您的位置：首页 > 军事军事
中国的“福建”号航空母舰和美国的“福特”号航空母舰CG效果图比较
[2000×1303]CG comparison between the PLAN CV-18 "Fujian" and the USN CVN-78 "USS Gerald R. Ford".
2023-04-08
互联网
792
收藏
举报
译文简介
网友：很有趣地看到“隐形”应用于岛屿时的不同之处。福建号的岛屿外形流线型且整洁。而福特号则承认它可以在1000英里外被观察到，并安装了尽可能多的雷达半球和天线。
正文翻译
评论翻译
Assistant-Popular
There really close, the non nuclear engine of course means Less range but china probably doesn't need that currently
它们非常接近，无核动力引擎当然意味着较短的航程，但中国目前可能并不需要更远的航程。
Fleetcommand3
Also more space internally for fuel.
同时，内部的空间可以用来存储更多的燃料。
Vast_Republic_1776
With the unrep fleet they’re building, refueling won’t be an issue
他们正在建造无限补给舰队，因此加油将不会成为问题。
orcs_in_space
Range is important in naval warfare. I understand that China probably has no designs beyond their immediate area right now, but world wars, which a war with China would become, usually are unpredictable.
航程在海战中非常重要。我理解中国目前可能没有超出其直接地区的计划，但世界大战，其中一场与中国的战争可能会变得不可预测。
SJshield616
Also, the EM catapult will reduce range even more. Fujian will be nothing more than a glorified training platform.
此外，电磁弹射器将进一步缩短航程。福建将不过是一艘过于强调训练功能的军舰。
0HL4WDH3C0M1N
China has no need for a nuclear carrier considering their force projection capability is zip
考虑到中国的力量投射能力非常有限，他们并不需要核动力航母。
BlackDiamondDee
Also one got big dick energy.
此外，它有非常强大的能量。
xsnyder
I would think that placing the conning tower further aft on the Ford makes it easier to see the entire flight deck without having to have more people in PriFly than having it amidships like the Fujian.
我认为在福特级航母上将指挥塔放在更靠后的位置，使得无需在PriFly（舰桥）增加人员即可看到整个飞行甲板，这与福建级航母将指挥塔放在舰舯位置不同。
GeneralQuinky
Yeah, one of the advantages of a nuclear carrier is that you can place the island whereever you want, because there's no funnel that has to be routed through it.
You can also see how much space the funnel actually takes up in the island from this angle, which is one reason why the Ford's island can be smaller.
是的，核动力航母的优点之一是可以将舰岛放置在任何位置，因为不需要将烟囱穿过舰岛。
从这个角度可以看出烟囱实际上在舰岛中占据的空间有多大，这也是为什么福特级航母的舰岛可以更小的原因之一。
Potential-Brain7735
Having the tower further aft also creates more usable deck space in front of the tower, behind the main cats on the bow.
You can shuffle planes around on the deck in front of the tower more easily without interfering with landing operations.
将指挥塔放在更靠后的位置还可以在主推进器艏楼前方的甲板上创造更多可用空间。这样在塔前方的甲板上更容易调整飞机位置，而不会干扰着陆操作。
Jakebob70
USN CV islands have been steadily moving aft since WWII. The general consensus is: Island further aft = easier for flight deck ops. Island further forward = easier for ship handling. Since flight deck ops is definitely the more critical function of a carrier, the USN made the choice to prioritize making that part easier.
自第二次世界大战以来，美国海军航母的舰岛一直在向后移动。一般的共识是：岛屿放得更靠后 = 更易于飞行甲板操作；岛屿放得更靠前 = 更易于船舶操作。由于飞行甲板操作是航母最关键的功能之一，因此美国海军选择优先考虑使其更易于操作。
LittleHornetPhil
That’s the thought behind putting the island further aft on the Ford. It’s better for the flight deck, whereas having the island further forward us better for shiphandling.
这就是将福特级航母的舰岛放置在更靠后位置的原因。这对于飞行甲板更有利，而将舰岛放置在更靠前位置则更有利于船舶操纵。
BodybuilderOk3160
Yeah, 80k displacement looks about right.
