美國(guó)海軍戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)從航空母艦上墜入紅海
Navy: U.S. fighter jet falls off aircraft carrier and into Red Sea
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
據(jù)報(bào)道，這架價(jià)值七千萬(wàn)美元的F/A-18戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)在被拖出機(jī)庫(kù)時(shí)，哈里·S·杜魯門(mén)號(hào)航空母艦的船員失去了對(duì)其控制。
正文翻譯
April 29, 2025
2025年4月29日
The $70 million F/A-18 fighter jet was reportedly being towed out of the hangar bay when the of the USS Harry S. Truman crew lost control.
據(jù)報(bào)道，這架價(jià)值七千萬(wàn)美元的F/A-18戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)在被拖出機(jī)庫(kù)時(shí)，哈里·S·杜魯門(mén)號(hào)航空母艦的船員失去了對(duì)其控制。
據(jù)報(bào)道，這架價(jià)值七千萬(wàn)美元的F/A-18戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)在被拖出機(jī)庫(kù)時(shí)，哈里·S·杜魯門(mén)號(hào)航空母艦的船員失去了對(duì)其控制。
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 8 )
收藏
“Was it because of enemy fire?”
Soldier :” Oh uh yeaaa… enemy fire yea.”
“是因?yàn)閿橙说呐诨饐幔俊?br /> 士兵：“哦，呃，嗯，敵人的炮火，對(duì)，就是敵人的炮火?！?/b>
lol
哈哈
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
sure blame the houtis lol
當(dāng)然了，怪胡塞武裝唄，lol。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
it was very peculiar that this kind of "accident" only happens in hot water under enemy fire, never in peaceful time
maybe, juuuust maybe, somebody is lying.
Like many NATO officer suddenly died while hiking or skiing or because of helicopter accident, all that never happened before 2022 war.
這確實(shí)很奇怪，這種“事故”似乎只在敵方炮火下的混亂中發(fā)生，從未在和平時(shí)期出現(xiàn)。或許，僅僅是或許，有人在撒謊。就像許多北約官員突然在徒步旅行、滑雪或者直升機(jī)事故中喪生，這些情況在2022年戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)之前從未發(fā)生過(guò)。
Yea, yea…that’s the ticket!
是的，是的…這正是我要的！
Less embarrassing than admit it was shot down over Yemen.
比承認(rèn)是在也門(mén)被擊落還要尷尬。
Most Americans have no money, there goes 70 million of your tax dollars lol
大多數(shù)美國(guó)人都沒(méi)錢(qián)，就這樣七千萬(wàn)美元的稅款沒(méi)了，lol。
@jamesdennis2815 MAGA
@jamesdennis2815 讓美國(guó)再次偉大
Nationwide blackout in Spain and Portugal yesterday, and the official explanation... "rare atmospheric phenomenon."
西班牙和葡萄牙昨天全國(guó)大停電，官方解釋是“罕見(jiàn)的氣象現(xiàn)象”。
@MuhammadRidwan-pe7ny - If they're lying, it'll be so they claim on the insurance policy. Can't if cause is stupidity.
如果他們?cè)谌鲋e那就是為了申請(qǐng)保險(xiǎn)賠償，但如果原因是愚蠢的話就沒(méi)辦法了。
All are like my grandmother age plane, are there capable of going War?
全都是和我奶奶年紀(jì)一樣的飛機(jī)，這些飛機(jī)還能上戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)嗎？
@MuhammadRidwan-pe7ny It really is sad how the Muslim World seems to fall for conspiracy theories so easily.
穆斯林世界似乎如此容易相信陰謀論，確實(shí)讓人感到悲哀。
First off it is sailor silly not soldier! And you would not last an hour working on that flight deck at night during war ops!
首先，這是“水手”，不是“士兵”！而且，在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)行動(dòng)期間，你在深夜的飛行甲板上干活恐怕連一個(gè)小時(shí)都撐不?。?/b>
Sailor, that was the Navy
水手，那就是海軍。
"Hey Maverick, did you remember to set the hand brake?"
"Uuuuuuh, I think so... why?"
“嘿，Maverick，你記得拉手剎了嗎？”
“呃......我想記得吧，怎么了？”
? @xiaoka just like Iraqi WMD you mean ??????????
@xiaoka 你是指伊拉克的大規(guī)模殺傷性武器對(duì)吧？？？？？？？？
@xiaoka do you know about 2003 Iraq INVASION by US, ooh youngster ?
