話題討論：GJ-11“利劍” - 用于中國(guó)航母的無人攻擊機(jī) part1

GJ-11 Sharp Sword - Unmanned Strike Aircraft for China's Carriers

2024-02-25 碧波蕩漾恒河水 11236 34 21 收藏糾錯(cuò)&舉報(bào)

譯文簡(jiǎn)介

中國(guó)海軍打算在其配備彈射器的航空母艦上裝備一款海軍版GJ-11無人駕駛飛機(jī)，這是一種美國(guó)海軍不具備的能力。

正文翻譯

The PLA Navy intends to field a navalised GJ-11 UCAV on its catapult-equipped aircraft carriers, a capability not available to the US Navy.

中國(guó)海軍打算在其配備彈射器的航空母艦上裝備一款海軍版GJ-11無人駕駛飛機(jī)，這是一種美國(guó)海軍不具備的能力。

評(píng)論翻譯

@twlamSG
I think Type 001 and 002 most likely be retained as training carrier. Really depends, but China doesn't like to waste their equipment. They may even sell 001 to friendly countries..

我認(rèn)為001型和002型最有可能被保留作為訓(xùn)練航母。這要看情況，但中國(guó)不喜歡浪費(fèi)裝備。他們甚至可能把001賣給友好國(guó)家……

@ZweiZwolf
I agree China will likely repurpose the 001 and 002 carriers. Removing the ski jump would make for a really nice helicopter carrier, while removing it for a EMALS catapult would make for an excellent drone carrier.

我同意中國(guó)可能會(huì)改變001和002航母的用途。去掉滑躍將會(huì)成為一艘非常好的直升機(jī)航母，而去掉滑躍換成電磁彈射器將會(huì)成為一艘優(yōu)秀的無人機(jī)航母。

@unitheg6839
@ZweiZwolf It’s actually hard to repurpose once outfitting is done, kind of costly

@ZweiZwolf 事實(shí)上，一旦裝備完成，就很難重新改變用途，有點(diǎn)昂貴。

@ZweiZwolf
@unitheg6839 China bought the 001 as a scrap hull, and reworking the hull isn't really that hard. Countries have converted non-carrier ships into carriers, and so forth, so removing a ski jump and changing the airwing really isn't that difficult.

@unitheg6839 中國(guó)買001號(hào)的時(shí)候是破爛船殼，在船體上重新改造并不是那么難。一些國(guó)家已經(jīng)把非航母改裝成航母，所以去掉滑躍和改變飛行器真的不是那么困難。

@twlamSG
@ZweiZwolf Repurposing a carrier may be too much work. I suspect it is most likely to be sold. Once the catapult proved to work there is no need to train flights on elevated decks. Unless using it to train ship maneuvering, fire safety and other scenario based training.

@ZweiZwolf 改變一艘航母的用途可能工作量太大。我懷疑它最有可能被出售。一旦這種彈射器被證明是有效的，就沒有必要在抬高甲板上訓(xùn)練飛行。除非用它來訓(xùn)練船舶操縱、消防安全和其他訓(xùn)練方面的場(chǎng)景。

@ZweiZwolf
@twlamSG Who would China sell the carrier to? Carriers are expensive items, and China certainly wouldn't want it coming back to bite them. The potential buyers who can both afford a used aircraft carrier and also be trusted not to attack China is pretty limited. Plus, there's the issue of it not getting "accidentally" sunk by America out of spite. Back to Russia? Brasil? Iran? South Africa?

@twlamSG 中國(guó)會(huì)把這艘航母賣給誰(shuí)? 航母是很貴的東西，中國(guó)當(dāng)然不希望有人反過來用它對(duì)付自己。既能買得起二手航母，又能被信任不會(huì)攻擊中國(guó)的潛在買家相當(dāng)有限。此外，還有一個(gè)問題是，要防止美國(guó)出于怨恨而“意外”將其擊沉。賣回俄羅斯? 巴西? 伊朗? 南非?

