正文翻譯

2021年1月14日，主題：安全區(qū)域 標(biāo)簽： 海軍軍事技術(shù)世界

This U.S. Navy Problem Can’t Be Solved By Building More Ships

建造更多船只也無(wú)法解決美國(guó)海軍的問(wèn)題

Shipyards are having problems.

船廠有問(wèn)題。

by David Axe

作者：David Axe

Here's What You Need To Remember: “Against an enemy equipped with advanced anti-access/area-denial capabilities, attrition of U.S. capital assets—ships, planes, tanks—could be enormous.” And owing to a dearth of shipyards, the Navy might not be able to repair the damage in time to make a difference in the conflict.

這是你需要記住的事情：“針對(duì)裝備有先進(jìn)的拒止能力的敵人，美國(guó)資產(chǎn)（船舶，飛機(jī)，坦克）的消耗可能是巨大的?！?而且由于造船廠的匱乏，海軍可能無(wú)法及時(shí)修復(fù)損傷而影響沖突結(jié)果。

That’s the dire conclusion that William Hawkins, a former Congressional researcher, reached when he studied government shipbuilding reports. Hawkins explained his alarm in an article in the August 2019 edition of the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings.

這是前國(guó)會(huì)研究員威廉·霍金斯在研究政府造船業(yè)時(shí)報(bào)告中得出的可怕結(jié)論。 霍金斯在2019年8月版的美國(guó)海軍學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)中的一篇文章中闡述了他的警告。

Hawkins pored through two recent U.S. Navy reports to Congress. Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2020 and Long-Range Plan for Maintenance and Modernization of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2020.

霍金斯仔細(xì)研究了美國(guó)海軍最近向國(guó)會(huì)提交的兩份報(bào)告。 2020財(cái)年海軍艦艇建設(shè)年度長(zhǎng)期計(jì)劃和2020財(cái)年海軍艦艇維護(hù)和現(xiàn)代化長(zhǎng)期計(jì)劃。

“Shipbuilders seem confident they can produce warships on the schedule the Navy has drawn up,” Hawkins pointed out. “The 355-ship target will not be reached until 2034; four presidential and seven Congressional elections will pass before then, presenting risks to continuity.”

霍金斯指出：“造船商似乎對(duì)他們能夠按海軍制定的時(shí)間表生產(chǎn)軍艦充滿信心?！?“ 355艘船的目標(biāo)要到2034年才能實(shí)現(xiàn)； 在此之前，將舉行四次總統(tǒng)選舉和七次國(guó)會(huì)選舉，這給“政策”連續(xù)帶來(lái)了不確定性?！?/p>

The Navy owns four shipyards. Four private firms between them own another seven yards. Eleven yards in total for a fleet that could grow to 355 ships, not counting scores of auxiliaries as well as Coast Guard vessels.

海軍擁有四個(gè)造船廠。 它們之間的四個(gè)私有的公司又擁有七個(gè)船塢。 海軍總共有11船塢，可以生產(chǎn)船只至355艘船，這還不算輔助船和海岸警衛(wèi)隊(duì)的數(shù)十艘船。

“In the face of the construction demands, capacity to repair battle damage resulting from combat in a distant theater such as the South China Sea seems to be lacking,” Hawkins wrote. “The Maintenance and Modernization report calls for expanding beyond the current 21 dry docks on the U.S. Pacific coast merely to reduce current backlogs in the normal routine. When something off schedule occurs, extraordinary measures have to be taken.”

霍金斯寫(xiě)道：“面對(duì)修建需求，似乎缺乏在南海等遙遠(yuǎn)戰(zhàn)區(qū)進(jìn)行戰(zhàn)斗而造成的戰(zhàn)斗損傷船只的修復(fù)能力?！?“維護(hù)與現(xiàn)代化報(bào)告”呼吁將維修能力擴(kuò)大到目前在美國(guó)太平洋沿岸的21個(gè)干船塢，為了減少正常情況下的任務(wù)積壓。 當(dāng)某些意外事情發(fā)生時(shí)，必須采取特別措施?！?/p>

Hawkins cites the example of the destroyer USS Fitzgerald as a cautionary example. Fitzgerald collided with a merchant vessel off the Japanese coast in June 2017. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer suffered heavy damage.