@xiaoka 你知道2003年美國(guó)對(duì)伊拉克的入侵嗎，年輕人歐？
@MuhammadRidwan-pe7ny that was a dumb choice made by the president and government. You do remember the invasion of Kuwait?
@MuhammadRidwan-pe7ny 那是總統(tǒng)和政府做出的愚蠢決定，你還記得入侵科威特的事情嗎？
@BojackHorseman0098 1991 yes USA is justified to smote Iraq
but 2003 Iraq OSTENSIBLY had nukes so the BENEVOLENT USA did what it does best since 230 years.
Now search Iraq nuke lie, sweet summer child
@BojackHorseman0098 1991年美國(guó)對(duì)伊拉克進(jìn)行打擊是有理由的，但到了2003年，以伊拉克所謂擁有核武器的借口成為幌子，被自詡為仁慈的美國(guó)繼續(xù)延續(xù)其兩百三十年以來(lái)的傳統(tǒng)。現(xiàn)在去搜索“伊拉克核武謊言”吧，天真的孩子。
The Hourhis are not capable of shooting down an F/A-18
“胡塞武裝沒(méi)能力擊落F/A-18戰(zhàn)機(jī)。”
? @DR_1_1 the cope is hard among the global north
@DR_1_1 全球北方的應(yīng)對(duì)確實(shí)很困難。
cant imagine war with china
無(wú)法想象與中國(guó)開(kāi)戰(zhàn)。
@BojackHorseman0098 woah you are YOUNG.
Bush Jr. was blabbering that Saddam had nukes back in 2003.
now everybody think that Nukes are no bigge in Iraq ???
哇哦，你還很年輕啊。布什總統(tǒng)在2003年時(shí)還在胡扯說(shuō)薩達(dá)姆擁有核武器，現(xiàn)在大家都覺(jué)得核武器在伊拉克不是什么大事了嗎？
The Houthis have shot down 15+ MQ-9 Reaper drones. At least six this month. They have air defenses quite capable of shooting down an F-18. These aren't 1970s F-18s. They're new and have fairly powerful electronic warfare capabilities.
胡塞武裝已經(jīng)擊落了超過(guò)15架MQ-9“死神”無(wú)人機(jī)，僅本月就有至少6架被擊落，他們的防空系統(tǒng)足夠強(qiáng)大，可以擊落F-18戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)，而且這些F-18戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)并不是上世紀(jì)70年代的型號(hào)，而是新型并具備相當(dāng)強(qiáng)大的電子戰(zhàn)能力的機(jī)型。
Gulf of Tonkin?
北部灣事件？
@shawnhaqqani3227 And what do you think protecting trade routes helps with?
@shawnhaqqani3227 那你認(rèn)為保護(hù)貿(mào)易路線能起到什么作用呢？
The Yemeni Houthi army who destroyed F18 aircraft during the big Houthi attacks on the USA Navy in the red sea
也門(mén)胡塞軍隊(duì)在紅海的大規(guī)模進(jìn)攻中摧毀了F18戰(zhàn)機(jī)，同時(shí)襲擊了美國(guó)海軍。
"Every war begins with a false flag operation" - Jesse Ventura
“每場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的開(kāi)端通常都是一場(chǎng)虛假的旗幟行動(dòng)”——杰西·溫圖拉
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
It is very embarrassing that the aircraft carrier and F-18E were hit by Houthi missiles.
航母和F-18E戰(zhàn)機(jī)竟然被胡塞武裝的導(dǎo)彈擊中，這實(shí)在是太丟臉了。
Oops....there goes $70 million.
哎呀……7千萬(wàn)美元就這么沒(méi)了。
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!! So many questions there.......
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈，問(wèn)題真是多得不得了?。?/b>
They can make the same one in china for 3 millions.
他們?cè)谥袊?guó)可以用三百萬(wàn)制造出同樣的東西。
Of taxpayer money.
納稅人的錢(qián)。
probably can get 10 mil back if you list it on craiglist, just make sure label it: slight water damage
如果你在克雷格列表上掛出來(lái)，可能可以拿回1000萬(wàn)，只要確保標(biāo)注：輕微水損。
Well, it's creating jobs......
嗯，這確實(shí)能夠創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
@seanhoward8025 the carrier had an incoming missile/drone strike. They were forced into making evasive maneuvers while the plane was being parked by the tug.
