一圖看美-俄-中-英四國水面戰艦55年來的發展情況_風聞

正文翻譯

jm_leviathan

upxed version of previously posted chart. Same criteria as before:

NOTE: This is NEWLY COMMISSIONED TONNAGE OVER TIME, not AGGREGATE TONNAGE IN SERVICE (although obviously the former tends to translate to the latter over time).

Eligible types are cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes. Excluded are aircraft carriers, amphibious or landing vessels, supply/replenishment ships, and surface combatants displacing less than 950 tons full load. Coast Guard ships (e.g. Krivak III) excluded. Vessels built for other nations excluded. Vessels ordered from other nations included. Vessels are counted once upon first commissioning; subsequent reactivations, refits, modifications or other forms of return to service are not counted.

USA: 4x Iowa-class battleships excluded.

Soviet unx/Russia: 4x Kiev- and 1x Kuznetsov-class aircraft-carrying cruisers excluded. Grisha-, Parchim-, Buyan-M and Bora-class corvettes included. Karakurt- and smaller excluded.

China: Type 056/A corvettes included. Smaller Type 037, 022, etc. excluded.

UK: River-class and previous offshore patrol vessels not included; lacking missile armament, these ships seem more akin to Coast Guard vessels operated by other nations.

Projections to end 2024 obviously include some level of uncertainty. All are slightly conservative.

更新之前發佈的圖表。與之前的標準相同:

注:這是一段時間內的新服役的噸位數，而不是總服役噸位數(儘管很明顯，隨着時間的推移，前者往往會轉化為後者)。

計算進來的艦艇類型包括巡洋艦，驅逐艦，護衞艦，小型護衞艦。不包括航空母艦、兩棲或登陸艦、後勤/補給艦和滿載排水量少於950噸的水面戰艦。不包括海岸警衞隊艦船(例如克里瓦克 III)。為其他國家建造的船隻除外。從其他國家訂購的船隻也包括在內。船隻在首次試航時計算一次；隨後的重新激活、改裝、修改或其他形式的重新服役不計算在內。

美國:4艘愛荷華級戰艦除外。

蘇聯/俄羅斯:不包括4艘基輔級和1艘庫茲涅佐夫級載機巡洋艦。包括格里沙，帕希姆, 布揚-M和博拉級護衞艦。卡拉庫姆特和更小的地區被排除在外。

中國:包括056型/A型護衞艦。不包括較小的037，022型等。

英國:不包括河道級和以前的近海巡邏艇；由於缺乏導彈裝備，這些船看起來更像其他國家的海岸警衞隊船隻。

對2024年結束的預測顯然包含了某種程度的不確定性。對四國的估計都有些保守。

評論翻譯

Ragingsheep

Ok, that’s fair. I just got triggers by some of the other comments made by others in this post since so much of the USN’s combat prowess is based around its carriers.

好吧，很公平。我剛剛被這個帖子裏其他人的某些其他評論觸動了，因為美國海軍的戰鬥力很大程度上都是以它的航母為基礎的。

JMHSrowing

Oh Britain. There’s no way you could keep up really, but it’s sad to see such a fall.

哦，英國。你真的沒有辦法跟上，但是看到這樣的下跌還是很傷心的。

jm_leviathan

At least things should be brighter from 2025 with both Type 26 and Type 31 coming online.

至少從2025年開始，隨着26型和31型的投入使用，英國的情況會光明一點的。

JMHSrowing

Indeed!

The more I learn about the Type 26 more it does seem to be a great ship. Especially that mission bay.

Even as quite a Light frigate, the sheer size of the 31 is quite an advantage for things like potential upgrades as well.

確實!

我對26型瞭解得越多，就越覺得它確實是一艘偉大的艦艇。尤其它的艦島。

即使是一艘相當輕的護衞艦，31型的龐大規模對於潛在的升級而言也是相當有利的。

redthursdays

And while this diagram is for surface combatants, adding two CVs will do a lot for the RN

而且儘管這個圖表是為了説水面戰艦的，增加兩艘航母會讓皇家海軍增益不少。

JMHSrowing

A combined over 140,000 tons would indeed do that

總共超過14萬噸當然會增益不少。

Luke_RJC

It’s a unfair graph really. During the next 5 the type 26s, type 31s, the end of the astute, and the dreadnought program are under construction.

這個圖表真的很不公平。在未來5年，26型，31型，最後的機敏級和無畏艦項目都將進行建造。

MaterialCarrot

Even with those factored in, that line isn’t going to get much about 15 hulls.

即使考慮了那些因素，英國這條線也最多會多15艘。

surrounded_by_vapor

There’s a few different ways to look at the measures of a fleet. Hull count is one to be sure, so is Battle Force Missiles. Here’s an article from Cmdr. K. Patton on the topic.

http://cimsec.org/battle-force-missiles-the-measure-of-a-fleet/40138?fbclid=IwAR3-CZ0WqrTAY8PMrVtZBK0eGVVvGm0AYh1lZVOK77G9OqnysInauSbjou8

有好幾種不同的方式來衡量艦隊。艦隻數量當然是一種，導彈戰力（BFM）也是一種。這裏有一篇指揮官K. Patton關於這個話題的文章。

MaterialCarrot

The concern for the US regarding China is, not only are they outbuilding us, they have the luxury of keeping most of their navy in the Western Pacific and Indian oceans. Ours are spread out all over the world.

美國對中國的擔憂是，中國不僅在造艦方面超過了美國，而且他們可以將大部分海軍部署在西太平洋和印度洋。我們則需要分佈在世界各地。

The_Kid_1999

well china cant project power as much as america

嗯，中國不能像美國那樣投射軍力。

Comment dexed by user

（該評論被作者刪除）

Faymm

Very cool graphic!

很酷的圖表！

The_Kid_1999

The UK line makes me want to cry. What have the politicians done to our once great navy. Shame on them.

英國那條線我想哭。政客們對我們曾經偉大的海軍做了什麼?鄙視他們。

JMHSrowing

I mean, we have like 70 of the largest and most powerful destroyers in the world plus over 20 cruisers.

Arguably the only nation with a single super carrier and we have 11. Plus amphibious assault ships larger than many nations carriers.

The US probably has over a 2 power advantage currently

我的意思是，我們有大約70艘世界上最大最強的驅逐艦，還有20多艘巡洋艦。

可以説是唯一擁有超級航母的國家，而我們有11艘。再加上比許多國家的航母還大的兩棲攻擊艦。

美國目前擁有的優勢可能超過兩個強國。

The_Kid_1999

1 nuclear war and its all over so whats the point

一場核戰爭就全報銷了，有什麼意義呢。

JMHSrowing

Smaller scale wars, power projection, and the like

在小規模戰爭、軍力投射以及諸如此類方面有意義。