是的，80,000吨排水量看起来大概是对的。
asleep_at_the_helm
I’m curious to see how well a CATOBAR carrier with EMALS performs with a conventional power plant.
我很好奇一艘配备了EMALS（电磁弹射系统）的CATOBAR（起飞辅助助推器）航母使用传统动力装置会表现如何。
TenguBlade
The fuel the plant uses has nothing to do with EMALS’s functionality. The key to system performance will be how Fujian’s electrical grid deals with the high and sudden power loads of EMALS. Particularly how the ship stores energy to mitigate disruptions caused by the system’s high power draw - Ford needed a dedicated energy storage system to ensure she could supply energy for enough consecutive shots to meet her SGR targets.
EDIT: Underscoring this point are words directly from head of the Fujian EMALS project, Ma Weiming. Ma claims the breakthrough necessary to enable use of EMALS was not the catapult itself, but development of a “medium-voltage, direct-current transmission network.”
A major challenge of AC IEP is supplying power at all the different voltages, frequencies, and phases of power required for various shipboard systems. Especially doing so in ways that leave systems adequately-isolated from each other to prevent cascading failure. Using DC rather than AC as the power type for transmission can achieve this, and has proven to work in past on turboelectric ships of the interwar era. But the tradeoff is very high current, which aside from being powerful enough to literally burn unfortunate crew to ash, requires very thick wiring to transmit that power.
发电使用的燃料与EMALS的功能无关，系统性能的关键在于福建省的电网如何处理EMALS的高负载和突发负载。尤其是舰船如何储存能量以减轻系统高功率需求带来的干扰，福特号需要专门的能量储存系统以确保能够连续发射足够次数以达到SGR目标。
编辑：福建EMALS项目负责人马伟明直接表示，使EMALS能够使用的突破不是弹射器本身，而是开发了“中压直流输电网络”。
AC IEP的一个主要挑战是为各种舰载系统所需的不同电压、频率和相位提供电力，并以一种方式进行供电，以确保系统充分隔离以防止级联故障。使用直流电而不是交流电作为传输电力类型可以实现这一点，并且在战间期的涡轮电力船上已经被证明有效。但是，这种电交换的代价是非常高的电流，除了足够强大以将不幸的船员直接烧成灰烬外，还需要非常厚的电线来传输电力。
IcyDrops
Does the Fujian have EMALS?
福建舰航母是否装备了EMALS？
Navynuke00
Conventional steam-fired plants are more efficient than nuclear-fired steam. So as well as on Ford or slightly better from an energy consumption point of view?
传统的蒸汽动力系统比核动力系统更加高效。因此，福建号航母的能源消耗与福特号相当或略优？
Clorox1620
Have any numbers on its carrying capacity come out?
关于它的载重能力有任何数据发布了吗？
chickenstalker
With carriers, you compare the Air Wing, not the carrier itself. The main weapon of a true carrier (vs fake Russian ones) is its aircraft. The F35 is literally leaps and bounds better than any Russian/Chinese/European etc aircraft.
在比较航母时，你应该比较的是其所搭载的舰载机群，而不是航母本身。真正的航母（与伪装成航母的俄罗斯船只相比）的主要武器就是其舰载机。F35战机在性能上比任何俄罗斯/中国/欧洲等的战机都要更优秀。
Imprezzed
Um, the moving airports of which said Air Wings are flying off of are definitely worthy of comparison.
嗯，飞离这些移动的机场（即航空母舰）的舰载机群肯定值得进行比较。
DotDash13
There are relevant factors about the carriers themselves though, no? Range and speed, ability to launch and recover aircraft efficiently, etc. While the air wing is probably the greatest factor, it doesn't matter if it can't be where it needs to be.
但是，航母本身也有相关因素，例如航程、速度、启动和恢复飞机的效率等等。虽然舰载机群可能是最大的因素，但如果它不能到达需要到达的地方，那么所有这些都没有意义。
FlyPenFly
You absolutely need to compare the carrier itself in terms of sustainable operational tempo and escort efficacy.