@springtime1838
@ZweiZwolf
Aircraft Carriers as a rule are very expensive if CV 16 or 17 were to be sold there are safe to say not a lot of country's with both experience and the money besides Russia(money may be a problem) the only real option would likely be Brazil assuming they are even interested as having even a STOBAR carrier is expensive and thay have ex HMS Ocean not a replacement for there last CV but thay will have to want a replacement thay have other options to clarify am thinking the PLAN won't refit the Type-001/002 to CATOBAR but just find a good enough use after a Type 004 or two become available for service in the PLAN if a J-15 can use a ski jump than a UCAV can that and the the available radars and such is only getting better with time some ski jumping J-35's and UAV'S for AEW and EW and Tanker with ASW Z-20F's better that most and better than two less Aircraft Carrier that take time to built and outfit
@ZweiZwolf

通常而言，航母十分昂貴，如果中國(guó)要出售16或17號(hào)航母，可以說沒有多少國(guó)家既有經(jīng)驗(yàn)又有金錢來采購(gòu)它，除了俄羅斯（金錢方面可能有問題），唯一真正的選擇可能是巴西，假設(shè)他們感興趣的話，即便是一艘滑躍式航母也十分昂貴，他們有一艘前英國(guó)航母大西洋號(hào)，它無法替換他們的上一艘航母，但他們可能不得不希望有個(gè)替換，他們還有別的選項(xiàng)，說明白一點(diǎn)，我覺得中國(guó)海軍不會(huì)把001/002改裝為彈射航母，只會(huì)找到足夠好的用途，在有一兩艘004型在中國(guó)海軍服役之后之后，如果J-15可以用作滑躍起飛，那么無人機(jī)也可以，而且可用的雷達(dá)之類的裝備只會(huì)隨著時(shí)間變得更好，加上一些滑躍式J-35和無人機(jī)用于反潛、電子戰(zhàn)和加油機(jī)，有反潛型Z-20F最好，總好過少兩艘航母，畢竟是建造和舾裝是需要時(shí)間的。

@SpruceWood-NEG
China Coast Guard @ZweiZwolf

給中國(guó)海警。

@ZweiZwolf
@SpruceWood-NEG Coast Guard aircraft carrier? That's a new one, but sure.

@SpruceWood-NEG 海警航母？這個(gè)想法很新鮮，但是沒問題。

@ZweiZwolf
@springtime1838 IMO, any buyer would have to take both 001 and 002 as a package deal, as 002 is more-or-less an indigenous copy of 001. From a doctrine standpoint, any country adding carrier capability would need a 2nd to project power while the 1st undergoes maintenance and provides training. Also, China wouldn't want to be "stuck" with one oddball carrier. Personally, I hope South Africa buys the pair. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

@springtime1838 在我看來，任何買家都不得不接受001和002打包出售，因?yàn)?02或多或少是001的本土副本。從軍事理論的角度來看，任何增加航母能力的國(guó)家在第一艘航母進(jìn)行維護(hù)和提供訓(xùn)練時(shí)，都需要第二艘航母來投送軍力。此外，中國(guó)也不想被一艘老航母“綁住手腳”。就我個(gè)人而言，我希望南非能買下這兩艘航母。結(jié)果究竟怎樣會(huì)很有趣。

@danwelterweight4137
Carriers these days are floating coffins and a huge waste of resources.

如今的航空母艦就像漂浮的棺材，是對(duì)資源的巨大浪費(fèi)。

In a major war between major power anything above the surface will be sunk.

在大國(guó)之間的重大戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，水面上的任何東西都會(huì)被擊沉。

If I was the Chinese navy I would focus on making my nuclear powered submarines quieter and more lethal.

如果我是中國(guó)海軍，我會(huì)專注于讓我的核動(dòng)力潛艇更安靜、更致命。

Then I would put them on the Arctic, greater Pacific ocean and the Atlantic.

然后我會(huì)把它們放在北極、大太平洋和大西洋上。

I would also work with an African country or a Latin American country in the Atlantic Ocean to allow me to build a naval base there to give me access to the Atlantic Ocean.

我也會(huì)與大西洋上的一個(gè)非洲國(guó)家或拉丁美洲國(guó)家合作，讓我在那里建立一個(gè)海軍基地，讓我能夠進(jìn)入大西洋。

@virushk
@danwelterweight4137 The future is drones!

@danwelterweight4137 未來是無人機(jī)!

@gelinrefira
@danwelterweight4137 Yes, that's what they are doing right now. The future Chinese subs, including their boomers will be far quieter than the ones they have right now. Military watchers, especially PLAN watchers are predicting the Type 095, 096 will be as come very close to Seawolf or Virginia class. And it is likely they will build a lot of them. Not only that, they are also developing their new generation of conventional subs, probably with advance batteries that can last longer, go further and advance AIP, and they will also build a lot of those.

