超级军网F35C与福特级，美国海军的错误
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/28 13:15:08
原文来自于Breaking Defense网站，链接：http://breakingdefense.com/2015/ ... &_hsmi=22986313
该文由Jerry Hendrix撰写，其主要观点为福特级相比尼米兹级强调的更高的出动架次和搭载的F-35C战斗机不适用于美国海军在新时代面对的来自于中国的A2/D2威胁，全文如下，仅进行简要翻译
原文来自于Breaking Defense网站，链接：http://breakingdefense.com/2015/ ... &_hsmi=22986313
该文由Jerry Hendrix撰写，其主要观点为福特级相比尼米兹级强调的更高的出动架次和搭载的F-35C战斗机不适用于美国海军在新时代面对的来自于中国的A2/D2威胁，全文如下，仅进行简要翻译
WASHINGTON: The high-cost, high-controversy centerpieces forthe future Navy fleet — the Ford-class aircraft carrier and the F-35C fighter —not only take it in the wrong direction, says a report out today. They doubledown on a strategic mistake made 20 years ago, when the Navy shortchangedrange, argues Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain now with the Center for aNew American Security in a new study.
Only investing in new, unmanned aircraft with longer range —ideally launched off smaller, cheaper carriers — can restore the carrier’srelevance in the face of Russian and Chinese ship-killing missiles, Hendrixargues. Like a recent study from the Hudson Institute, Hendrix sharplycriticizes the modern carrier air wing for being too short-ranged and arguesthe Navy’s UCLASS drone (Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance & Strike)should be optimized for long-range raids.
作者认为只有发展远距离无人机，并且最好是从稍小的，并且更便宜的航空母舰起飞的远距离无人机才是恢复对中国和俄罗斯远距离反舰导弹的优势的正确途径
In fact, both studies were at least partially inspired by apublic debate Hendrix had with one of the Hudson co-authors, Bryan McGrath,back in January. Unlike the Hudsonites, however, who stoutly defend bigcarriers in general and the Ford class in particular, Hendrix takes issue withthe ships as well as the airplanes flying off them.
该研究源于本文作者和另一位作家的争论，另一位作家，Bryan McGrath则强烈为大型航母的选择辩护
“Istill think that the Ford is too damn expensive. I still think we can doaircraft carriers more cheaply,” Hendrix told me. And he’s hardly alone: Theretired Navy pilot who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain,repeatedly has hammered the Ford program for being over budget and behindschedule. Hendrix notes that McCain himself flew off the USS Forrestal,considered America’s first modern “supercarrier” but still 20 percent smallerthan the subsequent Nimitz class or the Ford (80,000 tons at full load versus100,000).
“我依然认为福特级太贵了，我依然认为我们需要更便宜的航母”，他的观点得到了参议员麦凯恩的赞同，麦凯恩同作为海军飞行员，曾驾驶飞机从福莱斯特级航母上起飞，其排水量八万吨，远小于福特级的十万吨级
Yet despite being smaller, the Forrestal launched larger,longer-ranged aircraft than carriers do today. McCain, for example, flew theA-4 Skyhawk, whose range exceeds both the current standard strike fighter, theF/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and the forthcoming F-35C. (Skyhawk combat radius:550-625 nautical miles. Super Hornet: 500 nm. F-35C: officially 615 but Hendrixestimates, based on how the F-35A variant is falling short of its range spec,that the C will end up closer to 550). Other retired carrier aircraft had evenlonger ranges, the greatest being the A3D Skywarrior introduced in 1956, thelargest plane ever to fly from a carrier and boasting an 1,800-nm combatradius.