你绝对需要比较航母本身，例如可持续的作战能力和护航效能。
agoia
It will be interesting to see how well the Chinese copies of the F-35 do.
看看中国制造的F-35复制品的表现将会很有趣。
DanforthWhitcomb_
The projected air wing for USN carrier for the next 15-20 years has Super Hornets outnumbering F-35s at a 2:1 ratio, assuming that the USN actually buys enough F-35Cs for 16 aircraft squadrons. If they stick with the 12 aircraft size that was originally planned it’ll be 3:1 Super Hornets to F-35Cs.
Having a qualitatively superior aircraft doesn’t magically grant victory when facing a quantitatively superior enemy, especially with the F-35C being strike biased rather than A2A.
未来15-20年，美国海军航母的预计舰载机群中，如果美国海军实际购买足够的F-35C用于16个飞机中队，则F-35C战机数量将比超级大黄蜂战机多1:2。如果他们坚持最初计划的12架飞机规模，则将会是3:1的超级大黄蜂战斗机对F-35C战机的比例。虽然拥有一架质量上优越的飞机很重要，但是在面对数量上优势的敌人时，它并不能保证胜利，特别是F-35C战机更偏向于打击而非空战。
Nigzynoo23
US carriers just further more becoming a parking lot for aircraft. If there's empty space? Jam as much of an aircraft as you can into it.
美国航母正在变成停机坪。如果有空余的空间，就会把尽可能多的飞机塞进去。
KosstAmojan
Further more? That's how they've always been! There are pics of CV-3 out there with a deck absolutely full of biplanes!
而且这一直是它们的特点！有一些照片显示CV-3上甲板上停满了双翼飞机！
KingBobIV
That's the big difference, to effectively operate you need a ton of aircraft. And not just jets, but AEW, tanking, jamming, a helo screen, shit's complicated. The pictured Chinese carrier would be able to launch one strike package I guess, but they can't force project like an American air wing
这就是很大的区别，为了有效地运作，需要大量的飞机。不仅仅是战斗机，还需要预警机、加油机、干扰机、直升机等，十分复杂。相比之下，中国的航母只能发射有限的打击力量，无法像美国航母一样进行远程投射。
Red_Spy_1937
What fighter jet is on the CV-18? They look like if F-22s and F-35Bs were smashed together
CV-18上是什么样的战斗机？它们看起来像F-22和F-35B融合在一起的样子。
Temstar
J-35
The ones with canard are J-15B
J-35。
带鸭翼的是J-15B。
TheHamOfAllHams
Why don’t modern conventional carriers take the same design approach as older pre war and WWII era carrie’s and stick the exhaust on the side for more deck space?
为什么现代的常规航母不采用早期战争和二战时期的航母的设计方法，将排气管放在侧面，以腾出更多的甲板空间呢？
Lunaphase
Nuclear does not have the same type of exhaust.....
核动力航母的排气管与常规航母不同。
Xytak
One thing I don’t understand about US carriers is why they always park their planes facing backwards over the launching area. Wouldn’t that make it harder to respond to an emergency?
“Sir, the strike team is in trouble. We’ve got to launch reinforcements now!!”
“You know the rules, Ensign. No reinforcements. I want every catapult blocked..”
“But why, sir?”
“Just in case Popper gets any ideas.”
我不理解美国航母为什么总是将飞机倒着停放在弹射区上方。这不会增加应对紧急情况的难度吗？
“长官，突击队遇险了。我们必须立即派遣增援！”
“你知道规矩，少尉。没有增援。我要封锁每一个弹射器。”
“但是为什么，长官？”
“以防Popper有任何想法。”
Potential-Brain7735
US carriers have 4 catapults. 2 on the bow, 2 on the waist, at the front of the landing deck.
They can park whatever they want on the bow, and still be able to launch planes from the waist cats.
Also, photos like these are staged. They purposely put as much crap on the flight deck as they can just for the photos.
Also, when carriers are in transit and no flight ops are happening, then it doesn’t really matter where you park the planes.
