WASHINGTON: As part of its culling of ships in the 2021 budget submission, the Navy wants to scrap four Littoral Combat Ships which it says are already so outdated they can’t be even be used for training anymore, despite two of them being less than a decade old.
华盛顿：作为2021年预算报告中淘汰舰船的一部分，美国海军计划淘汰四艘濒海战斗舰，并称其中两艘服役不到十年，但已经过时，不能再用于训练。
The requested retirement is another example of the litany of problems the LCS program has suffered during its short life: cost overruns, highly-anticipated ship modules that just don’t work, and propulsion issues that have made the program a poster child of a messy military procurement culture.
被要求退役是濒海战斗舰项目在其短暂的生命周期中遭遇的一系列问题的又一个例子：
成本超支、备受期待的船舶模块无法工作，以及动力推进问题等等，这些问题使该项目成为混乱的军事采购文化的典型代表。
The plan, if blessed by Congress, would retire the first two ships from the Freedom class — USS Freedom and Fort Worth — commissioned in 2008 and 2012, respectively. The first two Independence-class ships are also on the chopping block. USS Independence was commissioned in 2010 and the USS Coronado was just commissioned in 2014, making it brand-new in the world of naval lifespans.
这项计划如果得到国会的批准，将使自由级的前两艘濒海战斗舰分别退役，这两艘军舰分别是2008年服役的“自由”号和2012年服役的“沃思堡”号，前两艘独立级舰艇也在砧板上待宰，海军“独立”号于2010年服役，而“科罗纳多”号则在2014年刚刚服役，这使得它在海军服役寿命方面创下了记录新低。
Introducing the Navy budget earlier this week, Rear Adm. Randy Crites, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget, said “we’ve gotten all we can get out of those ships in terms of testing.”
本周早些时候，负责预算的海军副助理部长兰迪 · 克莱特斯少将在介绍海军预算时说，“就测试而言，我们已经从这些军舰上得到了我们所能得到的一切。”
The service looked at upgrading the ships to reflect the current LCS configurations, but “in the context of great power competition they were less important,” than other classes of ships, Crites said. “So, we took those savings and applied it to other areas.”
克莱特斯说，有考虑过升级船舶，以匹配当前的濒海战斗舰的配置，但“ 在当前大国竞争环境下，它们的重要性不如其他类型的船舶”，“因此，我们将这些节省下来的资金应用到其它领域。”
In its budget justification, the Navy said the ships “have been test articles and training assets, and were key in developing the operational concepts leading to the current deployment of LCS ships today…But cancelling their modernization allows us to prioritize lethality and survivability where we need it.”
在其预算论证中，海军表示，这些舰艇“已经成为测试物品和训练资产，并曾在制定导致当前濒海战斗舰舰艇部署的操作概念方面发挥了关键作用...... 但取消它们的升级现代化使我们可以在需要的地方优先考虑杀伤力和生存能力。”
Since November, two LCS — the USS Montgomery and USS Gabrielle Giffords — conducted freedom of navigation cruises near the contested Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, the Giffords while sporting the new Naval Strike Missile, a long-range, precision strike weapon that seeks and destroys enemy ships at distances greater than 100 nautical miles.
自去年11月以来，两艘濒海战斗舰----美国海军蒙哥马利号和嘉贝丽·吉佛斯号濒海战斗舰---- 在南中国海有争议的斯普拉特利群岛（即南沙群岛）附近进行了航行自由巡航，同时展示了新型海军攻击导弹，这是一种远程精确打击武器，可以在超过100海里的距离寻找并摧毁敌方船只。
Navy Looks to Slash $40B To Build Bigger Fleet
Acting Navy Secretary Modly says the “bottom line is that we need to find at least $40 billion in real line-of-accounting savings to fund the development, construction, and sustainment of this new [355 ship fleet] over the next 5 years.”
