看PT舰就知道了，它们火力强大而且适用于浅水区域（虽然因考虑到速度基本上没太多防护）。但是因为强大的火力和高速，它们给吨位和火力数倍于它们的船只制造了不小麻烦。
濒海战斗舰还没获得这种好评。
译注：
PT艇是一种鱼雷快艇（依照舰船类别代号，PT指“鱼雷巡逻艇”，PatrolTorpedo），由美国海军在二战中使用的小型、快速、用来攻击较大型水面舰用的舰艇。PT艇中队被昵称为"蚊子舰队"，而日军称他们为“恶魔艇”。
Chris And one other observation... 4/29/2013 7:15:45 PM
Oneother key factor that was apparently ignored in the design of the LCS, was thehistory of littoral combat. What thosebattles lacked in size, they more than made up for in sheer intensity.
Thesewere the true knife-fights of the second world war, and the USA learned tobuild ships/boats that could not only handle the comparatively shallow water,but were super heavily armed, and survivable. The current LCS is now planned to only cruise in groups of three, or otherwise be protected by a Burke, orcarrier group.
Theselimitations do not inspire confidence.
@importurl(http://www.strategypage.com/Cute ... ntaxHighlighter.css);
濒海战斗舰的设计忽略了很重要的濒海海战的历史。虽然这些战争规模不大，但都非常激烈。
那是二战中真正的白刃战，美国从中吸取经验教训，开始建造不但能适用于浅水区域，而且具有强大火力和高生存性的舰船。现在的濒海战斗舰必须三艘一起编队巡航，或者要在“伯克”级和航母编队的保护下才行。
这可不能让人放心。
Toosh 4/30/2013 5:54:53 AM
ComparingPT boats to LCS's......LOL !!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about a lack of range,sustainability, defensive capability, multi- mission capability (anti-mine,anti-air, anti-sub, etc), helicopter, launching other craft, etc. Some of youpeople..... LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
拿PT舰来和濒海战斗舰相提并论……笑！航程、生存性、防御能力、多任务能力（反水雷、防空、反潜等）、直升机、搭载其他飞行器等方面都能力不足。你们这些人啊，笑！！！
Chris 4/30/2013 8:24:06 PM
Youmiss the point. If you compare the LCSto any recent naval ship of similar size, its going to get creamed, becauseevery ship out there is far more heavily armed. It lacks any way to reach out and touchsomething substantial at distance, and can't take a punch in return.
Youcan bet your sweet tookis that if a japanese destroyer or cruiser were cruisingaround a night in the areas where the PT boats where known to be lurking, theywould be very concerned, even more so if they were being attacked because theyhad heavy weapons that could severely damage )and/or sink) their ships.
TheLCS, in comparison, has nothing to give a true combatant much reason forconcern.
你没抓住重点。濒海战斗舰和任何现有的同级别军舰比较都是一个死字，因为其它船只的火力都要强的多。在一定距离上，它根本够不着也挠不到对手，也无力反击。
而且这种情况下你有很大胜算：一艘日本驱逐舰或护卫舰在夜晚经过已知有PT舰设伏的区域时会非常紧张，因为船上装备了大量武器一旦被攻击很有可能造成严重损害甚至船只沉没。
至于濒海战斗舰则完全不同，战场上就没有它的位置。
Toosh 5/1/2013 4:16:54 AM
You'rethe one who brought up PT boats not me. If the comparison makes you lookfoolish that's your own doing. And as far as missing the point, I think it isyou who are missing it. The LCS was not designed to be compared to ships ofsimular size. It was design to operate in the littorals against the threats theUS Navy ENVISIONED it would be fighting there. A point you can't seem to grasp.You seem preoccupied with the notion of one-on-one battles when that is not howthe US Navy operates. If the US Navy thinks there's going to be serious surfacethreats it will go in force and with air cover. It's not looking for one-on-oneduels. LOL !!!!!!!!! Moreover, if they navy envisioned different threats fromlarger ships it can reconfigure its weapons suite accordingly or add new ones.The ship has the size and capacity to do that. And as far as the ship's size isconcerned, it has to have some size to travel the distances it has to (we are aworld-wide navy) and to carry out the varied missions the navy envisions forit. You're not going to do that with one dimensional PT boats. To load the shipdown with lots of powerful weapons system will add weight and take away spacethe ship needs to carry out the other missions the navy plans for it.