霍金斯舉了一個(gè)以驅(qū)逐艦“菲茨杰拉德”號(hào)的例子。 2017年6月，菲茨杰拉德號(hào)與一艘商船在日本沿海相撞。這艘阿利·伯克級(jí)驅(qū)逐艦遭受了嚴(yán)重?fù)p壞。

“The warship first limped to Japan for uation before being sent back to the United States for repairs,” Hawkins wrote.

霍金斯寫(xiě)道：“軍艦首先龜速到日本進(jìn)行評(píng)估，然后再被送回美國(guó)進(jìn)行維修?！?/p>

But she could not be dealt with at any of the Pacific dockyards; she had to be carried to a dry dock at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The Ingalls facility is the leading construction site for the Arleigh Burke–class, having built 30 of them with more under contract.

然而在太平洋的任何一個(gè)船塢都無(wú)法處理它。 它必須被帶到密西西比州帕斯卡古拉的英格爾斯造船廠的干船塢。 英格爾斯工廠是阿里伯克級(jí)一流的建造工場(chǎng)，已建造了30艘，另有更多合同需要完成。

At the time, the Navy stated, “Only [Ingalls] has the available capacity to restore USS Fitzgerald to full operational status in the shortest period of time with minimal disruption to ongoing repair and new construction work.” ...

當(dāng)時(shí)，海軍表示：“只有英格爾斯有能力在最短的時(shí)間內(nèi)將菲茨杰拉德號(hào)驅(qū)逐艦恢復(fù)到全運(yùn)行狀態(tài)，而對(duì)正在進(jìn)行的維修和新建工程造成的影響最小?！?...

Houston-based Patriot Shipping provided the heavy-lift vessel needed to carry the Fitzgerald home. She did not reach Pascagoula until January 2018 and did not leave the dry dock there until mid-April 2019, 22 months after the collision.

位于休斯敦的愛(ài)國(guó)者航運(yùn)公司提供了將菲茨杰拉德驅(qū)逐艦帶回工廠所需的重型船只。 它直到2018年1月才到達(dá)帕斯卡古拉，距離碰撞已有22個(gè)月，直到2019年4月中旬才離開(kāi)干船塢。

There are plenty of other cautionary examples, Hawkins pointed out. “When the USS Cole (DDG-67) was damaged in suicide attack in Aden in October 2000, she also had to be transported back to the United States for repairs, on a Dutch heavy-lift vessel. The destroyer did not leave its Pascagoula dry dock until September 2001, a shorter stay than the Fitzgerald only because the damage was not as extensive.”

霍金斯指出，還有很多其他的令人警醒的例子。 “ 2000年10月，科爾號(hào)驅(qū)逐艦（DDG-67）在亞丁自殺襲擊中受損后，它還必須被運(yùn)送到美國(guó)，使用一艘荷蘭重型半潛船。 直到2001年9月，驅(qū)逐艦才離開(kāi)帕斯卡古拉船塢，比菲茨杰拉德停留的時(shí)間短，是因?yàn)槠茐某潭炔淮蟆?/p>

Then there was the destroyer USS John S. McCain, which collided with a merchant ship near Singapore in August 2017. “She was repaired in Japan, where she is home-ported, rather than transported back to the United States,” Hawkins wrote.

然后是驅(qū)逐艦約翰·麥凱恩號(hào)（USS John S. McCain），它在2017年8月與新加坡附近的一艘商船相撞?；艚鹚箤?xiě)道：“她在日本的母港進(jìn)行了修理，而不是運(yùn)回美國(guó)?！?/p>

The destroyer remained in a Yokohama dry dock from January 2018 until late November, 15 months after the accident. In any Pacific Rim naval war, the hope is that Japan will be an active ally whose facilities would be available to U.S. warships. However, battle-damaged Japanese ships could be competing for repair capacity, and Japan’s yards might come under attack given their proximity to the combat theater.