美国海军计划削减400亿美元建造更大的舰队，代理海军部长莫德利说，“底线是，我们需要找到至少400亿美元的实际账目节省，以在未来5年为这个新的355舰队的开发、建设和维护提供资金。”
With Navy officials confirming that they’re likely to see flat shipbuilding budgets for the forseable future, every dollar spent on a hull will count.
随着海军官员确认，他们可能看到在可预见的未来造船预算持平，并将每一分船体花费都将计算在内。
评论翻译
In the end, it’s not clear how long a service life any of the LCS hulls will have.
And yet we plan on buying 38 of these ships, some yet to be built? This is outrageous, totally unacceptable and production of further hulls should cease immediately. Bring the FFG(X) into production ASAP.
“最后，目前还不清楚濒海战斗舰船体的使用寿命到底有多长”
—— 结果我们还是计划采购38艘这样的船，其中一些尚未建造，这是令人无法容忍的，完全不能接受的，这样的舰船应该立即停止生产，尽快将 FFG ( X) （注：FFG(X)是美海军下一代护卫舰项目） 投入生产。
Agreed total waste of taxpayers money!!
严重同意，完全是浪费纳税人的钱！！
We can only hope that they stop that insanity as soon as they decide what the real frigate will be. You know, the ship we should have bought instead of LCS....
我们只能希望他们拿好主意，搞清楚什么才是真正的护卫舰，然后停止这种疯狂，我们要用的是真正的护卫舰，而不是什么“濒海战斗舰”。
The "Littoral''s" were NEVER meant to STOP the enemy, only SLOW them down. But that was when the US Navy wanted 52 of them, not the 42 the Congress decided to scale down too and not armed with the NSM''s either...
“濒海战斗舰”从来就不是用来阻止敌人的，只是让他们慢下来，那时美国海军想要52艘，而不是42艘，国会决定缩小规模，也没有装备NSM。
The real question is if it is worth any of the money to upgrade the LCS of if we should just keep them as is and use them off Africa and in SOUTHCOM where you don''t need real weapons or sensors anyway so the LCS as built fits right in.
Sunk costs should never be used a basis for making decisions but when it comes to LCS that is what the Navy keeps doing. The program has already failed on cost and schedule but the Navy keeps trying to find some way to help them at least achieve success performance wise which is why they are welding on ASCM launchers after delivery and still trying to get a working ASW and MCM module out there as well as to complete the existing ASuW module. But how long are we going to keep throwing good money after bad?
Junking the first 4 LCS rather than spending another 20 year crewing and sustaining them is certainly the right call - the only question is if we should do more. How much is the penalty to cancel the contract on all of the still under construction LCS vs. the cost of completing them, crewing them, and actually modifying them enough to let them enter the fleet?
真正的问题是，是否值得花钱升级濒海战斗舰，如果我们保持它们的现状，在非洲和南美洲使用它们，在那里你不需要多强的武器或传感器，所以建造濒海战斗舰是合适的。
沉没成本永远不应该作为决策的基础，但是当涉及到濒海战斗舰时，这就是海军一直在做的事情。
这个项目已经在成本和时间上失败了，但是海军一直试图找到一些方法来帮助它们至少达到预期的性能，这就是为什么他们在交付后加装ASCM（反舰巡航导弹）系统，配备 ASW 和 MCM 模块，以及完成现有的 ASuW 模块，但是，我们还要花多少钱来弥补损失？事情已经够糟糕了。
抛弃前4艘濒海战斗舰，而不是再花上20年的时间去维持它们，这当然是正确的选择，唯一的问题是我们是否应该更进一步，取消所有在建的濒海战斗舰合同的罚金是多少? 与完成这些濒海战斗舰的成本相比，废弃这些濒海战斗舰的成本是多少?
Wonder what they will be saying ten years from now with our new class of carriers?