美国航母有四个弹射器，两个在舰首，两个在舰腰，在着陆甲板前部。他们可以将任何东西停放在舰首，仍然能够从舰腰弹射器发射飞机。此外，这样的照片是精心策划的。他们会故意在飞行甲板上堆放尽可能多的物品，只为了拍照。当航母在运输途中且没有飞行操作时，停放飞机的位置并不重要。
wakawaka1234567890
I imagine there's different protocols for being in a warzone than just sailing around doing everyday shit
我想，在战区和平时的不同情况下可能有不同的协议。
youtheotube2
They have the waist catapults too, so they can launch and recover aircraft using the same space, which is cleared in this photo. The only time they’d need to have the bow catapults clear is if they’re planning to do simultaneous launch and recovery. In a sudden emergency you tend to only be doing launching, with not a lot of recovery, at least not right away.
他们也有腰部弹射器，因此可以使用同一空间发射和收回飞机，这张照片上的空间是清空的。唯一需要清空艏部弹射器的情况是计划同时发射和回收飞机。在突发紧急情况下，他们往往只需要发射，不需要太多的回收，至少不会马上回收。
GuyFromBangBros
What are the two types of plane on the carriers deck? J11’s and J20’s?
航母甲板上有哪两种类型的飞机？J11和J20吗？
Syrdon
15s, 35s, and a drone I don’t know
是15型，35型和一架我不知道的无人机。
Muckyduck007
"Hey man can I copy your homework?"
"Yeah just dont make it obvious."
“嘿，伙计，我能抄你的作业吗？”
“可以，但别让别人知道。”
musashisamurai
Pretty sure if the Chinese copied anyone, it was the British via the Australians via HMAS Melbourne. And honestly, they probably thought that good deal, Melbourne is the only ship to sink two NATO ships ever.
我相信如果中国抄袭了任何人，那一定是通过澳大利亚海军的墨尔本号航空母舰从英国抄袭。而且，他们可能认为这是一个好交易，因为墨尔本号是唯一沉没过两艘北约舰船的船只。
gangrainette
They are both ships carrying planes.
That's about their only common point.
它们都是装载飞机的船只。
这大概是它们唯一的共同点了。
trackerbuddy
Interesting to see the difference in “stealth” as it’s applied to the island. The Fujin’s island is sleek and clean. The Ford’s island concedes the fact that it can be observed from 1000 miles away and fits as many radar domes and antennas as are needed
很有趣地看到“隐形”应用于岛屿时的不同之处。福建号的岛屿外形流线型且整洁。而福特号则承认它可以在1000英里外被观察到，并安装了尽可能多的雷达半球和天线。
killerbannana_1
Homie. Its an aircraft carrier. There is literally no way to hide these things from radar (yet). The island shape for China is likely to fit aegis style radar panels.
兄弟，这是一艘航空母舰。目前还没有任何方法可以将这些东西从雷达上隐藏起来。中国的岛屿形状可能是为了适应宙斯盾式雷达面板。
yuikkiuy
Wait they think they can build a stealth carrier?????
等等，他们认为他们可以建造一艘隐形航母吗？
AtmaJnana
It's a 3D render you goof
这是一张三维渲染图，你这个二臂。
yedekkral
Look at the differences in skid marks on those decks, one is almost like a busy commercial airport next to other
看看这些甲板上的刹车痕迹的差异，一个甲板上的情况几乎像是一个繁忙的商业机场，而另一个则不同。
PLArealtalk
CG comparison
Which is to say, CV-18 in the picture is a CGI per the title.
CV-18 is obviously still in fitting out and has not gone on its first sea trial yet.
这是一组比较CG（计算机生成）的图片。根据标题，图片中的CV-18是通过计算机生成的。
显然，CV-18仍在进行装备和建造工作，还没有进行首次的海上试航。
IcyDrops
One's a photo, another's a 3d render. What has me confused is why the PLAN would have F-35s on their CV.