是你而不是我把PT舰拿出来作对比的，如果这个对比让你看起来很愚蠢的话那也是你自己的事。至于说到跑题，我觉得还是你。濒海战斗舰不是和同级别的船只相比的，它设计用来在美国海军预计战争将发生的浅水区域的执行任务，这个重点你一直没抓住。你一直把太多精力放在1：1的单挑上，这可不是美国海军的风格。如果美国海军认为会有海战威胁，那它就会在空中掩护下出击。不会是什么单挑，笑！
还有，如果他们从大型船只上判断出有不同的威胁，它们可以跟换武器套件或者增加新套件来应对。濒海战斗舰有这个空间也有这个能力做到。至于船的大小，它必须确保能达到要求的航程（我们是全球海军）并执行海军预想的各种任务。区区PT舰可做不到这些。给濒海战斗舰装上一大堆火力强大的武器会增加载重，并挤占执行海军预想的其他任务所需的空间。
WarNerd 5/3/2013 1:10:51 AM
Youneed to be more specific, ‘any recent naval ship of similar size’ would includea number that lack either cannon, anti-ship missiles, antiaircraft missiles, orhelicopters.
Youalso need to consider how the ship is intended to fight, not how you want itdone. Otherwise you could use the same argument to prove that German submarineswere ineffective in WWII because they were outgunned by destroyers, or thataircraft carriers can’t work because a battleship can kill they easily at10,000yrds.
Otherships have bigger guns, but when was the last naval victory determined by a gunbattle? 50 years ago?
Otherships have more cruise missiles, but you have to find and identify the targetfirst. The LCS has 2 Seahawks that can scout for it and launch AGM-119 antishipmissiles without requiring the LCS to coming over the radar horizon. So it may effectivelyoutrange other designs.
Askyourself why all the concern that the networking software that could be hackedwas so important, and reflect on how much bigger the US Navy is than the rest.The LCS’s big guns in a sea battle are supposed to be the missiles from that9,500 ton destroyer and the F-18s from the carrier that it download thetactical data on your ship to.
Understandthat this is not a defense of the LCS concept, that is a typical bastardoffspring of a committee that overreached. But that does not mean that theconcept is entirely wrong either.
你最好再具体点，“任何同级别的军舰”包括了很多类型，其中有的没有机炮、反舰导弹、防空导弹或是直升机。
而且你还必须考虑它会参加怎样的战斗，而不是你想它如何战斗。否则你可以按照相似的逻辑来说德国潜艇在二战时期没啥用处的，因为它们被驱逐舰完克。或者说航母也没啥用处，因为1艘主力舰能在万码之外就灭掉它。
别的船的舰炮口径更大，但上一次炮战决定战争胜负是什么时候的事了？50年前？
别的船有更多的巡航导弹，但你必须要先发现并定位目标。濒海战斗舰搭载的2艘海鹰直升机可用于侦察并装备企鹅（AGM-119）反舰导弹，并不需要舰船自身跑到雷达范围内。这可比其他设计效率高多了。
还要弄清楚一个问题：为什么通信软件系统容易被攻击会这么严重，且对于美国海军来说比其他国家海军更严重？在海战中濒海战斗舰的杀手锏是从9500吨驱逐舰上发射的导弹和从航母上起飞的F-18，而这些都需要从濒海战斗舰上下载战场数据。
弄清这个问题不是为濒海战斗舰的设计思路辩护，那完全是委员会的烧包过头的高见。但也不能因此就说设计思路完全错误。
Sty0pa 5/1/2013 7:33:02 AM
Ididn't notice this in your comparison, but critical in your comparison of PTBoats and LCS?
PTBoat in 1944 - about $160,000 1944 dollars.
Thisis about $2 million 2012 dollars.
We'reright at about $700 million for each ship, NOT including any combatmodules. So easily $1 billion/ship,deployed.
