用户名:   密码:

当前位置:首页社区国外译帖美国中国有消灭美国海军航空母舰的新计划:"蜂群袭击"?
看世界译帖
美国

中国有消灭美国海军航空母舰的新计划:"蜂群袭击"?


China Has a New Plan to Kill Navy Aircraft Carriers: 'Swarm' Strikes?
译者:unknown     发布时间:2018-08-10     超过 0 位网友阅读

难道美国就不能探测并击落这些无人机吗? 

原文地址:http://nationalinterest.org


China Has a New Plan to Kill Navy Aircraft Carriers: 'Swarm' Strikes?

中国有消灭美国海军航空母舰的新计划:"蜂群袭击"?

January 12, 2018
2018年1月12日

中国有消灭美国海军航空母舰的新计划

China’s marked strides in drone technology have given Beijing some bragging rights about the potential militarization of its unmanned aerial vehicles. Some bellicose mainland military observers even go as far as to suggest that strike groups of drones may be capable of dealing crippling blows to much larger conventional combat entities such as aircraft carriers.

中国在无人机技术方面取得了显著进步, 这让中国政府对其无人驾?#29615;?#34892;器的潜在军事化有了一些吹嘘的权利。一些好战的大陆军事观察员甚至认为, 无人机的攻击群可能会对更大规模的常规战斗实体如航空母舰造成严重打击。

Such seemingly far-fetched talk relates to a drone battalion unveiled by the state-owned China Electronics Technology Group Corp at an air show in June. It consisted of 119 combat-ready drones, all equipped with sensors and programmed to communicate with one another when airborne. Tests of strike groups involving up to 1,000 drones are underway, technicians at the SOE told reporters.

这种看似牵强的言论, 与中国国有的中国电子科技集团公司(China Electronics Technology Group Corp)在6月份的一次航展上公布的一个无人机大队有关。它由119架随时待命的无人机组成, 所有无人机都配备了传感器, 并在空中进行通讯。技术人员在接受记者采访时表示, 目前正在对多达1000架无人机的攻击组进行测试。

Drones for civil use have already been used to carry deliveries, and a legion of military drones may be able to carry missiles or warheads once load restraint issues are resolved.

用于民用的无人机已被用于运送货物, 一旦解决了装载限制问题, 一批军用无人机可能可以携带导弹或弹头。

The prospect of low priced, made-in-China drone groups taking on aircraft carriers has caused some stir overseas following reports by Western media.

在西方媒体的报道之后, 中国制造的?#22270;?#26080;人驾?#29615;?#26426;的前景在海外引起了一些轰动。

Yet Beijing mouthpiece Global Times rushed to downplay the hype in a feature story last week that examined the many technical issues of flying drones to battle carriers, noting that the typical range of military drones is negligible compared to that of an aircraft carrier – 50 kilometers versus 1,000 km.

然而, 中国的喉舌《环球时报》(Global Times)在上周的一篇专题报道中, 匆忙淡化了这种炒作。该报道考察了将无人驾?#29615;?#26426;送往战斗航母的许多技术问题。他指出, 与一架航空母舰相比, 军用无人机的典?#22836;?#34892;范围微不足道。

“So in order to carry out an attack, these drones will have to be delivered, for instance, by stealth fighters, within close range of a carrier, risking being shot down midway, and, what’s the point of using drones when these fighters can launch attacks themselves when they are this close [to the carrier],” an expert was quoted as saying.

“因此,为了发动攻击,这些无人机必须使用其它运载工具,比如隐形战斗来达成作战效果,冒着被击落的危险飞行到航母附近,当这些战斗机已经接近航母再使用无人机有什?#21254;?#20041;?“一位专?#20197;?#24341;了这一说法。

A carrier, moreover, is constantly within a holistic combat group of cruisers, destroyer squadrons, supply ships and other escorts, a sea-air shield that drones can hardly penetrate. Limited payload is another hurdle that drone makers may still take years to surmount.

此外, 一艘航空母舰一直处于一个由巡洋舰、驱逐舰中队、补给舰和其他护航舰组成的整体战斗群中, 这是一种无人机几乎无法穿透的海上防护罩,且有限的有效载荷是无人机制造商需要花费数年才能克服的另一个障碍。

The virtue of drones, according to the newspaper, is their complementary role in ground-air combat, and their agile application in gathering intelligence and launching valuable point-to-point attacks against small targets such as a vehicle or fortification.

据报纸报道, 无人机的优点在于它们在地空作战中的互补作用, 以及它们在收集情报和对车辆或防御工事等小目标进行有价值的点对点攻击。




Колян Р?#25903;学荮唰?
A drone with weapon is a problem because you have the need to return a drone and weapon. Missiles decide the problem of returning drones.
Drones for finding targets are better decision than drones with weapon.

