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(fā)布的圖表。與之前的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)相同:
注:這是一段時(shí)間內(nèi)的新服役的噸位數(shù)，而不是總服役噸位數(shù)(盡管很明顯，隨著時(shí)間的推移，前者往往會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)化為后者)。
計(jì)算進(jìn)來(lái)的艦艇類型包括巡洋艦，驅(qū)逐艦，護(hù)衛(wèi)艦，小型護(hù)衛(wèi)艦。不包括航空母艦、兩棲或登陸艦、后勤/補(bǔ)給艦和滿載排水量少于950噸的水面戰(zhàn)艦。不包括海岸警衛(wèi)隊(duì)艦船(例如克里瓦克 III)。為其他國(guó)家建造的船只除外。從其他國(guó)家訂購(gòu)的船只也包括在內(nèi)。船只在首次試航時(shí)計(jì)算一次；隨后的重新激活、改裝、修改或其他形式的重新服役不計(jì)算在內(nèi)。
美國(guó):4艘愛(ài)荷華級(jí)戰(zhàn)艦除外。
蘇聯(lián)/俄羅斯:不包括4艘基輔級(jí)和1艘?guī)炱澞舴蚣?jí)載機(jī)巡洋艦。包括格里沙，帕希姆, 布揚(yáng)-M和博拉級(jí)護(hù)衛(wèi)艦。卡拉庫(kù)姆特和更小的地區(qū)被排除在外。
中國(guó):包括056型/A型護(hù)衛(wèi)艦。不包括較小的037，022型等。
英國(guó):不包括河道級(jí)和以前的近海巡邏艇；由于缺乏導(dǎo)彈裝備，這些船看起來(lái)更像其他國(guó)家的海岸警衛(wèi)隊(duì)船只。
對(duì)2024年結(jié)束的預(yù)測(cè)顯然包含了某種程度的不確定性。對(duì)四國(guó)的估計(jì)都有些保守。

評(píng)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(gè)帖子里其他人的某些其他評(píng)論觸動(dòng)了，因?yàn)槊绹?guó)海軍的戰(zhàn)斗力很大程度上都是以它的航母為基礎(chǔ)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(guó)。你真的沒(méi)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?gòu)?025年開(kāi)始，隨著26型和31型的投入使用，英國(guó)的情況會(huì)光明一點(diǎn)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(shí)!
我對(duì)26型了解得越多，就越覺(jué)得它確實(shí)是一艘偉大的艦艇。尤其它的艦島。
即使是一艘相當(dāng)輕的護(hù)衛(wèi)艦，31型的龐大規(guī)模對(duì)于潛在的升級(jí)而言也是相當(dāng)有利的。

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

而且盡管這個(gè)圖表是為了說(shuō)水面戰(zhàn)艦的，增加兩艘航母會(huì)讓皇家海軍增益不少。

JMHSrowing
A combined over 140,000 tons would indeed do that

總共超過(guò)14萬(wàn)噸當(dāng)然會(huì)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(gè)圖表真的很不公平。在未來(lái)5年，26型，31型，最后的機(jī)敏級(jí)和無(wú)畏艦項(xiàng)目都將進(jìn)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(guó)這條線也最多會(huì)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(lái)衡量艦隊(duì)。艦只數(shù)量當(dāng)然是一種，導(dǎo)彈戰(zhàn)力（BFM）也是一種。這里有一篇指揮官K. Patton關(guān)于這個(gè)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(guó)對(duì)中國(guó)的擔(dān)憂是，中國(guó)不僅在造艦方面超過(guò)了美國(guó)，而且他們可以將大部分海軍部署在西太平洋和印度洋。我們則需要分布在世界各地。

The_Kid_1999
well china cant project power as much as america

嗯，中國(guó)不能像美國(guó)那樣投射軍力。

Comment dexed by user

（該評(píng)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(guó)那條線我想哭。政客們對(duì)我們?cè)?jīng)偉大的海軍做了什么?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(qiáng)的驅(qū)逐艦，還有20多艘巡洋艦。
可以說(shuō)是唯一擁有超級(jí)航母的國(guó)家，而我們有11艘。再加上比許多國(guó)家的航母還大的兩棲攻擊艦。
美國(guó)目前擁有的優(yōu)勢(shì)可能超過(guò)兩個(gè)強(qiáng)國(guó)。

The_Kid_1999
1 nuclear war and its all over so whats the point

一場(chǎng)核戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)就全報(bào)銷了，有什么意義呢。

JMHSrowing
smaller scale wars, power projection, and the like

在小規(guī)模戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)、軍力投射以及諸如此類方面有意義。