Sowhich delivers more utility and punch, in a littoral combat theater, and ismore survivable and sustainable against enemy action: 1 LCS, or FIVE HUNDRED PTboats?
(And,ironically, the argument "no light ship is going to survive a hit with ahigh speed antiship missile" isn't an argument in favor of thebillion-dollar boutique ship, it's an argument in favor of distributed,expendable, disposable capabilities.)
PT舰1944年的造价大约是16万美元。
大概相当于2012年的200万美元。
而现在我们的单艘造价是7亿美元，还不包括全部战斗模块组件。所以达成部署的话松松就10亿美元了。
那么在面对濒海战斗威胁哪种选择具备更多用途和打击能力？在对抗敌人的行动中哪种选择有更高的生存性和更经济？1艘濒海战斗舰还是500艘PT舰？？
（还有很可笑的是，你说“轻型军舰无法在高速反舰导弹打击下生存”，这好像不是为数十亿美金打造的优异舰艇辩护，反而是倾向于随用随弃）。
Toosh 5/1/2013 7:58:41 AM
Doyou really think the defense department could build a PT boat for 2 milliondloaars today ??????? LOL !!!!!!!!! Anymore stupid comments?????
你认为国防部现在还能以200万的价格造出PT舰来？？笑！！！你能更蠢些吗？？
评论不多，按照时间顺序翻译如下：
——————————————————————————————————
WarNerd 4/29/2013 9:59:16 AM
Theability to be hacked probably is tied to the use of networks to operate withother vessels, and as such may be a general problem for the whole fleet whenupgraded to use it.
Betthat they have the potential for a similar problem in the Army and AirForce. It is probably a property of anyinformation system with external access.
容易被黑很有可能是因为要和其他舰船协同而使用的网络吧，这有可能是整个舰队都要面临的问题。
我想陆空军也被类似的问题所困扰。这大概是任何需要数据外联的信息化系统都无法避免的。
——————————————————————————————————
Chris 4/29/2013 10:51:10 AM
TheLCS has had its problems, many of which are of the navy's own making. And while it is fair to say that there areproblems with ships of a new class, there are several basic issues that aremost difficult to address:
1. The LCS is only built to the level-1 navystandard, and cannot withstand the shock that a fleet oiler can.
2. The LCS is very lightly armed, even with itsmission packages. There are many navieswith boats of similar size (and smaller) that are far more heavily armed, arestealthy, and will easily clean the LCS's clock.
3. The LCS is very lightly armored, and as suchlacks the ability to take a punch.
4. The cost of LCS is staggering. The British have designed a stealth frigatewith longer legs, is a full military design, and costs 1/3 less than LCS.
5. The LCS program is also guilty of the severecost overruns that plague our armed forces.
6. The reviews/evaluations of LCS are bad enoughto that all of the potential US allied purchasers have all since walked away.
Hence- the criticisms of the evil press are largely accurate, and clearlydemonstrate that the US taxpayers are getting a lousy deal for the amount ofmoney being spent on this program.
@importurl(http://www.strategypage.com/Cute ... ntaxHighlighter.css);
濒海战斗舰存在不少问题，很多是海军自己造成的。虽然说新型船只总会面临很多问题，但以下这些根本问题很难解决：
1、濒海战斗舰设计上只达到海军标准的Level1级别，油料补给船能承受的伤害都比它高；
2、即便算上任务装备，濒海战斗舰的火力还是不够。很多大小相似的（甚至更小）船只的火力更强、隐形性能更好，能轻易搞定濒海战斗舰；
3、火力不够导致攻击能力不强；
4、价格出奇的贵。英国设计了一款隐形护卫舰，航程更远且全军事化设计，价格却只有1/3；
5、濒海战斗舰项目同样存在我们所有军事项目都有的经费超支问题；
6、濒海战斗舰项目的审查和评估结果令人失望，很多美国潜在的盟友买家已经放弃；
因此邪恶的媒体的批评绝大部分都是对的，事实证明美国纳税人在这个项目上浪费了大笔资金，做了一笔糟糕的买卖。
译注：
尽管濒海战斗舰带有“战斗”一词，但绝非被设想为传统意义上的作战舰艇。某种程度上，一艘具备作战能力的舰艇通常能够承受一定的战损并继续战斗，而濒海战斗舰无法达到这种标准。美国海军指出，濒海战斗舰应当具备最低程度的持续性——即“Level1+”的水平，意味着生存能力处于1～3之间，因此“Level1+”暗指带有额外防护的“Level1”水平，但没有达到“Level2”的全面生存能力水平。这使濒海战斗舰的生存能力低于它们替换的“佩里”级护卫舰。濒海战斗舰额外的防护意味着，如果遭到敌军破坏，有能力从区域内撤离。选择更低防护意味着成本更低，而“Level1”生存能力仅仅比商船高一点儿。
但是，两种型号的濒海战斗舰都没有更便宜。实际上，濒海战斗舰的最初成本是2.2亿美元，但现在它们的成本已攀升至生存能力为“Level3”的“伯克”级驱逐舰一半的水平。
Toosh 4/29/2013 12:55:26 PM
Andwhich British frigate is that?