自事故發(fā)生15個(gè)月后，從2018年1月至11月下旬，該驅(qū)逐艦一直滯留在橫濱干船塢內(nèi)。 在一些環(huán)太平洋海戰(zhàn)中，希望是日本將成為一個(gè)積極的盟國(guó)，其設(shè)施將可供美國(guó)軍艦使用。 但是，戰(zhàn)損的日本戰(zhàn)艦可能擠占修復(fù)能力，而且由于其在戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)附近，日本的船塢可能會(huì)受到攻擊。

Hawkins concluded by quoting a 2018 report from the National Defense Strategy Commission. “Against an enemy equipped with advanced anti-access/area-denial capabilities, attrition of U.S. capital assets—ships, planes, tanks—could be enormous.”

霍金斯最后引用了國(guó)防戰(zhàn)略委員會(huì)2018年的一份報(bào)告。 “要對(duì)抗裝備有先進(jìn)的反拒止能力的敵人，美國(guó)的主要資產(chǎn)（船只，飛機(jī)，坦克）的消耗可能是巨大的?！?/p>

And owing to a dearth of shipyards, the Navy might not be able to repair the damage in time to make a difference in the conflict.

而且由于造船廠的匱乏，海軍可能無(wú)法及時(shí)修復(fù)損害，在沖突發(fā)揮作用。

David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad. This first appeared in August 2019.

大衛(wèi)·阿克斯擔(dān)任《國(guó)家利益》的國(guó)防編輯。 他是漫畫(huà)小說(shuō)《戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)修正》，《無(wú)聊的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)》和《彎刀小隊(duì)》的作者。 第一次出現(xiàn)在2019年8月。

評(píng)論翻譯

Franc Marcus?
The US is losing supremacy in the pacific，BUT FIRST WORLD OF WARSHIPS

美國(guó)正在失去在太平洋地區(qū)的霸主地位， 而不是戰(zhàn)艦世界第一的事兒

Mr. Sparkledog
Fun game

有趣的游戲

GC Performance
@Bytional @ bytional The US has vast resources, more than enough to support itself. It just makes more sense to buy or take from other countries.

美國(guó)擁有龐大的資源，足以自給自足。只是從其他國(guó)家購(gòu)買(mǎi)或采購(gòu)更有意義

ARTUR CAVALCANTI
History isn't a pattern, we can make history what we want it to be.

歷史不是一種模式，我們可以按照自己的意愿創(chuàng)造歷史

Adam Smith
4:57 Contrary to what you said, alx fighters/interceptors are already loaded with weapons and fueled up.

與你所說(shuō)的相反，警戒戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)/攔截機(jī)已經(jīng)裝載了武器并加滿了燃料

The Watcher?
I was stationed in Oki as a Marine for 6yrs let me tell you...U.S. lost the Pacific along time ago!!

我作為一名海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊(duì)員在沖繩駐扎了6年，讓我告訴你... ... 美國(guó)很久以前就失去了太平洋!

John Smith?
Who on earth would dare to attack US mainland?! Scaremongering

到底是誰(shuí)膽敢攻擊美國(guó)本土? ! 造謠

Strange Faction?
Invisible?? Remember the D-21? It was stealthier, flew higher and was much faster than F/A-117. It was lost while on a mission in China in 1971 and crashed in the Siberia. It was likely shot down. Almost 50 years ago. It cancelled the entire D-21 program..?