这是一张真实照片和一张3D渲染图的比较。令我困惑的是，中国人民解放军为什么要在他们的航母上装备F-35战机。
EmeraldPls
Skid marks on carriers are the new rivets on stealth aircraft I guess
现在，像航母上的刹车痕迹一样，隐形飞机上的铆钉也成了关注的焦点了。
原文地址：https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/12dar5r/20001303cg_comparison_between_the_plan_cv18/
There really close, the non nuclear engine of course means Less range but china probably doesn't need that currently
它们非常接近，无核动力引擎当然意味着较短的航程，但中国目前可能并不需要更远的航程。
Fleetcommand3
Also more space internally for fuel.
同时，内部的空间可以用来存储更多的燃料。
Vast_Republic_1776
With the unrep fleet they’re building, refueling won’t be an issue
他们正在建造无限补给舰队，因此加油将不会成为问题。
orcs_in_space
Range is important in naval warfare. I understand that China probably has no designs beyond their immediate area right now, but world wars, which a war with China would become, usually are unpredictable.
航程在海战中非常重要。我理解中国目前可能没有超出其直接地区的计划，但世界大战，其中一场与中国的战争可能会变得不可预测。
SJshield616
Also, the EM catapult will reduce range even more. Fujian will be nothing more than a glorified training platform.
此外，电磁弹射器将进一步缩短航程。福建将不过是一艘过于强调训练功能的军舰。
0HL4WDH3C0M1N
China has no need for a nuclear carrier considering their force projection capability is zip
考虑到中国的力量投射能力非常有限，他们并不需要核动力航母。
BlackDiamondDee
Also one got big dick energy.
此外，它有非常强大的能量。
xsnyder
I would think that placing the conning tower further aft on the Ford makes it easier to see the entire flight deck without having to have more people in PriFly than having it amidships like the Fujian.
我认为在福特级航母上将指挥塔放在更靠后的位置，使得无需在PriFly（舰桥）增加人员即可看到整个飞行甲板，这与福建级航母将指挥塔放在舰舯位置不同。
GeneralQuinky
Yeah, one of the advantages of a nuclear carrier is that you can place the island whereever you want, because there's no funnel that has to be routed through it.
You can also see how much space the funnel actually takes up in the island from this angle, which is one reason why the Ford's island can be smaller.
是的，核动力航母的优点之一是可以将舰岛放置在任何位置，因为不需要将烟囱穿过舰岛。
从这个角度可以看出烟囱实际上在舰岛中占据的空间有多大，这也是为什么福特级航母的舰岛可以更小的原因之一。
Potential-Brain7735
Having the tower further aft also creates more usable deck space in front of the tower, behind the main cats on the bow.
You can shuffle planes around on the deck in front of the tower more easily without interfering with landing operations.
将指挥塔放在更靠后的位置还可以在主推进器艏楼前方的甲板上创造更多可用空间。这样在塔前方的甲板上更容易调整飞机位置，而不会干扰着陆操作。
Jakebob70
USN CV islands have been steadily moving aft since WWII. The general consensus is: Island further aft = easier for flight deck ops. Island further forward = easier for ship handling. Since flight deck ops is definitely the more critical function of a carrier, the USN made the choice to prioritize making that part easier.
自第二次世界大战以来，美国海军航母的舰岛一直在向后移动。一般的共识是：岛屿放得更靠后 = 更易于飞行甲板操作；岛屿放得更靠前 = 更易于船舶操作。由于飞行甲板操作是航母最关键的功能之一，因此美国海军选择优先考虑使其更易于操作。
LittleHornetPhil
That’s the thought behind putting the island further aft on the Ford. It’s better for the flight deck, whereas having the island further forward us better for shiphandling.
这就是将福特级航母的舰岛放置在更靠后位置的原因。这对于飞行甲板更有利，而将舰岛放置在更靠前位置则更有利于船舶操纵。
BodybuilderOk3160
Yeah, 80k displacement looks about right.
是的，80,000吨排水量看起来大概是对的。
asleep_at_the_helm
I’m curious to see how well a CATOBAR carrier with EMALS performs with a conventional power plant.