@seanhoward8025 那艘航空母艦遇到了一枚來(lái)襲的導(dǎo)彈或無(wú)人機(jī)的襲擊，在飛機(jī)正被牽引車(chē)停放時(shí)，迫使其不得不采取緊急回避動(dòng)作調(diào)整航向。
@austinlmbt24 this is true I witnessed it
@austinlmbt24 這是真的，我親眼目睹了。
that jet identifies as a submarine, thats what actually happened
那架飛機(jī)自我認(rèn)同是一艘潛艇，這就是事情的真相。
（笑哭）（笑哭）（笑哭）
Bro i swear if i hear one more “I identify as” joke im gonna crash out
老兄，我發(fā)誓，要是再聽(tīng)到一個(gè)“我認(rèn)同自己是...”的笑話，我要崩潰了。
Huh. This new breed of woke jets!
嗯，這是一種新型的覺(jué)醒的戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)！
Yall really came up with one “joke” in 2016 and just never let go lM
你們從2016年想出了一個(gè)“笑話”，然后就一直抓著不放，笑死了。
? @theblacksquirrel. Nah..they realized a Black pilot was the last one to fly it. Had to be trashed. You know, DEI and all....
他們意識(shí)到上一位駕駛這架飛機(jī)的是一位黑人飛行員，所以必須出事的，你知道的，DEI那些事。
Like that olde and tired joke about more planes being at the bottom of the sea than there are submarines in the sky…
就像那個(gè)老掉牙的笑話，說(shuō)海底的飛機(jī)比天空中的潛艇還多一樣…
@youwontlikemysteeze2945 hegseth got rid of dei hires months ago.
THEN this happened. looks like dei hires are more competent.
@youwontlikemysteeze2945 赫格塞斯幾個(gè)月前就解雇了DEI員工。
結(jié)果現(xiàn)在發(fā)生了這種事情，看起來(lái)DEI的員工更有能力一些。
Nah... it was just trying to do its best impersonation of the US economy
算了吧，影片只是盡力模仿一下美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的表現(xiàn)罷了
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
The jet identifies as a 'transmarine'!
這架飛機(jī)自稱為“變潛艇的”！
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Trans
變性的
Dude, you made me laugh like crazy in the office
兄弟，你在辦公室讓我笑瘋了
There are more aircraft in the ocean than submarines in the sky!
海洋中的飛機(jī)比天空中的潛艇還要多！
Don`t tell doge or they will start to sort out planes by their pronouns and DEI hires ^^.
不要告訴狗狗幣的社區(qū)，否則他們可能會(huì)開(kāi)始根據(jù)飛機(jī)的代詞和多元化與包容性招聘來(lái)進(jìn)行分類(lèi)。
Hi former plane captain here, spent alooooot of time in line shack. And spent almost half of my service on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier.
1st this has to have happened outside of flight operations*down time*
2nd unfortunately the crew who was in charge of moving the aircraft were not following normal procedures.
嗨，這里的前機(jī)長(zhǎng)，在排隊(duì)小屋里度過(guò)了大部分時(shí)間。我?guī)缀跤幸话氲姆蹠r(shí)間是在航空母艦的飛行甲板上度過(guò)的。
第一，這必須發(fā)生在飛行運(yùn)營(yíng)*停機(jī)時(shí)間* 之外
第二，不幸的是，負(fù)責(zé)移動(dòng)飛機(jī)的機(jī)組人員沒(méi)有遵循正常程序。
在牽引飛機(jī)時(shí)，駕駛艙里有一個(gè)人控制剎車(chē)，就是這樣，你有你的司機(jī)，然后你有你的機(jī)翼助行器和尾翼助行器......還有輪楔家伙和幾個(gè)拿著一堆系緊鏈的家伙......您需要 7 人以上才能移動(dòng)一架飛機(jī)。
顯然，這些人沒(méi)有遵守規(guī)定操作，而是抄了近路。
哦，另外，當(dāng)軍艦正在進(jìn)行機(jī)動(dòng)以避開(kāi)敵人時(shí)，是絕對(duì)不會(huì)去移動(dòng)飛機(jī)的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Question, even if it didn't happen in downtime, would there have been enough early warning to essentially ground everything and make the maneuver?
