为什么中国在研制反舰导弹的同时还在建造航母，如果航母会被导弹击穿，为什么还要建造更多航母

Why does China keep building aircraft carriers when anti-ship missiles are being developed? If carriers can be defeated by missiles, why build more?

为什么中国在研制反舰导弹的同时还在建造航母？如果航母会被导弹击穿，为什么还要建造更多航母？

以下是Quora网友的评论：

Hypocritic Westerner

Well, firstly, there are anti-anti-ship missiles installed on every ship in the carriers fleet. Secondly, you should ask the US to explain why they have built so many carriers. They have the most carriers.

首先，航母舰队的每艘船上都装备了反舰导弹。其次，你应该让美国来解释一下为什么建造了这么多艘航母。毕竟美国的航母数量是全球最多的。

James Scott

Kind of tells the story about how confident they are in their anti-carrier missiles. One doesn’t build something that they believe are ineffective.

可以说他们对自己的反航母导弹非常自信。谁也不会建造自己认为没用的东西。

Vilmos Shepard

Aircraft carriers, and frankly most weapons besides nuclear ones, are built to fight against poorly equipped forces in small regional conflicts. In a war between the US and China the carriers, on both sides, would be taken out fairly quickly, and the war would escalate quickly.

航空母舰，或者坦率地说，除了核武器之外，绝大多数武器都是为了在小规模的地区冲突中对抗装备落后的部队而造。如果美国和中国之间爆发战争，双方的航母都会被快速解决，战争局势迅速升级。

Garrett

You can’t use anti-ship missiles to protect your geopolitical interests and project power.

In an age where nukes are pretty bad, and no one wants to use them (even if belligerent fascists within governments threaten to nuke people every minute) warships are the super-weapon that defines who is a world power and who is a regional power.

你不能用反舰导弹来保护自己的地缘政治利益，凸显自己的军事实力。

在一个核武器相当致命的时代，没有人想要动用核武器（即使政府内部好战的法西斯分子时刻威胁要用核武器攻击平民），军舰才是决定谁是世界大国、谁是地区大国的超级武器。

Just take a look at Russia. Everybody is currently going off about how Russia can build millions of artillery shells a year.

But Russia doesn’t have a competent navy and it’s stuck fighting a quagmire with a satellite nation and losing 1 billion dollars a day in its war treasury. One might say their budget is lacking in key matters of economics and military matters, as well as any sense of object permanence.

China, meanwhile, is actually competent, and actually trades with other powers. We live in a world where the Australian Navy is defending its trade routes against the potential threat of a Chinese navy, not Chinese missiles …trade routes mind you, that mostly orient around China.

看看俄罗斯，现在每个人都在说俄罗斯每年能制造数百万枚炮弹。

但是俄罗斯没有强大的海军，它陷入了战争泥潭，每天损失10亿美元。有人可能会说，俄罗斯对经济和军事的预算不足，对战争持久性的认知也不足。

但中国是有实力的，而且也跟其他大国进行贸易。澳大利亚海军在捍卫自己的贸易路线，抵御中国海军的潜在威胁，而非中国导弹的威胁....请注意，贸易路线主要都是围绕中国的。

because China has weapons that it claims can kill aircraft carriers doesn’t mean the American, or indeed, any carrier group around the world is therefore obsolete. They’re still needed. The problems that a carrier group can solve still exst.

中国拥有声称可以击沉航母的武器，并不意味着美国，或者全世界所有航母战斗群就都过时了。我们仍然需要航母。航母战斗群可以解决的问题依然存在。

David J Wong

Why is China building aircraft carriers when [hypersonic] anti-ship missiles are being developed?

Aha! Yes, a logical flaw. It must mean that China’s much hyped “carrier-killer” missiles such as the DF-21 and DF-27 don’t work!

This is of course possible. Except when one considers China’s defense strategy, I don’t think that’s the correct conclusion. China’s military strategy is first and foremost about focusing on denying access within the first island chain and kee hostile forces from approaching the second island chain.

That’s where the DF-21s and the DF-27s come in.