我很好奇一艘配备了EMALS（电磁弹射系统）的CATOBAR（起飞辅助助推器）航母使用传统动力装置会表现如何。
TenguBlade
The fuel the plant uses has nothing to do with EMALS’s functionality. The key to system performance will be how Fujian’s electrical grid deals with the high and sudden power loads of EMALS. Particularly how the ship stores energy to mitigate disruptions caused by the system’s high power draw - Ford needed a dedicated energy storage system to ensure she could supply energy for enough consecutive shots to meet her SGR targets.
EDIT: Underscoring this point are words directly from head of the Fujian EMALS project, Ma Weiming. Ma claims the breakthrough necessary to enable use of EMALS was not the catapult itself, but development of a “medium-voltage, direct-current transmission network.”
A major challenge of AC IEP is supplying power at all the different voltages, frequencies, and phases of power required for various shipboard systems. Especially doing so in ways that leave systems adequately-isolated from each other to prevent cascading failure. Using DC rather than AC as the power type for transmission can achieve this, and has proven to work in past on turboelectric ships of the interwar era. But the tradeoff is very high current, which aside from being powerful enough to literally burn unfortunate crew to ash, requires very thick wiring to transmit that power.
发电使用的燃料与EMALS的功能无关，系统性能的关键在于福建省的电网如何处理EMALS的高负载和突发负载。尤其是舰船如何储存能量以减轻系统高功率需求带来的干扰，福特号需要专门的能量储存系统以确保能够连续发射足够次数以达到SGR目标。
编辑：福建EMALS项目负责人马伟明直接表示，使EMALS能够使用的突破不是弹射器本身，而是开发了“中压直流输电网络”。
AC IEP的一个主要挑战是为各种舰载系统所需的不同电压、频率和相位提供电力，并以一种方式进行供电，以确保系统充分隔离以防止级联故障。使用直流电而不是交流电作为传输电力类型可以实现这一点，并且在战间期的涡轮电力船上已经被证明有效。但是，这种电交换的代价是非常高的电流，除了足够强大以将不幸的船员直接烧成灰烬外，还需要非常厚的电线来传输电力。
IcyDrops
Does the Fujian have EMALS?
福建舰航母是否装备了EMALS？
Navynuke00
Conventional steam-fired plants are more efficient than nuclear-fired steam. So as well as on Ford or slightly better from an energy consumption point of view?
传统的蒸汽动力系统比核动力系统更加高效。因此，福建号航母的能源消耗与福特号相当或略优？
Clorox1620
Have any numbers on its carrying capacity come out?
关于它的载重能力有任何数据发布了吗？
chickenstalker
With carriers, you compare the Air Wing, not the carrier itself. The main weapon of a true carrier (vs fake Russian ones) is its aircraft. The F35 is literally leaps and bounds better than any Russian/Chinese/European etc aircraft.
在比较航母时，你应该比较的是其所搭载的舰载机群，而不是航母本身。真正的航母（与伪装成航母的俄罗斯船只相比）的主要武器就是其舰载机。F35战机在性能上比任何俄罗斯/中国/欧洲等的战机都要更优秀。
Imprezzed
Um, the moving airports of which said Air Wings are flying off of are definitely worthy of comparison.
嗯，飞离这些移动的机场（即航空母舰）的舰载机群肯定值得进行比较。
DotDash13
There are relevant factors about the carriers themselves though, no? Range and speed, ability to launch and recover aircraft efficiently, etc. While the air wing is probably the greatest factor, it doesn't matter if it can't be where it needs to be.
但是，航母本身也有相关因素，例如航程、速度、启动和恢复飞机的效率等等。虽然舰载机群可能是最大的因素，但如果它不能到达需要到达的地方，那么所有这些都没有意义。
FlyPenFly
You absolutely need to compare the carrier itself in terms of sustainable operational tempo and escort efficacy.
你绝对需要比较航母本身，例如可持续的作战能力和护航效能。
agoia
It will be interesting to see how well the Chinese copies of the F-35 do.