隱形？還記得 D-21嗎？它比F/A-117隱身更好，飛得更高，速度更快。它是1971年在中國(guó)執(zhí)行任務(wù)時(shí)失蹤，在西伯利亞墜毀。很可能是被擊落的。差不多50年前。整個(gè) D-21項(xiàng)目被中止。

E Santos

@Strange Faction @ 奇怪的派系 true but this is 2020 not 1971 and this is the B 21 raider we're talking about here . U.S. tech has really changed since 1971 .
沒(méi)錯(cuò)，但這是2020年，不是1971年，我們?cè)谶@里談?wù)摰氖?B21轟炸機(jī)。自1971年以來(lái)，美國(guó)的技術(shù)已經(jīng)發(fā)生了巨大的變化

RTLEL

@Strange Faction @ 奇怪的派系 The D-21 wasn't stealthier than the F-117, just google it's RCS... And they won't build 500 B-2's
D-21并不比 F-117隱形更好，可以谷歌一下它的 RCS..他們也不會(huì)造500架 B-2

gavin martin
The F-35 is going on Smaller carriers and they are more powerful than the Chinese planes and there stealth.

F-35戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)在更小些的航空母艦起降，它們比中國(guó)的戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)更強(qiáng)大，而且隱形能力更強(qiáng)

Paul Oksnee
The US had no justification for thinking it "owned" the Pacific

美國(guó)沒(méi)有理由認(rèn)為自己“擁有”太平洋

Joshua?
You miss a lot of details of explaining the usa pacific navy

你漏掉了很多關(guān)于美國(guó)太平洋海軍的細(xì)節(jié)

Prashanta Timsina
I guess the most effective way for any nation would be to start militarizing space with weaponizing satellite first.

我想對(duì)于任何國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)，最有效的方法就是先把衛(wèi)星武器化，然后開(kāi)始太空軍事化

big mike
We need aegis ashore in Japan especially Okinawa to protect our bases.

我們需要在日本的保護(hù)特別是沖繩來(lái)保護(hù)我們的基地

Kieran Macdonald?
Its the US submarine fleet that will dominate any pacific war.

美國(guó)的潛艇艦隊(duì)將主宰所有的太平洋戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)

lairdriver
The US has been changing it's entire naval doctrine. It still has the superior fleet and tactics. China lacks a carrier based fighter jet as well.

美國(guó)一直在改變它的整個(gè)海軍規(guī)則。它仍然擁有優(yōu)秀的艦隊(duì)和戰(zhàn)術(shù)。中國(guó)也沒(méi)有艦載戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)

WK Chan
To lose something you must own it first. Never new the pacific ocean belongs to the US.

失去一些東西，你必須首先擁有它。太平洋永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)屬于美國(guó)

Dhurjatinarayan Giri
Once US lose Pacific to Japan But Everyone knows the final result?

一旦美國(guó)在太平洋上輸給了日本,每個(gè)人都知道后果

Johnson Lease?
When did US have the Pacific Ocean?

美國(guó)什么時(shí)候有了太平洋？

Franky Flowers
was the pacific ocean ours? i thought it was so many miles from shore nobody owns it

太平洋是我們的嗎? 我以為離海岸這么遠(yuǎn)，沒(méi)人擁有它

Erick 0?
I bet you anything Chinese Hardware is 1/20th the cost to produce in comparison to USA costs. That is a huge advantage.

我敢跟你打賭，中國(guó)五金制品的成本是美國(guó)的二十分之一。這是一個(gè)巨大的優(yōu)勢(shì)

iSme eiger?
since when pacific ocean belong to USA? helllo， anyone there?

從什么時(shí)候開(kāi)始太平洋屬于美國(guó)了? 喂，有人在嗎？

Pavlos Papageorgiou
I'm not sure why the Pacific Ocean was the US's to lose?

我不確信為什么太平洋會(huì)是美國(guó)的損失？

112313
Since when is the Pacific Ocean belongs to usa??

太平洋什么時(shí)候?qū)儆诿绹?guó)了？

Xiongfei Chen
The title is standard American thinking: the Pacific Ocean is also a pond in the American yard.

標(biāo)題是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的美國(guó)思維: 太平洋也是一個(gè)在美國(guó)的院子里的池塘

KELLY PAYNE?
The U.S. does not own the Pacific Ocean.

美國(guó)并不擁有太平洋

Nwabueze Ozuzu?
What do you mean by US is loosing the Pacific Ocean? Does it belong to them?

你說(shuō)美國(guó)正在失去太平洋是什么意思? 那是他們的嗎？