无人机携带武器的有一个问题,因为你需要回收无人机和武器,在导弹的威胁下,无人机无法返航。
无人机用于侦察军事目标好过直?#26377;?#24102;武器进行攻击。



TheWormTurned
Swarming drones will form an entire new class of weaponry. They will require militaries to also need to devise new defenses against them.
Existing air defenses, such as the recent Pantsir defense of Russian airbase, can defend against limited mass attacks (with E.W.).
But, when the number and sophistication of drones increase, existing systems will be unable to successfully defend against them.
I suspect some form of new E.W., anti-drone-drone or laser system will eventually be created to protect from these forms of attack.

群集无人机将形成一种全新的武器,军?#26377;?#35201;为它们设计新的防御体系。
现有防空防御,如最近的俄罗斯空军基地的防御?#20302;常?#21487;以防御有限的大规模攻击。
但是,当无人机数量和复杂度增加时,现有?#20302;?#23558;无法成功地抵御无人机攻击。
我怀疑某?#20013;问?#30340;新的防御?#20302;?#26368;终会创建反无人机或激光?#20302;?#26469;阻止这类型的攻击。



PERICLES---
The eternal contest between offense and defense. I'm always a little hesitant to buy into so-called "revolutionary" new weapons. War changes all the time, no war is like the last. But the basic strategic, operational, and even tactical principles remain fairly similar. The only "weapons" that could be called revolutionary in the past century have been cyber attacks, satellites, and nukes.

攻守之间是永恒竞争的。我对是否购买所谓的“ge命性”新武器总是有些犹豫。战争总是在变化,没有一场战争比会跟上一场战争相像。但基本的战略、作战甚至战术原则仍然是相似的。在过去的一个世纪里,唯一被称为ge命性的“武器”是网络攻击、卫星和核武器。



Moonchalk
LOL! It's "technology" is over a decade behind the US'

哈哈!“技术”比美国落后10年。



PERICLES---
That's the sort of thinking that leads to nasty surprises.

这种想法会导致令人不快的意外。



Moonchalk
It is "thought" moron. It is KNOWING what they have.

一群有“想法”的白痴,大家都知道他们有什么



PERICLES---
You think you know exactly what they have. Either way, underestimating a rival is never a good idea. The Russian fleet at Port Arthur thought much the same of the Japanese before regretting their assumptions.

你真认为你知道他们有什么?不管怎?#27492;担?#20302;估对手从来都不是个好主意。在后悔自己的假设之前,亚瑟港的俄罗斯舰队也是这么看日本人的。



R. Arandas
Can't the U.S. just detect and shoot those drones down though?

难道美国就不能探测并击落这些无人机吗?



PERICLES---
I think the general idea is to have so many of them, so cheap, and so small that they could swamp defenses. It's not particularly innovative, but it's part of the long tradition of solving problems by just throwing more resources at them.
Though yes, detection and interception would be the US's strategy for stopping this. Or, given the tiny range of the drones, just staying away from them would be a perfectly acceptable strategy.

我认为一般的想法是,拥有这么大的数量,又那么便宜,而且那么小以至于无人机群可以轻松破坏敌对方的防御?#20302;场?#36825;并不是特别创新,但这是解决问题的长期传统的一部分,只要投入更多的资源就可?#28304;?#21040;目的。

尽管如此,检测和拦截无人机将是美国阻止这一攻击的最?#24033;?#30053;,或者,鉴于无人机微小的飞行范围,离它们远点也是一个完全可以接受的策略。



Mark Levin
The advantage of drones over a fighter is first of all, they are more disposable than manned aircraft, and presumably, much cheaper too. Secondly, they would present many targets and could overwhelm defensive systems.

首先,无人机优于战斗机上的地方是,它?#28508;?#26377;人驾驶的飞机更容?#36164;?#29992;,而且估计也要便宜得多。其次,他们一次可以攻击许多目标,并可能压倒性的摧毁防御?#20302;场?br />

更多
评论加载中。。。
我还要发表看法:
"看世界"温馨提醒:
1、请勿发表违反国家法律评论,评论请文明用语;
2、禁止发布广告评论。
匿名发表  用户名: 密码: 验证码:

浏览过本页的网友还关注:
美国译帖 - ?#35753;?#25512;荐
第一赞助商
双语美文 - 阅读榜
第二赞助商
美国译帖 - 最新收录
第三赞助商
国外?#21028;?#35770;坛 - 为您推荐
第?#33041;?#21161;商
经验分享 - 阅读榜
?#38431;?#29233;好网帖翻译的朋友加入我?#29301;?br />QQ?#28023;?07195648
联系邮箱:
无觅关联推荐,快速提升流量
加拿大西部快乐8开奖