看看中国制造的F-35复制品的表现将会很有趣。
DanforthWhitcomb_
The projected air wing for USN carrier for the next 15-20 years has Super Hornets outnumbering F-35s at a 2:1 ratio, assuming that the USN actually buys enough F-35Cs for 16 aircraft squadrons. If they stick with the 12 aircraft size that was originally planned it’ll be 3:1 Super Hornets to F-35Cs.
Having a qualitatively superior aircraft doesn’t magically grant victory when facing a quantitatively superior enemy, especially with the F-35C being strike biased rather than A2A.
未来15-20年，美国海军航母的预计舰载机群中，如果美国海军实际购买足够的F-35C用于16个飞机中队，则F-35C战机数量将比超级大黄蜂战机多1:2。如果他们坚持最初计划的12架飞机规模，则将会是3:1的超级大黄蜂战斗机对F-35C战机的比例。虽然拥有一架质量上优越的飞机很重要，但是在面对数量上优势的敌人时，它并不能保证胜利，特别是F-35C战机更偏向于打击而非空战。
Nigzynoo23
US carriers just further more becoming a parking lot for aircraft. If there's empty space? Jam as much of an aircraft as you can into it.
美国航母正在变成停机坪。如果有空余的空间，就会把尽可能多的飞机塞进去。
KosstAmojan
Further more? That's how they've always been! There are pics of CV-3 out there with a deck absolutely full of biplanes!
而且这一直是它们的特点！有一些照片显示CV-3上甲板上停满了双翼飞机！
KingBobIV
That's the big difference, to effectively operate you need a ton of aircraft. And not just jets, but AEW, tanking, jamming, a helo screen, shit's complicated. The pictured Chinese carrier would be able to launch one strike package I guess, but they can't force project like an American air wing
这就是很大的区别，为了有效地运作，需要大量的飞机。不仅仅是战斗机，还需要预警机、加油机、干扰机、直升机等，十分复杂。相比之下，中国的航母只能发射有限的打击力量，无法像美国航母一样进行远程投射。
Red_Spy_1937
What fighter jet is on the CV-18? They look like if F-22s and F-35Bs were smashed together
CV-18上是什么样的战斗机？它们看起来像F-22和F-35B融合在一起的样子。
Temstar
J-35
The ones with canard are J-15B
J-35。
带鸭翼的是J-15B。
TheHamOfAllHams
Why don’t modern conventional carriers take the same design approach as older pre war and WWII era carrie’s and stick the exhaust on the side for more deck space?
为什么现代的常规航母不采用早期战争和二战时期的航母的设计方法，将排气管放在侧面，以腾出更多的甲板空间呢？
Lunaphase
Nuclear does not have the same type of exhaust.....
核动力航母的排气管与常规航母不同。
Xytak
One thing I don’t understand about US carriers is why they always park their planes facing backwards over the launching area. Wouldn’t that make it harder to respond to an emergency?
“Sir, the strike team is in trouble. We’ve got to launch reinforcements now!!”
“You know the rules, Ensign. No reinforcements. I want every catapult blocked..”
“But why, sir?”
“Just in case Popper gets any ideas.”
我不理解美国航母为什么总是将飞机倒着停放在弹射区上方。这不会增加应对紧急情况的难度吗？
“长官，突击队遇险了。我们必须立即派遣增援！”
“你知道规矩，少尉。没有增援。我要封锁每一个弹射器。”
“但是为什么，长官？”
“以防Popper有任何想法。”
Potential-Brain7735
US carriers have 4 catapults. 2 on the bow, 2 on the waist, at the front of the landing deck.
They can park whatever they want on the bow, and still be able to launch planes from the waist cats.
Also, photos like these are staged. They purposely put as much crap on the flight deck as they can just for the photos.
Also, when carriers are in transit and no flight ops are happening, then it doesn’t really matter where you park the planes.
