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of ships in the 2021 budget submission, the Navy wants to scrap four Littoral Combat Ships which it says are already so outdated they can’t be even be used for training anymore, despite two of them being less than a decade old.
華盛頓：作為2021年預算報告中淘汰艦船的一部分，美國海軍計劃淘汰四艘瀕海戰鬥艦，並稱其中兩艘服役不到十年，但已經過時，不能再用於訓練。
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.
被要求退役是瀕海戰鬥艦項目在其短暫的生命週期中遭遇的一系列問題的又一個例子：
成本超支、備受期待的船舶模塊無法工作，以及動力推進問題等等，這些問題使該項目成為混亂的軍事採購文化的典型代表。
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.
這項計劃如果得到國會的批准，將使自由級的前兩艘瀕海戰鬥艦分別退役，這兩艘軍艦分別是2008年服役的“自由”號和2012年服役的“沃思堡”號，前兩艘獨立級艦艇也在砧板上待宰，海軍“獨立”號於2010年服役，而“科羅納多”號則在2014年剛剛服役，這使得它在海軍服役壽命方面創下了記錄新低。
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.”
本週早些時候，負責預算的海軍副助理部長蘭迪 · 克萊特斯少將在介紹海軍預算時說，“就測試而言，我們已經從這些軍艦上得到了我們所能得到的一切。”
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.”
克萊特斯說，有考慮過升級船舶，以匹配當前的瀕海戰鬥艦的配置，但“ 在當前大國競爭環境下，它們的重要性不如其他類型的船舶”，“因此，我們將這些節省下來的資金應用到其它領域。”
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.”
在其預算論證中，海軍表示，這些艦艇“已經成為測試物品和訓練資產，並曾在制定導致當前瀕海戰鬥艦艦艇部署的操作概念方面發揮了關鍵作用...... 但取消它們的升級現代化使我們可以在需要的地方優先考慮殺傷力和生存能力。”
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月以來，兩艘瀕海戰鬥艦----美國海軍蒙哥馬利號和嘉貝麗·吉佛斯號瀕海戰鬥艦---- 在南中國海有爭議的斯普拉特利群島（即南沙群島）附近進行了航行自由巡航，同時展示了新型海軍攻擊導彈，這是一種遠程精確打擊武器，可以在超過100海里的距離尋找並摧毀敵方船隻。
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.”
美國海軍計劃削減400億美元建造更大的艦隊，代理海軍部長莫德利說，“底線是，我們需要找到至少400億美元的實際賬目節省，以在未來5年為這個新的355艦隊的開發、建設和維護提供資金。”
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.
隨著海軍官員確認，他們可能看到在可預見的未來造船預算持平，並將每一分船體花費都將計算在內。
評論翻譯
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.
“最後，目前還不清楚瀕海戰鬥艦船體的使用壽命到底有多長”
—— 結果我們還是計劃採購38艘這樣的船，其中一些尚未建造，這是令人無法容忍的，完全不能接受的，這樣的艦船應該立即停止生產，儘快將 FFG ( X) （注：FFG(X)是美海軍下一代護衛艦項目） 投入生產。
Agreed total waste of taxpayers money!!
嚴重同意，完全是浪費納稅人的錢！！
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....
我們只能希望他們拿好主意，搞清楚什麼才是真正的護衛艦，然後停止這種瘋狂，我們要用的是真正的護衛艦，而不是什麼“瀕海戰鬥艦”。
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...
“瀕海戰鬥艦”從來就不是用來阻止敵人的，只是讓他們慢下來，那時美國海軍想要52艘，而不是42艘，國會決定縮小規模，也沒有裝備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?
真正的問題是，是否值得花錢升級瀕海戰鬥艦，如果我們保持它們的現狀，在非洲和南美洲使用它們，在那裡你不需要多強的武器或傳感器，所以建造瀕海戰鬥艦是合適的。
沉沒成本永遠不應該作為決策的基礎，但是當涉及到瀕海戰鬥艦時，這就是海軍一直在做的事情。
這個項目已經在成本和時間上失敗了，但是海軍一直試圖找到一些方法來幫助它們至少達到預期的性能，這就是為什麼他們在交付後加裝ASCM（反艦巡航導彈）系統，配備 ASW 和 MCM 模塊，以及完成現有的 ASuW 模塊，但是，我們還要花多少錢來彌補損失？事情已經夠糟糕了。
拋棄前4艘瀕海戰鬥艦，而不是再花上20年的時間去維持它們，這當然是正確的選擇，唯一的問題是我們是否應該更進一步，取消所有在建的瀕海戰鬥艦合同的罰金是多少? 與完成這些瀕海戰鬥艦的成本相比，廢棄這些瀕海戰鬥艦的成本是多少?