@danwelterweight4137 是的，他們現(xiàn)在就是這么做的。中國(guó)未來的潛艇，包括他們的彈道導(dǎo)彈潛艇，將比現(xiàn)在的潛艇安靜得多。軍事觀察家，特別是中國(guó)海軍觀察家預(yù)測(cè)095、096型將非常接近海狼級(jí)或弗吉尼亞級(jí)。而且他們很可能會(huì)大量建造。不僅如此，他們還在開發(fā)新一代常規(guī)潛艇，可能配備更先進(jìn)的電池，可以使用更長(zhǎng)時(shí)間，走得更遠(yuǎn)，先進(jìn)的AIP系統(tǒng)，他們還將建造很多這樣的潛艇。

The seas around China's coasts will be the graveyard of ships of any nation who dares to pick a fight with them.

中國(guó)海岸周圍的海域?qū)⒊蔀槿魏文懜遗c之戰(zhàn)斗的國(guó)家的軍艦墳?zāi)埂?/b>

And I'm not even counting their land base rocket force and air force.

我還沒算上他們的陸基火箭部隊(duì)和空軍。

@johnbodman4504
I agree.

同意。

@tonysu8860
None of this statement is accurate.

這些說法都不準(zhǔn)確。

America chooses to not deploy all at once so that about a third are always fully upgraded with the latest and best upgrades and fully operational. If the USN didn't rotate their carriers on this schedule, there would be periods when fewer carriers would be fully operational or have obsolete equipment This is critical when carriers have lifetimes over 50 years. The PLAN hasn't been operating carriers in number or very long to experience the problem of technological obsolescence or need major overhauls.

美國(guó)選擇不一次部署所有航母，這樣大約三分之一的航母就能得到最新、最好的升級(jí)，并具備完全的作戰(zhàn)能力。如果美國(guó)海軍不按照這個(gè)時(shí)間表輪換他們的航母，那么就會(huì)有一段時(shí)間，只有很少的航母可以完全投入使用，或者裝備過時(shí)。當(dāng)航母的使用壽命超過50年時(shí)，這是至關(guān)重要的。中國(guó)海軍運(yùn)營(yíng)的航母數(shù)量不多，也沒有運(yùn)營(yíng)很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間，所以尚未經(jīng)歷技術(shù)過時(shí)或需要大修的問題。

And, anyone who thinks that aircraft carriers will be sunk if there is open hostilities with China hasn't been paying any attention to American military doctrine. For nearly a hundred years now the US has gone to war and win, loss or stalemate the US has never been reckless in wasting and losing assets. Even a single serviceman's life is valuable and to be preserved so why would the US willingly lose an aircraft carrier? China can always attack an aircraft carrier but it's another thing to cause enough damage to disable or sink one.

而且，任何認(rèn)為如果與中國(guó)公開敵對(duì)，航母就會(huì)被擊沉的人，都沒有注意到美國(guó)的軍事學(xué)說。近一百年來，美國(guó)打過仗，贏過，輸過，僵持過，美國(guó)從來沒有不計(jì)后果地浪費(fèi)和損失過資產(chǎn)。即使是一個(gè)軍人的生命也是寶貴的，應(yīng)該得到保護(hù)，所以為什么美國(guó)愿意失去一艘航空母艦? 中國(guó)總是可以攻擊一艘航空母艦，但造成足夠的破壞或擊沉一艘航母是另一回事。

@tonysu8860
@gelinrefira China has made notable progress in their submarines but that's all. In all other areas China is so far behind that it's unlikely that China can create even a credible threat much less a possibility or probability of destroying US aircraft or vessels. Even this video's statement that China has advanced drone capability is unproven, or at least not discussed publicly and I doubt the US is going to say much that might confirm the military's opinion of Chinese capability. But, China hasn't demonstrated much, its various drones are mostly demonstrators with the exception of those Predator clones.

