【龙腾网】国家利益：建造更多船只也无法解决美国海军的问题

正文翻译

2021年1月14日，主题：安全区域 标签： 海军军事技术世界

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

建造更多船只也无法解决美国海军的问题

Shipyards are having problems.

船厂有问题。

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.

这是你需要记住的事情：“针对装备有先进的拒止能力的敌人，美国资产（船舶，飞机，坦克）的消耗可能是巨大的。” 而且由于造船厂的匮乏，海军可能无法及时修复损伤而影响冲突结果。

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.

这是前国会研究员威廉·霍金斯在研究政府造船业时报告中得出的可怕结论。 霍金斯在2019年8月版的美国海军学院学报中的一篇文章中阐述了他的警告。

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.

霍金斯仔细研究了美国海军最近向国会提交的两份报告。 2020财年海军舰艇建设年度长期计划和2020财年海军舰艇维护和现代化长期计划。

“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：“造船商似乎对他们能够按海军制定的时间表生产军舰充满信心。” “ 355艘船的目标要到2034年才能实现； 在此之前，将举行四次总统选举和七次国会选举，这给“政策”连续带来了不确定性。”

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.

海军拥有四个造船厂。 它们之间的四个私有的公司又拥有七个船坞。 海军总共有11船坞，可以生产船只至355艘船，这还不算辅助船和海岸警卫队的数十艘船。

“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.”

霍金斯写道：“面对修建需求，似乎缺乏在南海等遥远战区进行战斗而造成的战斗损伤船只的修复能力。” “维护与现代化报告”呼吁将维修能力扩大到目前在美国太平洋沿岸的21个干船坞，为了减少正常情况下的任务积压。 当某些意外事情发生时，必须采取特别措施。”

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.

霍金斯举了一个以驱逐舰“菲茨杰拉德”号的例子。 2017年6月，菲茨杰拉德号与一艘商船在日本沿海相撞。这艘阿利·伯克级驱逐舰遭受了严重损坏。

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

霍金斯写道：“军舰首先龟速到日本进行评估，然后再被送回美国进行维修。”

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个船坞都无法处理它。 它必须被带到密西西比州帕斯卡古拉的英格尔斯造船厂的干船坞。 英格尔斯工厂是阿里伯克级一流的建造工场，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.” ...

当时，海军表示：“只有英格尔斯有能力在最短的时间内将菲茨杰拉德号驱逐舰恢复到全运行状态，而对正在进行的维修和新建工程造成的影响最小。” ...

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.

位于休斯敦的爱国者航运公司提供了将菲茨杰拉德驱逐舰带回工厂所需的重型船只。 它直到2018年1月才到达帕斯卡古拉，距离碰撞已有22个月，直到2019年4月中旬才离开干船坞。

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，还有很多其他的令人警醒的例子。 “ 2000年10月，科尔号驱逐舰（DDG-67）在亚丁自杀袭击中受损后，它还必须被运送到美国，使用一艘荷兰重型半潜船。 直到2001年9月，驱逐舰才离开帕斯卡古拉船坞，比菲茨杰拉德停留的时间短，是因为破坏程度不大。

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.

然后是驱逐舰约翰·麦凯恩号（USS John S. McCain），它在2017年8月与新加坡附近的一艘商船相撞。霍金斯写道：“她在日本的母港进行了修理，而不是运回美国。”

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.

自事故发生15个月后，从2018年1月至11月下旬，该驱逐舰一直滞留在横滨干船坞内。 在一些环太平洋海战中，希望是日本将成为一个积极的盟国，其设施将可供美国军舰使用。 但是，战损的日本战舰可能挤占修复能力，而且由于其在战场附近，日本的船坞可能会受到攻击。

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.”

霍金斯最后引用了国防战略委员会2018年的一份报告。 “要对抗装备有先进的反拒止能力的敌人，美国的主要资产（船只，飞机，坦克）的消耗可能是巨大的。”

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.

而且由于造船厂的匮乏，海军可能无法及时修复损害，在冲突发挥作用。

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.

大卫·阿克斯担任《国家利益》的国防编辑。 他是漫画小说《战争修正》，《无聊的战争》和《弯刀小队》的作者。 第一次出现在2019年8月。

评论翻译

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

美国正在失去在太平洋地区的霸主地位， 而不是战舰世界第一的事儿

Mr. Sparkledog
Fun game

有趣的游戏

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.

美国拥有庞大的资源，足以自给自足。只是从其他国家购买或采购更有意义

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

历史不是一种模式，我们可以按照自己的意愿创造历史

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

与你所说的相反，警戒战斗机/拦截机已经装载了武器并加满了燃料

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

我作为一名海军陆战队员在冲绳驻扎了6年，让我告诉你... ... 美国很久以前就失去了太平洋!

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

到底是谁胆敢攻击美国本土? ! 造谣

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.. 

隐形？还记得 D-21吗？它比F/A-117隐身更好，飞得更高，速度更快。它是1971年在中国执行任务时失踪，在西伯利亚坠毁。很可能是被击落的。差不多50年前。整个 D-21项目被中止。

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 .
没错，但这是2020年，不是1971年，我们在这里谈论的是 B21轰炸机。自1971年以来，美国的技术已经发生了巨大的变化

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隐形更好，可以谷歌一下它的 RCS..他们也不会造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战斗机在更小些的航空母舰起降，它们比中国的战斗机更强大，而且隐形能力更强

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

美国没有理由认为自己“拥有”太平洋

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

你漏掉了很多关于美国太平洋海军的细节

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

我想对于任何国家来说，最有效的方法就是先把卫星武器化，然后开始太空军事化

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

我们需要在日本的保护特别是冲绳来保护我们的基地

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

美国的潜艇舰队将主宰所有的太平洋战争

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.

美国一直在改变它的整个海军规则。它仍然拥有优秀的舰队和战术。中国也没有舰载战斗机

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

失去一些东西，你必须首先拥有它。太平洋永远不会属于美国

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

一旦美国在太平洋上输给了日本,每个人都知道后果

Johnson Lease 
When did US have the Pacific Ocean?

美国什么时候有了太平洋？

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

太平洋是我们的吗? 我以为离海岸这么远，没人拥有它

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.

我敢跟你打赌，中国五金制品的成本是美国的二十分之一。这是一个巨大的优势

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

从什么时候开始太平洋属于美国了? 喂，有人在吗？

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

我不确信为什么太平洋会是美国的损失？

112313
Since when is the Pacific Ocean belongs to usa? 

太平洋什么时候属于美国了？

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

标题是标准的美国思维: 太平洋也是一个在美国的院子里的池塘

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

美国并不拥有太平洋

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

你说美国正在失去太平洋是什么意思? 那是他们的吗？