为什么中国在研制高超音速反舰导弹的同时还继续建造航母？

啊哈！是啊，逻辑就有问题。这肯定意味着中国大肆宣传的号称“航母杀手”的导弹，如东风-21和东风-27其实根本就没用！

这当然有可能啊。中国的军事战略首先是突破第一岛链，防止敌对势力接近第二岛链。

这就是东风-21和东风-27的用武之地。

In contrast, aircraft carriers are about projecting power. For China, that means the ability to defend its interests overseas — most likely against countries who do not have aircraft carriers or hypersonic missiles. I’d argue that China’s intent with its aircraft carriers is actually not so dissimilar to the way the United States uses its aircraft carriers today: as a policy tool and instrument to project power. As former President Bill Clinton said during a visit to the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt:

相比之下，航空母舰是用来展示军事实力的。对中国来说，航空母舰意味着捍卫中国海外利益的能力—最有可能是针对那些没有航空母舰或高超音速导弹的国家。我认为，中国使用航母的意图与美国使用航母的方式并没有太大的不同：都是把航母作为一种政策工具和展示实力的工具。正如美国前总统比尔·克林顿在参观西奥多·罗斯福号航空母舰时所说：

"When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident the first question that comes to everyone's lips is; where is the nearest carrier?"

So this is really two separate things. China’s hypersonic missiles are about anti-access / area denial within the first island chain. Its aircraft carriers are a policy tool to project power and protect China’s growing overseas interests.

“当危机的消息传到华盛顿时，每个人的第一个问题绝对会是：最近的航母在哪里？”

所以这实际上是两个独立的东西。中国的高超音速导弹是针对第一岛链内的反介入/区域拒止。中国的航空母舰则是展示实力和保护中国日益增长的海外利益的政策工具。

Jerry M

A carrier fleet is good at projecting power, especially sustained air-ground strike against enemy’s troops and facilities, from faraway out of the territory boarder, better out of the defense range of the target. But it may not be the best weapon to defeat another carrier fleet. One carrier fleet vs. another, my spear vs your spear, my shield vs your shield, both have the same advantages and disadvantages. The war will become a contest of tactics and experiences. Neither can win without loss. But carriers can pose a threat against another carrier, like a king vs a king on a Chinese chessboard, they don’t have to meet each other, but one moves forward, the other has to retreat, to avoid contact.

航母舰队擅长的是彰显军事实力，特别是从遥远的领土边界之外对敌方部队和军事设施进行持续的空对地打击，最好是身处进攻目标的防御范围之外。但航母可能并不是击败对方航母舰队的最佳武器。一支航母舰队vs另一支航母舰队，矛对矛，盾对盾，双方有着完全相同的优点和缺点，对战变成了一场战术和经验的较量。双方都不可能全身而退。但一艘航空母舰可以对另一艘航空母舰构成威胁，就像中国象棋里的王见王一样，他们不会见面，但一方前进，另一方必须后退，避免直接接触。

Anti-ship missiles and hyper-sonic missiles are designed to penetrate the defense of a carrier fleet and make the kill. This can be cheaper and more effective than a carrier-vs-carrier close combat. It is like using a rook to assassinate the general in Chinese chess. But missle is not a perfect weapon, they rely on satellites to detect the target. How to rebuild the satellite network as cheap and fast as possible is the key for anti-ship missiles.

反舰导弹和超音速导弹的设计目的就是穿透航母舰队的防御并击沉航母。这比航母对航母的近距离搏斗更便宜、更有效。这就像中国象棋里用车来刺杀将军一样。但是导弹也并非完美的武器，它们依靠卫星来探测目标。如何以尽可能低的成本和尽可能快的速度重建卫星网络才是反舰导弹的关键。

Why China needs both, because our enemies have both carrier fleets in the ocean and scattered millitary bases on the 2 island chains. We need the missles to keep the carriers out, and we need our carriers to wipe out their facilities and bases on their land. If our mainland gets hit, China may even use missiles and carriers to attack the base camp of the enemies, to make sure the warmongers who set the fire can feel the pain. As people say, attack is the best form of defense. It will be a world war for sure, but for China, it’ll be a 10 times better option than another centure of humiliation.