@gelinrefira 中國(guó)在潛艇方面取得了顯著進(jìn)步，但僅此而已。在所有其他領(lǐng)域，中國(guó)都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)落后，中國(guó)不太可能造成可信的威脅，更不用說摧毀美國(guó)飛機(jī)或船只的可能性了。甚至這個(gè)視頻中關(guān)于中國(guó)擁有先進(jìn)無人機(jī)能力的說法都是未經(jīng)證實(shí)的，或者至少?zèng)]有公開討論過，我懷疑美國(guó)會(huì)說很多可能證實(shí)軍方對(duì)中國(guó)能力的看法。但是，中國(guó)并沒有展示太多，除了那些“捕食者”的山寨版之外，它的各種無人機(jī)大多是演示用的。

The submarine threat must be respected because it's estimated that China's very latest launched might be less than a decade behind the US overall and even a single one that's approximately equal to the US is a threat. But even if China attains approximately parity with the US, China at that point will have only one and it'll be at least 20 years before China would be able to build a fleet comparable in size to the US Los Angeles class and better fleet even if China churned out submarines at breakneck speed and the US doesn't increase its own fleet size.

中國(guó)潛艇的威脅必須得到尊重，因?yàn)閾?jù)估計(jì)，中國(guó)最新下水的潛艇可能比美國(guó)落后不到10年，甚至與美國(guó)相當(dāng)?shù)臐撏Ъ幢阒挥幸凰遥际且粋€(gè)威脅。但是，即使中國(guó)達(dá)到了與美國(guó)大致相當(dāng)?shù)乃剑侥菚r(shí)中國(guó)也將只有一艘，即使中國(guó)以驚人的速度生產(chǎn)潛艇，而美國(guó)不增加自己的艦隊(duì)規(guī)模，中國(guó)也至少需要20年才能建立一支與美國(guó)洛杉磯級(jí)規(guī)模相當(dāng)?shù)呐炾?duì)和更好的艦隊(duì)。

@shmeckle666
The point of the number of US carriers is not to have all 10/12 deployed at once time. It’s to, in theory, always have (at least) 3 deployed, 3 in maintenance/refit, and 3 in predeployment prep at any given time. Rule of 3, or some shit. 1 deployed, 1 in maintenance, 1 getting ready to deploy. And you cycle the ships through that cycle as such.

美國(guó)航母數(shù)量的關(guān)鍵不是一次性部署所有10/12艘。理論上，無論何時(shí)，它總是(至少)有3艘部署，3艘維護(hù)/改裝，3艘部署前準(zhǔn)備。三艘法則之類的。一艘部署，一艘維護(hù)，一艘準(zhǔn)備部署。而且對(duì)航母這樣循環(huán)。

@ZweiZwolf
@tonysu8860 China's subs are already really good. Remember the time that a Chinese sub popped up in the middle of a US Navy battle group? Yeah. And their newer subs are certainly even better. China has something like 10 times the US shipbuilding capacity, supported by easily 10 times the industrial manufacturing capability. If push came to shove, China could churn out military hardware at a frightening pace. As for what's been demonstrated, both times the US fought against China in Korea and Vietnam, the US lost. Furthermore, the US has never fought against an actual peer adversary, much less one with clearly larger overall manpower, superior manufacturing technology and greater overall production capacity. Even if Chinese tech is a generation behind the US, their ability to flood the battlefield and replace losses makes a very big difference.

@tonysu8860 中國(guó)的潛艇已經(jīng)很好了。還記得那次中國(guó)潛艇突然出現(xiàn)在美國(guó)海軍戰(zhàn)斗群中間嗎? 是的。而且他們的新潛艇肯定更好。中國(guó)的造船能力大約是美國(guó)的10倍，受到輕易達(dá)到美國(guó)10倍的工業(yè)制造能力的支持。如果事態(tài)嚴(yán)重，中國(guó)可能會(huì)以驚人的速度生產(chǎn)軍事裝備。至于已經(jīng)證明的，兩次美國(guó)在朝鮮和越南與中國(guó)作戰(zhàn)，美國(guó)都輸了。此外，美國(guó)從未與真正并駕齊驅(qū)的對(duì)手打過仗，更不用說擁有明顯更多的總?cè)肆Α⒏鼉?yōu)越的制造技術(shù)和更大的整體生產(chǎn)能力的對(duì)手了。即使中國(guó)的科技落后美國(guó)一代，他們?cè)趹?zhàn)場(chǎng)上的能力和彌補(bǔ)損失的能力也會(huì)產(chǎn)生很大的不同。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

@user-jp2tf5fj5k
@danwelterweight4137 Dude... how can you think Chinese are not developing those subs... They are actually advancing on every aspects, with cheaper prices and more admirable techs compare to US's. The only advantage that US has is their storage. The ship building industry of US has continually shrinking and now its difficult for it to build a destroyer.