問(wèn)題是，即使這不是在停機(jī)期間發(fā)生的，是否會(huì)有足夠的早期預(yù)警來(lái)全面停下所有行動(dòng)并完成這一動(dòng)作？
Thanks for a sensible explanation.
感謝你提供了一個(gè)通俗易懂的解釋。
Hi there. It's nice that you are a 'former plane captain' and 'spent alooooot of time in line shack' and 'spent almost half of your service on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier', but unless you have inside information or you were on that aircraft carrier and saw it happen all that supposed experience of yours means nothing.
你好，雖然你是“前飛機(jī)指揮官”，并且“花了非常非常多的時(shí)間在飛機(jī)維修棚”，還“在航空母艦的飛行甲板上度過(guò)了差不多一半的服役時(shí)間”，但除非你掌握內(nèi)部信息或者你親眼在那艘航母上看到了事情的發(fā)生，否則你所謂的這些經(jīng)驗(yàn)根本毫無(wú)意義。
@myselfandeye3884 ...I wouldn't call them procedures for nothing...meaning that regardless of me or anyone else or rain or shine it's the same.
And yes you can when you have enough time at sea, but especially working in an environment like the flight deck.
Also I wasn't just somebody, I was the lead petty officer for the line shack and ran the radio on the flight deck for my squadron so yes I definitely know enough.
@myselfandeye3884 我不會(huì)無(wú)緣無(wú)故稱其為“程序”……意思是無(wú)論是我還是其他人，無(wú)論是晴天還是雨天，這些都一成不變。
是的，只要你在海上有足夠的時(shí)間，尤其是在像飛行甲板這樣的環(huán)境中工作，一切都可以辦到。
此外，我可不只是某個(gè)普通人，我是負(fù)責(zé)線組的首席軍士長(zhǎng)，還在飛行甲板上為我的中隊(duì)運(yùn)行無(wú)線電，因此我確實(shí)非常了解相關(guān)情況。
But they won't show the video of the actual incident. i wonder why
但他們就是不放實(shí)際事件的視頻，我想知道這是為什么
@myselfandeye3884 yes we can for say that, it is supposed to be the same procedure EVERY time, if something like this happened, procedures definitely weren’t followed
@myselfandeye3884 是的，我們可以這么說(shuō)，本來(lái)每次都應(yīng)該遵循相同的流程，如果發(fā)生了這樣的事情，那肯定是沒(méi)有遵守規(guī)定的流程。
@ Yes you did call them procedures but again were you there or do you have inside information? If not, then you're making assumptions and you're presenting them as facts. As a matter of fact we don't know you. You're an unknown on the internet who claims to be a lead petty officer.
是的，你確實(shí)稱它們?yōu)槌绦?，但你?dāng)時(shí)在場(chǎng)或者有內(nèi)部消息嗎？如果沒(méi)有，那你就是在做假設(shè)并將其當(dāng)作事實(shí)來(lái)呈現(xiàn)。事實(shí)上我們不了解你，你只是一個(gè)在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上自稱為高級(jí)士官的不知名人士。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
How do you know they weren't following procedures? The report doesn't state that they didn't have the seven crew you mentioned. It reports that there were at least one in the cockpit and one in the tow, the two who were most in danger of going overboard when the plane went over, but that doesn't mean they didn't have the rest of the crew as well.
你怎么知道他們沒(méi)有遵循規(guī)定？報(bào)告并沒(méi)有說(shuō)明他們沒(méi)有你提到的那七名機(jī)組人員。報(bào)告提到，駕駛艙內(nèi)至少有一人，拖車(chē)位置也有一人，這兩人是當(dāng)飛機(jī)傾覆時(shí)最有可能掉入水中的，但這并不意味著其余的機(jī)組人員不存在。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
@GeorgeFhore my guess it's because they are actively deployed is probably the reason why they haven't released any video. Typically when the ships are in the red sea or Persian Gulf we do these boxes in the water. And the box constantly changes so that way enemy can't exactly predict our ships movements or positions. Also here is some bonus info, a aircraft carrier is never alone the Carrier Strike group is always around it in some way shape or form so warships and submarines and destroyers and many other ships make up this safety net.