It should be painfully obvious at this time/by now, incorporating the wizardry of all of the technology out there is beyond our abilities/capabilities to master/utilize it. Things keep going the way they are, we won''t have any vessels capable of putting out to sea so, the 300+ plus ship arsenal is a pipe dream. Chances are, if we''re in a shooting war with a major power, of which there are only two, in all likelihood, maybe half of our technological wizardry is going to work...if we''re lucky. This is the typical situation we see when we ignore the KISS principle, especially believing the technology can overcome human capabilities and make up for our shortfalls. And let''s face it, surface vessels are doomed almost immediately if we engage either China or Russia in a shooting war...about the only vessels that will survive are our subs. Sure, have some carriers and support craft, show the Flag...good for the morale but, we shouldn''t fool ourselves about a surface fleet being capable of doing much damage if we engage China, Russia, maybe both, in a shooting war.
不知道十年后他们会对我们的新航母说些什么？
此时此刻，这应该是非常明显的，整合各种先进科技建造的濒海战斗舰已经超出了我们掌握/利用它的能力范围。
事情继续这样发展，我们将不会有任何能够出海的船只，所以，300多艘军舰的造舰计划只能是白日做梦。
如果我们与一个大国开战（而这样的大国只有两个），如果幸运的话，那么很有可能我们只有一半的技术能奏效……
这是我们忽视“ KISS原则”（Keep It Simple Stupid）时会看到的典型情况，特别是相信技术可以克服人类的能力，弥补我们的不足。
让我们面对现实吧，如果我们与中国或俄罗斯进行一场热战，水面舰艇几乎马上就会毁灭……也许唯一能幸存的舰艇就是我们的潜艇。
当然，有一些航母和支援舰用来彰显实力，的确对提振士气有好处，但我们不应该自欺欺人地认为，如果我们与中国、俄罗斯，或两者一起开打一场大战，水面舰队能造成多大破坏。
The current LCS weapon systems are under-performing and offer little chance of survival in a combat scenario. The LCS can''t be employed outside a benign, low-threat environment unless escorted by a multi-mission combatant providing credible anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine protection. The LCS lacks the ability to operate independently in combat and it will have to be well protected by multi-mission combatants. Multiple LCSs will likely have to operate in a coordinated strike attack group fashion for mutual support. LCS mission packages can be swapped within 72 hours if all the equipment and personnel are in theater, which may take significantly longer. An LCS executing a package swap could be unavailable for between 12-29 days.
目前的濒海战斗舰武器系统表现不佳，在战斗场景中几乎没有生存的机会。
除非多任务战斗编队提供可靠的防空、反水面和反潜保护，否则濒海战斗舰甚至不能在良性、低威胁的环境外使用。
濒海战斗舰缺乏在战斗中独立作战的能力，它必须得到多任务战斗编队的良好保护。
为了相互支持，多艘濒海战斗舰可能以协同攻击群的方式运行，如果所有设备和人员都在战区内，濒海战斗舰作战任务可以在72小时内交换，维持时间可能要长得多，但执行任务交换的濒海战斗舰可能在12-29天内不可用。
It''s important to have a sense of humor when discussing the Little Crappy Ships. They set a record for breakdowns and various engineering problems, besides being a poor design (commercial-grade hulls) burdened with an unworkable module strategy and an overworked small crew. It was a littoral combat ship that the Marines, trained for littoral combat, had nothing to do with -- smart of them.
One of LCS-1 Freedom''s many breakdowns was in Singapore, at the time when VP Joe Biden was visiting. On July 21, 2013, the ship service diesel generators on the Freedom were only operating at about half their required reliability level, and as a result the ship lost power and was forced to dock for maintenance instead of participating in a Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training exercise. Eight days later: "I came for two reasons," said the Vice President to the more than 140 Sailors and American embassy staff assembled in Freedom''s airborne mission zone. "One to demonstrate that this ship, one of the newest additions to the United States Navy, is an incredible and crucial part of our Navy''s capacity. And two, to let the world know how proud we are of you." Funny ?