@danwelterweight4137 伙計(jì)……你怎么能認(rèn)為中國(guó)人沒有發(fā)展這些潛艇……他們實(shí)際上在各個(gè)方面都在進(jìn)步，與美國(guó)相比，他們的價(jià)格更便宜，技術(shù)更令人欽佩。美國(guó)唯一的優(yōu)勢(shì)是他們的存貨。美國(guó)的造船業(yè)不斷萎縮，現(xiàn)在造一艘驅(qū)逐艦都很困難。

@user-jc8cy5tf2k
@ZweiZwolf According to the latest published data, China's shipbuilding speed is more than 100 times that of the United States.

@ZweiZwolf 根據(jù)最新公布的數(shù)據(jù)，中國(guó)的造船速度是美國(guó)的100多倍。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

@ZweiZwolf
@user-jc8cy5tf2k I just read that China is now closer to 400x the shipbuilding capacity of America. LOL

@user-jc8cy5tf2k 我剛剛讀到中國(guó)現(xiàn)在的造船能力接近美國(guó)的400倍。哈哈。

@patrickm.4754
One thing I hate about Western analysts is that they tend to compare Type 003 with the Ford class. A fair 1:1 comparison would be with the Kitty Hawk.

我討厭西方分析家的一件事是，他們傾向于將003型與福特級(jí)進(jìn)行比較。與小鷹號(hào)進(jìn)行比較才公平。

@zomgneedaname
But then the comparison would have the 003 come out on top, can't have that

但是那樣比較之后003會(huì)排在首位，可不敢這么比。

@patrickm.4754
@zomgneedaname Correct, also the way the two countries deploy their carriers are two different strategies. At the end of the day, propaganda is propaganda.

@zomgneedaname 沒錯(cuò)，兩國(guó)部署航母的方式也是兩種不同的戰(zhàn)略。說到底，宣傳就是宣傳。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

@zix_zix_zix
Maybe because the Type 003, like the USS Gerald R. Ford, features electromagnetic launch system (EMALS) instead of steam catapults?

也許是因?yàn)?03型像杰拉爾德·r·福特號(hào)一樣，采用電磁發(fā)射系統(tǒng)而不是蒸汽彈射器?

@user-ji6wb7ki8g
Electromagnetic ejection capability is significantly stronger than steam ejection capability.. So the 003 model is clearly comparable to the Ford class, rather than the fully outdated and retired Little Eagle..

電磁彈射能力明顯強(qiáng)于蒸汽彈射能力。所以003型號(hào)顯然可以與福特級(jí)相媲美，而不是完全過時(shí)和退役的小鷹……

@danwelterweight4137
@zix_zix_zix it's not a good comparison because the Ford class is nuclear class. The Kitty Hawk and the Type 003 are not.

@zix_zix_zix 這不是一個(gè)好的比較，因?yàn)楦Ｌ丶?jí)是核動(dòng)力級(jí)。小鷹號(hào)和003型不是。

You wouldn't compare a nuclear submarine to a conventional submarine so why would you compare a nuclear carrier to a conventional carrier?

你不會(huì)將核潛艇與常規(guī)潛艇進(jìn)行比較，那么為什么要將核動(dòng)力航母與常規(guī)航母進(jìn)行比較呢?

@chrisdoulou8149
It doesn’t nearly compare with either. It’s a Kittyhawk sized vessel that’s comparable to the Ford in tech level.

它根本無法與任何一個(gè)相比。這是一艘小鷹號(hào)大小的船，在技術(shù)水平上與福特號(hào)相當(dāng)。

@zix_zix_zix
@danwelterweight4137 A nuclear submarine usually means it is a lot quieter than a conventional one, which makes it harder to detect. This is a very important quality for submarines because they rely on stealth to survive. In carriers, nuclear-powered means there is no need to refuel, therefore extended operational range. Although this is an important feature for blue water operations, it is not that important to PLAN because they do not intend to send their carrier to operate away from home. Therefore, it all comes down to airwing operations.