为什么这两种武器中国都需要呢，因为我们的敌人在海上不但有航母舰队，还在两个岛链上设立了分散的军事基地。我们需要导弹来阻止对方航母的逼近，我们也需要自己的航母来摧毁对方的设施和基地。如果我们的大陆被击中，中国甚至可能使用导弹和航母攻击敌人的大本营，让战争贩子们切身体验到被反噬的痛苦。俗话说，进攻就是最好的防守。这肯定会引发一场世界大战，但对中国来说，这是比上世纪的百年耻辱好上10倍的选择。

There is no such thing as perfect weapon, especially in a modern world war bwteen great powers. And there will be no winner. But the one who can win the support from their people can hold the line longer, who can manufacture cheaper and fight smarter stands to the end.

世界上没有完美的武器，尤其是在现代世界大战中。战争没有赢家。但谁能赢得人民的支持，谁就能坚持得更久。谁能制造更便宜的武器，能更聪明地战斗，就能坚持到最后。

Tham Wai Keong

You are asking a silly question.

You are asking -

Why do we keep an army with swords, spears and arrows when our enemies also do ?

Why build more battleships with 14 to 18-inch cannons, cruisers and destroyers, when other countries have the same ?

Why build and keep in silos ready-to-fire ICBMs when the other side keeps the same ?

你问的是什么愚蠢的问题呀。

你这是在问—

为什么敌人用剑、矛和箭来武装军队，我们也要用剑、矛和箭来武装军队？

为什么其他国家有配备了14到18英寸大炮的战列舰、巡洋舰和驱逐舰，我们还要建造更多军舰？

为什么对手在发射井中建造洲际弹道导弹并做好发射准备，我们也要建？

Deterrence

Defence

Protection

Self-preservation

Deterrence is the main reason why there has been no nuclear war the last 60 years.

威慑

国防

保护

自卫

威慑力就是过去60年没有爆发核战争的主要原因。

Anyway, in case you didn’t know, China’s warships have very capable defences against antiship missiles, including the world’s fastest firing 12,000 rpm, 11-barrelled Gatling gun.

An even faster 20-barrelled model is under development.

无论如何，中国军舰对反舰导弹有很强的防御能力，包括世界上最快的12000转/分的11管加特林炮。

还有一种速度更快的20管加特林炮正在研制中。

Alvin Lee

With aircraft carriers, China can have the option to defend and block the aggression attacks on China at the SCS in times of war, before it was too late to defend when the enemies are at the door step.

The same question ask, why the US have the most carriers and anti-ship missiles ? Don’t they.

Why the US can have, but not China ? intriguing !

有了航空母舰，中国就可以在战争时期拥有防御和阻挡对手对南海的侵略攻击的选择权力，当敌人出现在家门口时再来防守，为时太晚了。

同样的问题，为什么美国拥有最多的航母和反舰导弹？难道不是吗。

为什么美国可以拥有，中国就不行呢？太搞笑了！

PC Yu

I am no expert in military but I have faith in China’s decision. China does not do things for no reason.

There are words around that …

1, China needs to go further west, say, American continent. More & more countries ask China’s military cooperation, to balance western power around the globe. You know USA & UK regularly instigate color revolutions in other countries. Sometimes militarily.

2, China may be making nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

No doubt a carrier can be hit by missiles. Anything can be hit by missiles. It does not mean we must give it up. Maybe, just maybe, for now, carrier is the only solution for a war far from China territory.

我不是军事专家，但我对中国的决定很有信心，中国肯定不会无缘无故做什么决定。

有一些说法是这样的……

1.中国需要向西拓展，比如说美洲大陆。现在有越来越多的国家要求和中国开展军事合作，制衡全球各地的西方势力。你知道的，美国和英国就经常在其他国家煽动颜色革命。有时甚至使用军事手段。

2.中国可能正在制造核动力航母。

毫无疑问，航母肯定有可能被导弹击中。任何东西都有可能被导弹击中。但这并不意味着我们必须放弃航母。也许，只是也许，就目前而言，航母仍是针对爆发在远离中国领土的战争的唯一解决方案。

Swee Chen

The carriers that China is building have a totally different mission to the carriers that the US have built. And the US doesn’t have the same anti-ship missile capability as China.

And if you don’t understand, the PLA essentially has a defensive mandate while US foreign policy is based on two pillars the projection of military power, and the US dollar hegemony.

中国正在建造的航母与美国的航母有着完全不同的使命。而且美国并不具备中国那样的反舰导弹能力。

也许你并不明白，中国军队本质上一直接受的是防御指令，但美国的外交政策则是基于两大支柱：展示军事力量和美元霸权。