美国航母有四个弹射器，两个在舰首，两个在舰腰，在着陆甲板前部。他们可以将任何东西停放在舰首，仍然能够从舰腰弹射器发射飞机。此外，这样的照片是精心策划的。他们会故意在飞行甲板上堆放尽可能多的物品，只为了拍照。当航母在运输途中且没有飞行操作时，停放飞机的位置并不重要。
wakawaka1234567890
I imagine there's different protocols for being in a warzone than just sailing around doing everyday shit
我想，在战区和平时的不同情况下可能有不同的协议。
youtheotube2
They have the waist catapults too, so they can launch and recover aircraft using the same space, which is cleared in this photo. The only time they’d need to have the bow catapults clear is if they’re planning to do simultaneous launch and recovery. In a sudden emergency you tend to only be doing launching, with not a lot of recovery, at least not right away.
他们也有腰部弹射器，因此可以使用同一空间发射和收回飞机，这张照片上的空间是清空的。唯一需要清空艏部弹射器的情况是计划同时发射和回收飞机。在突发紧急情况下，他们往往只需要发射，不需要太多的回收，至少不会马上回收。
GuyFromBangBros
What are the two types of plane on the carriers deck? J11’s and J20’s?
航母甲板上有哪两种类型的飞机？J11和J20吗？
Syrdon
15s, 35s, and a drone I don’t know
是15型，35型和一架我不知道的无人机。
Muckyduck007
"Hey man can I copy your homework?"
"Yeah just dont make it obvious."
“嘿，伙计，我能抄你的作业吗？”
“可以，但别让别人知道。”
musashisamurai
Pretty sure if the Chinese copied anyone, it was the British via the Australians via HMAS Melbourne. And honestly, they probably thought that good deal, Melbourne is the only ship to sink two NATO ships ever.
我相信如果中国抄袭了任何人，那一定是通过澳大利亚海军的墨尔本号航空母舰从英国抄袭。而且，他们可能认为这是一个好交易，因为墨尔本号是唯一沉没过两艘北约舰船的船只。
gangrainette
They are both ships carrying planes.
That's about their only common point.
它们都是装载飞机的船只。
这大概是它们唯一的共同点了。
trackerbuddy
Interesting to see the difference in “stealth” as it’s applied to the island. The Fujin’s island is sleek and clean. The Ford’s island concedes the fact that it can be observed from 1000 miles away and fits as many radar domes and antennas as are needed
很有趣地看到“隐形”应用于岛屿时的不同之处。福建号的岛屿外形流线型且整洁。而福特号则承认它可以在1000英里外被观察到，并安装了尽可能多的雷达半球和天线。
killerbannana_1
Homie. Its an aircraft carrier. There is literally no way to hide these things from radar (yet). The island shape for China is likely to fit aegis style radar panels.
兄弟，这是一艘航空母舰。目前还没有任何方法可以将这些东西从雷达上隐藏起来。中国的岛屿形状可能是为了适应宙斯盾式雷达面板。
yuikkiuy
Wait they think they can build a stealth carrier?????
等等，他们认为他们可以建造一艘隐形航母吗？
AtmaJnana
It's a 3D render you goof
这是一张三维渲染图，你这个二臂。
yedekkral
Look at the differences in skid marks on those decks, one is almost like a busy commercial airport next to other
看看这些甲板上的刹车痕迹的差异，一个甲板上的情况几乎像是一个繁忙的商业机场，而另一个则不同。
PLArealtalk
CG comparison
Which is to say, CV-18 in the picture is a CGI per the title.
CV-18 is obviously still in fitting out and has not gone on its first sea trial yet.
这是一组比较CG（计算机生成）的图片。根据标题，图片中的CV-18是通过计算机生成的。
显然，CV-18仍在进行装备和建造工作，还没有进行首次的海上试航。
IcyDrops
One's a photo, another's a 3d render. What has me confused is why the PLAN would have F-35s on their CV.
这是一张真实照片和一张3D渲染图的比较。令我困惑的是，中国人民解放军为什么要在他们的航母上装备F-35战机。
EmeraldPls
Skid marks on carriers are the new rivets on stealth aircraft I guess
现在，像航母上的刹车痕迹一样，隐形飞机上的铆钉也成了关注的焦点了。