我猜可能是因?yàn)樗麄冋趫?zhí)行任務(wù)所以沒(méi)發(fā)布任何視頻，通常當(dāng)艦船在紅?；虿ㄋ篂承袆?dòng)時(shí)，我們會(huì)設(shè)定一些區(qū)域，這些區(qū)域會(huì)持續(xù)變化以防止敵方準(zhǔn)確預(yù)測(cè)我們的艦船行動(dòng)或位置。另外，提供一些額外信息，一艘航空母艦絕不會(huì)單獨(dú)行動(dòng)，它總是有航母打擊群以某種形式保護(hù)它，驅(qū)逐艦、潛艇以及許多其他戰(zhàn)艦都會(huì)形成這個(gè)安全網(wǎng)絡(luò)。
@runningwithhammers619
@Sinistar123 ...because with a full moving crew this wouldn't have happened... How do I know this, cause part of the training tells you why you can't move a plane with less...
Moving a plane requires more than 7 people because an aircraft carrier isn't some big wide open highway... It has many other jets on it it has ordinance stationed along with a ton of other gear ...something a two man moving crew wouldn't be able to do 100% safely.
@Sinistar123 原因是，如果有完整的搬運(yùn)小組，這種情況就不會(huì)發(fā)生，我之所以知道，是因?yàn)橛?xùn)練的一部分會(huì)告訴你為什么不能用更少的人來(lái)移動(dòng)飛機(jī)。移動(dòng)一架飛機(jī)需要至少7個(gè)人，因?yàn)楹娇漳概灢⒉皇悄欠N寬闊的大馬路，它上面不僅有許多其他的戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)，還有各種彈藥和大量其它裝備，這是兩人小組無(wú)法100%安全完成的任務(wù)。
I can only imagine my boss’s face if I made a $70 million mistake
我只能想象如果我犯了一個(gè)七千萬(wàn)美元的錯(cuò)誤，我老板的臉會(huì)是什么樣子。
Wages deduction for a thousand years!.
扣工資一千年！
He would still be your 'boss'???
他還會(huì)是你的“老板”嗎？
you lucky if civilcase did not come after
如果之后沒(méi)有民事訴訟找上門(mén)，你算是幸運(yùn)的。
Court Marshall!
軍事法庭！
YOUR FIRED!!
你被開(kāi)除了?。?
If you worked for the government it wouldn’t be a big deal
如果你是為政府工作的話，這就不算什么大事。
If you are a government official, you’d be promoted, if you are the CEO of a private company, you’ll get the golden parachute, if you are a just an employee you’ll find your ass on the sidewalk for losing 7 dollars. Nobody is more equal than another.
如果你是政府官員，你會(huì)被提拔；如果你是私人公司的CEO，你會(huì)得到豐厚的離職補(bǔ)償；如果你只是普通員工，為丟了7美元會(huì)被掃地出門(mén)。沒(méi)有人真的比別人更平等。
Don't worry uncle Sam is loaded
別擔(dān)心，山姆大叔很有錢(qián)。
Someone forgot the parking brake?
是不是有人忘了拉手剎？
The carrier had an incoming strike from the Houthis and was forced into making evasive maneuvers quickly. Planes don’t just fall off
胡塞組織發(fā)動(dòng)襲擊，航母被迫迅速采取閃避動(dòng)作，飛機(jī)不可能無(wú)故掉落。
@lancewood1410
@austinlmbt24 Oh really??? hahahahahaha
@austinlmbt24 哦，真的嗎？？？哈哈哈哈哈哈
Aircraft carriers don't make "evasive maneuvers such as what you're suggesting. You made that up
航空母艦不會(huì)像你所說(shuō)的那樣進(jìn)行“規(guī)避動(dòng)作”，這是你憑空捏造的。
@blackmcbain3145
They have video of them doing Sea Trials.
Full speed, rudder hard over.
Lean like crazy!
@blackmcbain3145
他們有一段他們進(jìn)行海上試航的視頻，全速前進(jìn)，猛烈轉(zhuǎn)舵，船體傾斜得非常厲害！
Just think about it, all the taxes you paid for your entire life would probably only pay for an armrest on an F-15 fighter jet.
想想看，你一輩子交的所有稅款，可能也就夠買(mǎi)一架F-15戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)上的一個(gè)扶手而已。
For real.