你说的是哪款英国护卫舰？
WarNerd 4/29/2013 1:53:37 PM
1and 5 are uncontested. 6 is problematic as the LCS did not match therequirements of our allies.
2– The light armament is the inevitable results of the requirements for a smallhull and the hanger to support two (2) helicopters
3– All modern warships lack significant armor, and a ship the size of thepre-growth LCS could not have withstood the impact of most modern antishipweapons even if it were.
4– The British vessel you are referring to must be the Type 26, which won’tstart construction for at least another 2 years. Cost growth is inevitablebased on the history of previous British frigate programs, and because, as withthe LCS program, requirements have not been locked at this point in theprogram. Other issues may make it unsuitable as a replacement for the LCSinclude:
itis designed for deepwater, not for littorals.
itonly carries one (1) helicopter.
itsdesign speed is lower than the standard for US warships.
1、1-5条没有异议。但是第6条不准确，盟友不购买的原因是因为不符合他们的要求。
2、为了减少船员和给2款直升机腾出空间，火力不足问题无法避免；
3、所有现代军舰都缺乏装甲防护，像濒海战斗舰这种大小的船只，即使有装甲防护也无法承受现代反舰武器的打击；
4、你提到的英国船应该是试验26号（译注：已经建造测试的是“海神”号三体试验船），它2年内都不会开工建设。至于成本上升则无法避免，之前英国护卫舰项目已经有先例，还有一个原因是濒海战斗舰的设计要求会不断增强。其他各种型号的船只不能取代濒海战斗舰地位的原因包括：
设计用于深水区域，无法在濒海区域活动；
只能携带1架直升机；
设计速度低于美国海军军舰标准。
VisigothCAS 4/29/2013 2:02:20 PM
Letme add that the version of the LCS I once saw was also extremely LOUD. I wasstaying in a hotel in Mobile, Alabama which was just across the Mobile Riverfrom the Austal facility. The room filled with this racket like the maid wasusing a vacuum cleaner by the door but it was coming from outside. I looked outand saw the LCS headed down river into the bay. As loud as that thing was 20stories up and maybe half a mile ground level distance, it would stand out likea sore thumb on sonar to an enemy sub. And no, the ship wasn't moving very fastat the time, only a few knots.
我来补充一点，濒海战斗舰1型的噪音也非常大。有次我住在阿拉巴马州的木比耳市的一家宾馆里，它正好从奥斯塔公司出来穿越木比耳河。房间里噪音震耳欲聋，感觉就像服务员在隔壁房间使用吸尘器一样，但其实噪音来自房子外面。我往外看，看到正它沿着河道开进港口。距离半英里外而且在20层楼高的地方都有这么大的声响，我觉得敌方潜艇的声纳系统肯定能轻松发现。而且船只走的也不快，只有几节吧。
译注：濒海1型为单体船，但是奥斯塔公司好像是为三体的2型船生产龙骨？所以这里可能是评论者弄错了？
——————————————————————————————————
VisigothCAS 4/29/2013 1:56:07 PM
Goodpoints already made here.