在讨论这些憋足的“小破船”时，保持幽默感是很重要的。
它们除了设计糟糕 ( 商业级船体 ) 、模块策略不可行和小船员编制超负荷工作外，还创下了各种故障和工程问题的记录，这就是所谓“ 濒海战斗舰”，海军陆战队受过濒海战斗训练，跟它一点关系也没有——他们很聪明。
副总统拜登访问新加坡的时候，濒海战斗舰”首舰“自由”号的诸多失败之一就发生在那里。
2013年7月21日，自由号上的柴油发电机只能以所要求的可靠性水平的一半运行，结果船只失去了动力，被迫停靠维修，无法参加联合海上战备演习。
八天后，副总统对聚集在“ 自由空降”演习任务区的140多名水兵和美国大使馆工作人员说：“我来这里有两个原因，其一，这艘船是美国海军最新增加的舰艇之一，是我们海军不可思议的重要组成部分，其二，让世界知道我们是多么为你们骄傲。”滑稽不？
Woulda been a far better decision to scrap the two damaged DDGs whose lives were nearly gone (more than 3/4 used up) at half a billion per ship than to scrap these LCSs that still have more than 2/3 of their projected lifetimes left to go and are in great shape.
按每艘5亿美元的价格计，报废两艘损坏的 DDG导弹驱逐舰 ( 它们的寿命几乎已经耗尽，超过3 / 4) ，而不是废弃这些仍然有超过预计寿命的2 / 3而且状况良好的濒海战斗舰，也许是一个更好的决定。
Yeah but those ships are far more useful than the LCS will ever be.
是，但是 DDG 比濒海战斗舰有用多了。
Not the least bit true. LCS are the world’s most useful and most lethal littoral warships. The littorals are where 95% of the world’s naval battles have always taken place. DDGs have one job only - to provide missile defense for CVNs, which have not been used in actual naval warfare in 75 years. CVNs are only land attack/strike platforms, not naval battleships. LCS actually hunt down and kill warships and small craft.
这么说太过了吧，濒海战斗舰是世界上最有用、最具杀伤力的濒海战舰，世界上95%的海战都发生在沿海地区，DDG导弹驱逐舰只有一个任务——为航母战斗群提供导弹防御，在实际的海战中已经有75年没有使用了，航母只是对陆地攻击平台，不是海军战舰，而事实上，濒海战斗舰能猎杀战舰和小型船只。
So the LCS is going to do FON in the SCS, or has already done it. Really? Then tell me what''s gonna happen when a Chinese destroyer decides to play bumper-cars with this aluminum ship? Will LCS speed away in horror? Oh that would be great propaganda for the PLAN to put on their Twitter.how is it gonna look to the world as the Chinese ship videos a Untied States Navy "warship" churning up white water as it runs away in fear? If they have a 5in gun pointed at them in close quarters what will LCS do? Point back with their tiny 57mm deck gun? Or maybe LCS will speed away and run white-water circles around the PLAN destroyer? They better because that about all they''ll be able to do!
所以濒海战斗舰打算在南中国海做自由航行巡航，或者是已经这样做了，你逗我呢。
那么你告诉我，如果中国的驱逐舰决定拿那这艘铝皮船来玩碰碰车游戏，会发生什么？
濒海战斗舰在恐惧中加速离开吗？嗯哼，放在他们的Twitter上，这会是一个很好的宣传，当中国舰艇拍摄到一艘美国海军“战舰”搅起白浪在恐惧中逃跑时，世界会怎么看？
如果中国驱逐舰用5英寸炮近距离对准它们，濒海战斗舰能怎么做？用它们的57毫米舰炮指向对方？
还是濒海战斗舰会加速离开，绕着中国海军驱逐舰兜圈子？我想它们会做得很好，因为它们所能做的就只有这样！
閱讀更多 看外國人說的 的文章