確實(shí)如此哈哈。
More waste and abuse
更多浪費(fèi)和濫用
america wasting tax payer money for nothing, shame
美國(guó)在浪費(fèi)納稅人的錢(qián)卻沒(méi)有任何成效，真是可恥。
Um actually it’s an f18
呃，其實(shí)這是F18
The canopy has gold in it and back in 2005 when I was in the navy it was 400k for a canopy and that was the single seater or the e the f was more I'm sure
這頂艙蓋里有金屬材料，我記得在2005年我還在海軍時(shí)，一個(gè)艙蓋就要40萬(wàn)美元，那是單座艙蓋，而E型號(hào)和F型號(hào)的價(jià)格肯定更高。
@thesmokedog121 Waste? ….. as you sleep safe and sound tonight while the folks on these aircraft carriers are busting their asses 24/7 so you can have the freedom to type
浪費(fèi)？……今天晚上當(dāng)你睡得安穩(wěn)舒適時(shí)，這些航空母艦上的人卻在不分晝夜拼盡全力，只為了讓你能擁有自由在這里敲打鍵盤(pán)發(fā)表這種內(nèi)容。
People have a very poor grip on taxes. $70m as a % of annual spending is 0.00159%
人們對(duì)稅收的理解非常淺薄，7000萬(wàn)美元占年支出的比例僅為0.00159%。
?@alanaldpal950 genuine question, what freedom of ours is all the way over there at the red sea? 7,000 miles away half way a cross the world lol? It's our trade route sure. But not our freedom.
Freedom for lower prices i guess lol, meanwhile the cost of that is 800 billion...
@alanaldpal950 真心想問(wèn)，我們的哪項(xiàng)自由竟然遠(yuǎn)在紅海那邊，距離我們7,000英里之外，環(huán)繞地球另一端 lol？這確實(shí)是我們的貿(mào)易路線沒(méi)錯(cuò)，但并不是我們的自由。
我猜是為了更低價(jià)格的自由吧，哈哈，不過(guò)同時(shí)這可要付出8千億美元的代價(jià)啊...
Even if recovered, salt water destroys all the electrical, electronic parts, the engines. 70 millions gone like this, yet the US has no money for fast rail, public transportation, universal health care.
即便找回來(lái)了，鹽水也會(huì)損壞所有電氣和電子部件以及發(fā)動(dòng)機(jī)，七千萬(wàn)美元就這樣打了水漂，然而美國(guó)卻沒(méi)錢(qián)用于建設(shè)高鐵、公共交通和全民醫(yī)療保障。
That's not why they'd recover it. The jet is a total loss for sure, but if that jet was currently "up" or in full flight status there is sensitive things on it that can still be reversed engineered even after the jet has succumb to the depths. Several years before the complete degradation of the sensitive components.
那并不是他們會(huì)打撈它的原因，這架戰(zhàn)機(jī)肯定已經(jīng)徹底報(bào)廢，但如果這架戰(zhàn)機(jī)當(dāng)時(shí)處于“正常運(yùn)行”或完全飛行狀態(tài)，那么即使戰(zhàn)機(jī)已沉入深處，其上的一些敏感部件仍然可以被逆向工程，而這些敏感組件在完全降解之前還能維持好幾年。
They would recover it so nobody else can get it and study it. They’re worried more about that than the money
他們會(huì)收回它以防其他人得到并研究，他們對(duì)此的擔(dān)憂超過(guò)了對(duì)金錢(qián)的關(guān)注。
@stefpix it's not new & F18's are that much from the factory LM. Importance is no one was hurt
@stefpix 這并不是什么新鮮事，F(xiàn)18的原廠價(jià)就是這么高，重要的是沒(méi)有人受傷。
Yeah it's gone, not worth the cost of recovery.
是的，它已經(jīng)沒(méi)了，修復(fù)的費(fèi)用不值得。
You think $70m would pay for universal healthcare? Buddy the cost of that plane is less than $0.25 per person in the USA.
你覺(jué)得七千萬(wàn)美元能覆蓋全民醫(yī)保嗎？朋友，那架飛機(jī)的成本折算到美國(guó)每個(gè)人身上還不到0.25美元呢
@Withnail1969 oh no they will recover it.
There’s no chance they leave it there to let the Chinese or someone get ahold of it.
@Withnail1969 哦，不，他們肯定會(huì)把它回收，沒(méi)有任何可能會(huì)讓它留在那里被中國(guó)人或其他人得到。
Oh like the 120 billion dollar high speed rail in CA? Sure bud
哦，就像加州耗資1200億美元的高鐵一樣？當(dāng)然啦，哥們兒
One slip-up worth more than some countries’ entire defense budgets.