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.
不知道十年後他們會對我們的新航母說些什麼？
此時此刻，這應該是非常明顯的，整合各種先進科技建造的瀕海戰鬥艦已經超出了我們掌握/利用它的能力範圍。
事情繼續這樣發展，我們將不會有任何能夠出海的船隻，所以，300多艘軍艦的造艦計劃只能是白日做夢。
如果我們與一個大國開戰（而這樣的大國只有兩個），如果幸運的話，那麼很有可能我們只有一半的技術能奏效……
這是我們忽視“ KISS原則”（Keep It Simple Stupid）時會看到的典型情況，特別是相信技術可以克服人類的能力，彌補我們的不足。
讓我們面對現實吧，如果我們與中國或俄羅斯進行一場熱戰，水面艦艇幾乎馬上就會毀滅……也許唯一能倖存的艦艇就是我們的潛艇。
當然，有一些航母和支援艦用來彰顯實力，的確對提振士氣有好處，但我們不應該自欺欺人地認為，如果我們與中國、俄羅斯，或兩者一起開打一場大戰，水面艦隊能造成多大破壞。
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.
目前的瀕海戰鬥艦武器系統表現不佳，在戰鬥場景中幾乎沒有生存的機會。
除非多任務戰鬥編隊提供可靠的防空、反水面和反潛保護，否則瀕海戰鬥艦甚至不能在良性、低威脅的環境外使用。
瀕海戰鬥艦缺乏在戰鬥中獨立作戰的能力，它必須得到多任務戰鬥編隊的良好保護。
為了相互支持，多艘瀕海戰鬥艦可能以協同攻擊群的方式運行，如果所有設備和人員都在戰區內，瀕海戰鬥艦作戰任務可以在72小時內交換，維持時間可能要長得多，但執行任務交換的瀕海戰鬥艦可能在12-29天內不可用。
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 ?
在討論這些憋足的“小破船”時，保持幽默感是很重要的。
它們除了設計糟糕 ( 商業級船體 ) 、模塊策略不可行和小船員編制超負荷工作外，還創下了各種故障和工程問題的記錄，這就是所謂“ 瀕海戰鬥艦”，海軍陸戰隊受過瀕海戰鬥訓練，跟它一點關係也沒有——他們很聰明。
副總統拜登訪問新加坡的時候，瀕海戰鬥艦”首艦“自由”號的諸多失敗之一就發生在那裡。
2013年7月21日，自由號上的柴油發電機只能以所要求的可靠性水平的一半運行，結果船隻失去了動力，被迫停靠維修，無法參加聯合海上戰備演習。
八天後，副總統對聚集在“ 自由空降”演習任務區的140多名水兵和美國大使館工作人員說：“我來這裡有兩個原因，其一，這艘船是美國海軍最新增加的艦艇之一，是我們海軍不可思議的重要組成部分，其二，讓世界知道我們是多麼為你們驕傲。”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5億美元的價格計，報廢兩艘損壞的 DDG導彈驅逐艦 ( 它們的壽命幾乎已經耗盡，超過3 / 4) ，而不是廢棄這些仍然有超過預計壽命的2 / 3而且狀況良好的瀕海戰鬥艦，也許是一個更好的決定。
Yeah but those ships are far more useful than the LCS will ever be.
是，但是 DDG 比瀕海戰鬥艦有用多了。
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.
這麼說太過了吧，瀕海戰鬥艦是世界上最有用、最具殺傷力的瀕海戰艦，世界上95%的海戰都發生在沿海地區，DDG導彈驅逐艦隻有一個任務——為航母戰鬥群提供導彈防禦，在實際的海戰中已經有75年沒有使用了，航母只是對陸地攻擊平臺，不是海軍戰艦，而事實上，瀕海戰鬥艦能獵殺戰艦和小型船隻。
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!
所以瀕海戰鬥艦打算在南中國海做自由航行巡航，或者是已經這樣做了，你逗我呢。
那麼你告訴我，如果中國的驅逐艦決定拿那這艘鋁皮船來玩碰碰車遊戲，會發生什麼？
瀕海戰鬥艦在恐懼中加速離開嗎？嗯哼，放在他們的Twitter上，這會是一個很好的宣傳，當中國艦艇拍攝到一艘美國海軍“戰艦”攪起白浪在恐懼中逃跑時，世界會怎麼看？
如果中國驅逐艦用5英寸炮近距離對準它們，瀕海戰鬥艦能怎麼做？用它們的57毫米艦炮指向對方？
還是瀕海戰鬥艦會加速離開，繞著中國海軍驅逐艦兜圈子？我想它們會做得很好，因為它們所能做的就只有這樣！
閱讀更多 看外國人說的 的文章