@danwelterweight4137 核潛艇通常意味著它比傳統(tǒng)潛艇安靜得多，這使得它更難被發(fā)現(xiàn)。這對(duì)潛艇來說是一個(gè)非常重要的品質(zhì)，因?yàn)樗鼈円揽侩[身來生存。而航母，核動(dòng)力意味著不需要加油，因此擴(kuò)大了作戰(zhàn)范圍。雖然這是藍(lán)水作戰(zhàn)的一個(gè)重要特征，但對(duì)中國(guó)海軍來說并不是那么重要，因?yàn)樗麄儾淮蛩闩善浜侥冈谶h(yuǎn)離本土的地方作戰(zhàn)。因此，這一切都?xì)w結(jié)為飛行器的操作。

@Ream334
What are the chances of the Type 003 meeting a Kitty Hawk in battle?

003型在戰(zhàn)斗中遇到小鷹號(hào)的幾率有多大?

@danwelterweight4137
@zix_zix_zix wrong, conventional submarines are much more quieter than nuclear submarines.

@zix_zix_zix 錯(cuò)了，常規(guī)潛艇比核潛艇安靜得多。

Nuclear submarines are way more noisy.

核潛艇的噪音更大。

Nuclear submarines and nuclear carriers don't have to be supplied with fuel on a regular basis. That is true. That is why they should not be compared with conventional submarines and carriers because they are two different classes of weapons for different purposes.

核潛艇和核動(dòng)力航母不需要定期補(bǔ)給燃料。這是真的。這就是為什么它們不應(yīng)該與常規(guī)潛艇和航母進(jìn)行比較，因?yàn)樗鼈兪莾煞N不同類型的武器，用于不同的目的。

@grid-panda
@danwelterweight4137 In the 2000s, the U.S. Navy proposed the CVX plan for the 21st century aircraft carrier. The CVX plan has two branches, one is the steam powered CV-21, and the other is the nuclear-powered CVN-21. The Ford class is CVN-21. The concept of type 003 is very close to the original CV-21.

@danwelterweight4137 21世紀(jì)初，美國(guó)海軍提出了21世紀(jì)航母的CVX計(jì)劃。CVX計(jì)劃有兩個(gè)分支，一個(gè)是蒸汽動(dòng)力CV-21，另一個(gè)是核動(dòng)力CVN-21。福特級(jí)是CVN-21。003型的概念非常接近最初的CV-21型。

@zix_zix_zix
@danwelterweight4137 I don't think so. Diesel Electric subs CAN be very quiet when operating on batteries; they just can’t operate on batteries forever and they are very noisy when they start their diesels to charge those batteries - not to mention that they cannot stay underwater for months, either,

@danwelterweight4137 我不這么想。柴電潛艇在使用電池時(shí)非常安靜；只是它們不能永遠(yuǎn)靠電池工作，而且當(dāng)它們啟動(dòng)柴油給電池充電時(shí)，噪音非常大——更不用說它們也不能在水下呆上幾個(gè)月。

@kanestalin7246
@zix_zix_zix nuclear submarines are noiser than conventional one not quieter

@zix_zix_zix 核潛艇比傳統(tǒng)潛艇噪音大，而不是更安靜。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

@theinfralix6598
Except one is new clear and the other is conventional power, they are comparable in almost every way

除了一種是核動(dòng)力，另一種是傳統(tǒng)能源外，它們幾乎在所有方面都具有可比性。

@papatango2362
@Ream334 0 because kitty hawk is scrapped.

@Ream334 毫無可能，因?yàn)樾→椉?jí)報(bào)廢了。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

@obliviouz
I can't believe no-one has mentioned the obvious reason: in any practical application of the Type 003, it will be up against the Ford, not the Kitty Hawk. Nothing about war is "fair" - making 'fair' comparisons is pointless; projecting actual power and winning engagements is all that matters.

我不敢相信竟然沒有人提到這個(gè)明顯的原因：在003型的任何實(shí)際應(yīng)用中，它將對(duì)抗福特，而不是小鷹。戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)沒有什么是“公平”的——進(jìn)行“公平”的比較是毫無意義的；投射真正的兵力和贏得交戰(zhàn)才是最重要的。

GJ-11 利劍 中國(guó)航母 無人攻擊機(jī)

很贊 ( 21 )

收藏