一次失誤的代價(jià)竟然比一些國(guó)家的全部國(guó)防預(yù)算還要高。
What are they afraid of
他們?cè)诤ε率裁?/b>
Maybe the crew colluded to get rid of it, maybe it was a lemon of a jet.
也許機(jī)組人員串通一氣想要擺脫它，也許這架飛機(jī)本身就是個(gè)問(wèn)題機(jī)型。
@ You’re onto something big, I can feel it
你一定在干一件大事，我感覺(jué)到了（笑哭）！
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Wrong geography for them.
對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)地理位置不對(duì)。
@AirportNow the carrier was forced into making evasive maneuvers because they had an incoming strike from the Houthis all while the plane is trying to maneuver via tow assist. That threw the plane right out of the hanger
@AirportNow 承運(yùn)方被迫采取緊急避讓措施，因?yàn)楹溲b發(fā)起了襲擊，而此時(shí)飛機(jī)正試圖通過(guò)牽引輔助進(jìn)行機(jī)動(dòng)，這直接導(dǎo)致飛機(jī)被甩出了機(jī)庫(kù)。
So the taxpayers are on the hook for Izzy yet again... every action in the gulf is because Izzy wants land
所以納稅人又得為伊茲（諧音以色列）買(mǎi)單了，所有在海灣發(fā)生的行動(dòng)都是因?yàn)橐疗澫胍恋亍?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Don't worry, the tariff revenue will more than offset this cost
別擔(dān)心，關(guān)稅收入將輕松抵消這部分成本。
What ever country with less than a 70 mil budget has no military, like half a gram of weed means you ain’t got no weed
任何一個(gè)預(yù)算不到7000萬(wàn)美元的國(guó)家就像沒(méi)有軍隊(duì)一樣，比喻就像只有半克大麻就等于沒(méi)有大麻。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Yemeni doesn't fire a single shot, yet US Navy lost 1 fighter jet
也門(mén)人連一槍都沒(méi)開(kāi)，美國(guó)海軍卻損失了一架戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)
American navy is one BIG LAUGHABLE JOKE!!
美國(guó)海軍簡(jiǎn)直是一個(gè)大笑話！
@ardiantosmada8028
@arunal3695 How's houthi doing??
@arunal3695 胡塞武裝最近情況如何？
? @arunal3695 the American navy is not only the world's largest navy, but also the 2nd largest air force. (China's air force is smaller than the US Navy's). With the amount of operations they do, the amount of accidents are stupendously low. Also the only navy in the world that can operate in ANY part of the world. Not even Russia or China can do that
@arunal3695 美國(guó)海軍不僅是世界上規(guī)模最大的海軍，同時(shí)也是世界上第二大的空軍（中國(guó)的空軍規(guī)模甚至小于美國(guó)海軍）。鑒于他們執(zhí)行的任務(wù)數(shù)量，事故率卻低得驚人。另外，美國(guó)海軍也是全球唯一一支能夠在世界任何地方執(zhí)行任務(wù)的海軍，俄羅斯和中國(guó)都無(wú)法做到這一點(diǎn)。
Wrong, the f-18 committed suicide
錯(cuò)了，是F-18自己作死了
@abderrahimkessira5352 It identified as artificial reef.
@abderrahimkessira5352 它自我認(rèn)定為人工礁。
@inshoreassassin
@inshoreassassin （笑哭）
@inshoreassassin lmfao best thing i’ve seen today
@inshoreassassin 哈哈，今天看過(guò)的最好笑的東西。
Was the cockpit named after Prince Andrew?
駕駛艙是以安德魯王子命名的嗎？
@thekenthouse6428 No, Kate and Wiliam
@thekenthouse6428 不對(duì)，是凱特和威廉
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
f18 scared and jumped into water and become submarine
F18戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)害怕了，直接跳進(jìn)水里變成了潛水艇哈哈。
The US Secretary of State was asked, how many MQ9 plane brought down by Yemen? He said you mean before the question or after the question
美國(guó)國(guó)務(wù)卿被問(wèn)到有多少M(fèi)Q9飛機(jī)被也門(mén)擊落，他回答說(shuō)你是指問(wèn)問(wèn)題之前還是之后 （笑哭）
MQ9s are drones. Not planes
MQ-9是無(wú)人機(jī)，不是飛機(jī)。
They're doing offensive missions not defensive
他們執(zhí)行的是進(jìn)攻任務(wù)，而不是防御任務(wù)
Yeah, I find the fact that all we are doing over there is protecting Isnotreal interests highly offensive to US taxpayers.