Backin the day the Navy had a localized radio communication system for carrier andother groups. It was relatively short range which was an advantage since it washarder to interfere with. As I understand it, that was discarded in favor ofsatellite communications. Given all the relays that system requires, there areplenty of opportunities for hackers to get in. I might make sense to build amodern version of the old, localized system while at the same time unpluggingmost systems from the internet. Otherwise, hackers could monkey with a ship atjust the right time leaving it vulnerable to attack, which wouldn't be thathard given what a large, barely defended, tin-foil target the ship is to beginwith.
这有好的提议：
早先航母和其他作战群都使用传输距离有限的无线电系统。它的距离相对较短，反而因为抗干扰能力强而具有优势。我知道是因为对卫星通信的偏好而抛弃了这种通信手段。卫星通信系统需要很多的中继站，这就给黑客入侵提供了不少机会。我更倾向再建一个老式的通信距离有限的系统，同时把很多系统和互联网进行物理隔离。否则黑客可以入侵军舰让它脆弱易受攻击，而一个体型庞大、基本上没有防护的铝壳目标可是很容易得手的。
——————————————————————————————————
Toosh 4/29/2013 4:44:45 PM
Anyship in the 3000 ton range is not going to survive a hit from a high speedanti-ship missle. To me, a lot of the talk about the LCS lack of survivabilityis just so much hooey. Ships that have to be light to have a shallow draft aregoing to be vuneralbe from a defensive and damage control point of view.....nomatter who build them.
任何一艘3000吨级的船都无法承受高速反舰导弹的打击。在我看来，关于濒海战斗舰生存性能不足的讨论都是放屁。任何适用于浅水区域的轻型船从防御和损管方面看都是非常脆弱的……和谁建造没关系。
Reactive 4/29/2013 6:23:32 PM
No~3000 tonne ship is going to be fare well against a heavy torpedo or a largeASHM but how much time it gives the crew to abandon ship before it sinks orexplodes is what matters - and don't forget there's plenty of lesser threats,from RPG's, shoulder fired missiles, suicide boats, heavy machine guns,medium-calibre guns etc.. damage containment, compartmentalization andfire-suppression are important characteristics.
任何3000吨级的船在遭受重型鱼雷或是大型高速反舰导弹的打击后都会情况不妙，关键是在船只沉没或是爆炸前能给船员多少时间来弃舰逃生，而且还有其他危害程度更低的威胁，如榴弹、肩扛式导弹、自杀式攻击船、重型机炮、中型口径机枪等。损管和灭火等都是非常重要的。
Chris And one other observation... 4/29/2013 7:19:08 PM
TheUSA used to build ships for littoral combat during WW2, and they did very well. If you look at the PT boats, they were bothheavily armed and shallow draft (albeit without much protection outside ofspeed). But the heavy armament and speedgave those boats the ability to make a mess of ships many times theirsize/tonnage and armament.
TheLCS does not garner that kind of respect.
二战时期美国就建造了适合滨海战斗的船只，而且效果良好。看看PT舰就知道了，它们火力强大而且适用于浅水区域（虽然因考虑到速度基本上没太多防护）。但是因为强大的火力和高速，它们给吨位和火力数倍于它们的船只制造了不小麻烦。
濒海战斗舰还没获得这种好评。
译注：
PT艇是一种鱼雷快艇（依照舰船类别代号，PT指“鱼雷巡逻艇”，PatrolTorpedo），由美国海军在二战中使用的小型、快速、用来攻击较大型水面舰用的舰艇。PT艇中队被昵称为"蚊子舰队"，而日军称他们为“恶魔艇”。
Chris And one other observation... 4/29/2013 7:15:45 PM
Oneother key factor that was apparently ignored in the design of the LCS, was thehistory of littoral combat. What thosebattles lacked in size, they more than made up for in sheer intensity.
Thesewere the true knife-fights of the second world war, and the USA learned tobuild ships/boats that could not only handle the comparatively shallow water,but were super heavily armed, and survivable. The current LCS is now planned to only cruise in groups of three, or otherwise be protected by a Burke, orcarrier group.
Theselimitations do not inspire confidence.