是的，我覺(jué)得我們?cè)谀抢锼龅囊磺卸际窃诒Ｗo(hù)以色列的利益，這對(duì)美國(guó)納稅人來(lái)說(shuō)是極其令人反感的。
Some future civilization is gonna find that.
未來(lái)的某個(gè)文明會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)它。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
They will spend everything necessary to recover it. More money
他們會(huì)不惜一切代價(jià)來(lái)修復(fù)它，需要投入更多資金。
More planes on bottom of the ocean than ships.
海底的飛機(jī)數(shù)量比船還多。
@easyenetwork2023 Strange, but true ?
@easyenetwork2023 奇怪，但卻是事實(shí)？
Yeah, China does have some pretty futuristic tech.
是的，中國(guó)確實(shí)擁有一些相當(dāng)先進(jìn)和未來(lái)感的技術(shù)。
@tstorm3706 it’s a active war zone dummy
@tstorm3706 這是一個(gè)活躍的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)區(qū)域，笨蛋
they already recovered it most likely
他們很可能已經(jīng)找回來(lái)了。
The military could have just reported the jet has been re-assigned to aquatic habitat sanctuary support status, and moved on.
軍方本可以直接宣布這架戰(zhàn)機(jī)已被重新指定為水域生境保護(hù)區(qū)支援任務(wù)狀態(tài)，并繼續(xù)推進(jìn)下一步行動(dòng)。
@zonian1966 new coral reef
@zonian1966 新的珊瑚礁
It's a miracle the media even knows about this. You'd think this is one of the things they wouldn't want you to find out.
媒體竟然知道這件事，簡(jiǎn)直是個(gè)奇跡，你會(huì)以為這本該是他們不想讓你知道的事情。
We have the best undersea jets on the planet... and they're invisible as well.
我們擁有地球上最先進(jìn)的水下噴氣裝置，而且它們還擁有隱形功能。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
（笑哭）（笑哭）
"US navy, Providing homes for fish one jet at a time. Sign up now."
“美國(guó)海軍，為魚(yú)類(lèi)提供棲息地，一次一架戰(zhàn)機(jī)。現(xiàn)在就加入吧?！?/b>
Serves them right, blaming everyone but themselves for their own mistake, a $70 million dollar mistake.
活該，他們犯了價(jià)值7000萬(wàn)美元的錯(cuò)誤，卻只會(huì)怪別人不自我反省。
Unless somebody's recording it on their phone, then no. There's no cameras in the hangar bay.
除非有人用手機(jī)錄下來(lái)，不然沒(méi)有其他方法，因?yàn)闄C(jī)庫(kù)里沒(méi)有安裝攝像頭。
@blaydCA
@Joe-dy7bb
If it was IN the bay, it would have hit the a bulkhead.
I'm assuming the elevator has stanchions at the edge, which should have hopefully stopped it.
如果是在海灣內(nèi)的話，它應(yīng)該會(huì)撞到擋墻。我猜測(cè)升降設(shè)備的邊緣會(huì)有支柱，希望它能夠阻止事故發(fā)生。
Don't they all have external elevators now? Maybe the plan was in reverse by mistake?
他們現(xiàn)在不都已經(jīng)使用外部電梯了嗎？或許當(dāng)初的設(shè)計(jì)弄反了吧？
@MH_6160 the carrier had an incoming missile/drone strike from the Houthis and was forced into making evasive maneuvers. That threw the plane right out of the hanger
@MH_6160 航母遭到胡塞武裝的導(dǎo)彈/無(wú)人機(jī)襲擊，被迫進(jìn)行緊急規(guī)避動(dòng)作，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致飛機(jī)直接從機(jī)庫(kù)里滑了出去。
Yemen shot it down
也門(mén)擊落了它。
@newbeginning1510 My men wouldn’t do that!
@newbeginning1510 我的兄弟們才不會(huì)那樣做！
? @Joe-dy7bb
They don't have CCTV?
他們沒(méi)有安裝監(jiān)控?cái)z像頭嗎？
You know there has to be video of this.
你知道肯定會(huì)有視頻存在的。
ABSOLUTELY!
30 years from now the History Channel will show it.
絕對(duì)的！30年后，歷史頻道會(huì)播出它。