@importurl(http://www.strategypage.com/Cute ... ntaxHighlighter.css);
濒海战斗舰的设计忽略了很重要的濒海海战的历史。虽然这些战争规模不大，但都非常激烈。
那是二战中真正的白刃战，美国从中吸取经验教训，开始建造不但能适用于浅水区域，而且具有强大火力和高生存性的舰船。现在的濒海战斗舰必须三艘一起编队巡航，或者要在“伯克”级和航母编队的保护下才行。
这可不能让人放心。
Toosh 4/30/2013 5:54:53 AM
ComparingPT boats to LCS's......LOL !!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about a lack of range,sustainability, defensive capability, multi- mission capability (anti-mine,anti-air, anti-sub, etc), helicopter, launching other craft, etc. Some of youpeople..... LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
拿PT舰来和濒海战斗舰相提并论……笑！航程、生存性、防御能力、多任务能力（反水雷、防空、反潜等）、直升机、搭载其他飞行器等方面都能力不足。你们这些人啊，笑！！！
Chris 4/30/2013 8:24:06 PM
Youmiss the point. If you compare the LCSto any recent naval ship of similar size, its going to get creamed, becauseevery ship out there is far more heavily armed. It lacks any way to reach out and touchsomething substantial at distance, and can't take a punch in return.
Youcan bet your sweet tookis that if a japanese destroyer or cruiser were cruisingaround a night in the areas where the PT boats where known to be lurking, theywould be very concerned, even more so if they were being attacked because theyhad heavy weapons that could severely damage )and/or sink) their ships.
TheLCS, in comparison, has nothing to give a true combatant much reason forconcern.
你没抓住重点。濒海战斗舰和任何现有的同级别军舰比较都是一个死字，因为其它船只的火力都要强的多。在一定距离上，它根本够不着也挠不到对手，也无力反击。
而且这种情况下你有很大胜算：一艘日本驱逐舰或护卫舰在夜晚经过已知有PT舰设伏的区域时会非常紧张，因为船上装备了大量武器一旦被攻击很有可能造成严重损害甚至船只沉没。
至于濒海战斗舰则完全不同，战场上就没有它的位置。
Toosh 5/1/2013 4:16:54 AM
You'rethe one who brought up PT boats not me. If the comparison makes you lookfoolish that's your own doing. And as far as missing the point, I think it isyou who are missing it. The LCS was not designed to be compared to ships ofsimular size. It was design to operate in the littorals against the threats theUS Navy ENVISIONED it would be fighting there. A point you can't seem to grasp.You seem preoccupied with the notion of one-on-one battles when that is not howthe US Navy operates. If the US Navy thinks there's going to be serious surfacethreats it will go in force and with air cover. It's not looking for one-on-oneduels. LOL !!!!!!!!! Moreover, if they navy envisioned different threats fromlarger ships it can reconfigure its weapons suite accordingly or add new ones.The ship has the size and capacity to do that. And as far as the ship's size isconcerned, it has to have some size to travel the distances it has to (we are aworld-wide navy) and to carry out the varied missions the navy envisions forit. You're not going to do that with one dimensional PT boats. To load the shipdown with lots of powerful weapons system will add weight and take away spacethe ship needs to carry out the other missions the navy plans for it.
是你而不是我把PT舰拿出来作对比的，如果这个对比让你看起来很愚蠢的话那也是你自己的事。至于说到跑题，我觉得还是你。濒海战斗舰不是和同级别的船只相比的，它设计用来在美国海军预计战争将发生的浅水区域的执行任务，这个重点你一直没抓住。你一直把太多精力放在1：1的单挑上，这可不是美国海军的风格。如果美国海军认为会有海战威胁，那它就会在空中掩护下出击。不会是什么单挑，笑！
还有，如果他们从大型船只上判断出有不同的威胁，它们可以跟换武器套件或者增加新套件来应对。濒海战斗舰有这个空间也有这个能力做到。至于船的大小，它必须确保能达到要求的航程（我们是全球海军）并执行海军预想的各种任务。区区PT舰可做不到这些。给濒海战斗舰装上一大堆火力强大的武器会增加载重，并挤占执行海军预想的其他任务所需的空间。
WarNerd 5/3/2013 1:10:51 AM
Youneed to be more specific, ‘any recent naval ship of similar size’ would includea number that lack either cannon, anti-ship missiles, antiaircraft missiles, orhelicopters.
Youalso need to consider how the ship is intended to fight, not how you want itdone. Otherwise you could use the same argument to prove that German submarineswere ineffective in WWII because they were outgunned by destroyers, or thataircraft carriers can’t work because a battleship can kill they easily at10,000yrds.
Otherships have bigger guns, but when was the last naval victory determined by a gunbattle? 50 years ago?
Otherships have more cruise missiles, but you have to find and identify the targetfirst. The LCS has 2 Seahawks that can scout for it and launch AGM-119 antishipmissiles without requiring the LCS to coming over the radar horizon. So it may effectivelyoutrange other designs.
Askyourself why all the concern that the networking software that could be hackedwas so important, and reflect on how much bigger the US Navy is than the rest.The LCS’s big guns in a sea battle are supposed to be the missiles from that9,500 ton destroyer and the F-18s from the carrier that it download thetactical data on your ship to.
Understandthat this is not a defense of the LCS concept, that is a typical bastardoffspring of a committee that overreached. But that does not mean that theconcept is entirely wrong either.
你最好再具体点，“任何同级别的军舰”包括了很多类型，其中有的没有机炮、反舰导弹、防空导弹或是直升机。
而且你还必须考虑它会参加怎样的战斗，而不是你想它如何战斗。否则你可以按照相似的逻辑来说德国潜艇在二战时期没啥用处的，因为它们被驱逐舰完克。或者说航母也没啥用处，因为1艘主力舰能在万码之外就灭掉它。
别的船的舰炮口径更大，但上一次炮战决定战争胜负是什么时候的事了？50年前？
别的船有更多的巡航导弹，但你必须要先发现并定位目标。濒海战斗舰搭载的2艘海鹰直升机可用于侦察并装备企鹅（AGM-119）反舰导弹，并不需要舰船自身跑到雷达范围内。这可比其他设计效率高多了。
还要弄清楚一个问题：为什么通信软件系统容易被攻击会这么严重，且对于美国海军来说比其他国家海军更严重？在海战中濒海战斗舰的杀手锏是从9500吨驱逐舰上发射的导弹和从航母上起飞的F-18，而这些都需要从濒海战斗舰上下载战场数据。
弄清这个问题不是为濒海战斗舰的设计思路辩护，那完全是委员会的烧包过头的高见。但也不能因此就说设计思路完全错误。
Sty0pa 5/1/2013 7:33:02 AM
Ididn't notice this in your comparison, but critical in your comparison of PTBoats and LCS?
PTBoat in 1944 - about $160,000 1944 dollars.
Thisis about $2 million 2012 dollars.
We'reright at about $700 million for each ship, NOT including any combatmodules. So easily $1 billion/ship,deployed.
Sowhich delivers more utility and punch, in a littoral combat theater, and ismore survivable and sustainable against enemy action: 1 LCS, or FIVE HUNDRED PTboats?
(And,ironically, the argument "no light ship is going to survive a hit with ahigh speed antiship missile" isn't an argument in favor of thebillion-dollar boutique ship, it's an argument in favor of distributed,expendable, disposable capabilities.)
PT舰1944年的造价大约是16万美元。
大概相当于2012年的200万美元。
而现在我们的单艘造价是7亿美元，还不包括全部战斗模块组件。所以达成部署的话松松就10亿美元了。
那么在面对濒海战斗威胁哪种选择具备更多用途和打击能力？在对抗敌人的行动中哪种选择有更高的生存性和更经济？1艘濒海战斗舰还是500艘PT舰？？
（还有很可笑的是，你说“轻型军舰无法在高速反舰导弹打击下生存”，这好像不是为数十亿美金打造的优异舰艇辩护，反而是倾向于随用随弃）。
Toosh 5/1/2013 7:58:41 AM
Doyou really think the defense department could build a PT boat for 2 milliondloaars today ??????? LOL !!!!!!!!! Anymore stupid comments?????
你认为国防部现在还能以200万的价格造出PT舰来？？笑！！！你能更蠢些吗？？