然而，福莱斯特级尽管更小，携带的舰载机杭城却大于福特级。例如A4拥有550海里的作战半径，相比较而言，超级大黄酚只有500海里，F-35C虽然官方数字号称615海里，但考虑到其屡次战术指标不达标，C型作战半径恐怕只有550海里左右
So what does a 100,000-ton carrier get you? Potentially,more planes, but budget constraints mean Nimitzes carry a third less than theirmaximum capacity, said Hendrix. “You used to carry 90 airplanes and you’recarrying 62 — and the planes are smaller,” he told me. “If you’re willing toaccept a 62-aircraft air wing…you don’t need 100,000 tons.”
那么，十万吨级的现代化航母能给你什么呢？答案是更多的飞机，然而受限于预算，没搜尼米兹级航母只能携带三分之二的舰载机，即62架而不是原定的90架，那么如果你既然只需要62架飞机，为什么还要生产十万吨航母呢？
If you are choosing between 100,000-ton carriers, what does a new Ford, at up to $13 billion, get you over a Nimitz, which averaged $4.5billion? The Ford has all sorts of upgrades that reduce maintenance, reducecrew size, and — by the Navy’s estimates — reduce operating costs over theship’s life. Operationally, however, its main emphasis has been on newcatapults, arresting gear, deck layout, and radar to maximize the sortie rate,the speed at which aircraft can be recovered, refueled, rearmed, and sent outagain. All told, these improvements are supposed to allow the Ford a sustainedsortie rate of 160 per day, compared to 120 for a Nimitz. That’s a striking 33percent increase. In terms of the number of aircraft that they can put ontarget over a 24-hour period, three Fords equal four Nimitzes.
那么另一个问题，十万吨级130亿美元的福特级相比45亿美元的尼米兹级有什么优势呢？福特级对尼米兹级进行了全面的升级，更简单的维护，更少的船员，更低的全寿命运营成本。其最新的科技集中于弹射器，阻拦锁，甲板布局以及雷达系统，他们可以提高出动率、捕捉率、加快加油加弹速度。这些措施能让航母每天出动架次从120增加到160次，所以从数学上讲，3艘福特级相当于4艘尼米兹
The problem, said Hendrix, is that the carrier’s ability togenerate sorties matters most at short ranges. If you’re sending lots of SuperHornets on short hops from the Mediterranean to Syria to attack the IslamicState, then, sure, how fast your carrier can turn them around when they getback is a major limiting factor in the number of strikes you can conduct. Butif you’re sending long-range aircraft on deep strikes into a modernanti-access/area denial zone, the limiting factor is how long it takes for themto cover all that distance. Your carrier’s ability to turn planes aroundquickly for another mission on their return doesn’t matter much in the mostdemanding kind of conflict. Ford‘s maximum of 160 sorties a day versus Nimitz’s120 doesn’t matter, Hendrix said, when “in an A2/AD environment you’re nevergoing to be generating that many sorties.”
然而，原文作者的疑问就在于此，他认为，如果航母需要在地中海执行对叙利亚的打击任务，那么这个一天出动架次当然很重要。然而，对于现代化A2/D2区域作战，你永远不需要那么高的出动架次，决定航母作战效率的舰载机的航程
That requires a major change in mindset for the Navy, whichhas focused on maximizing sorties over minimal distances since 1996.(Ultra-long-range missions from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan are theexception, not the rule). In ’96, the air wing still had specialized long-rangeplanes like the A-6 Intruder bomber, the S-3 Viking submarine-hunter, and theF-14 Tomcat fighter with its Bombcat bomber variant. But without the pressureof a Soviet threat, and without the budgets of the Cold War era either, theNavy retired these specialists and bought increasing numbers of themulti-purpose but short-ranged F-18 Hornet. The average range of the air wingshrank from over 800 nautical miles in 1996 to under 500 in 2006, a 38 percentdrop in a decade.
海军做出这种改变的原因来自于环境的变化，由于不再有苏联的威胁，以及没有冷战时期国防预算的支持，海军退役了一些专用飞机，例如A-6, S-3, 以及F-14，转而采购了更多多重任务战斗机。从1996年到2006年，海军飞机的作战半径缩小了百分之三十八，从800海里降到了500海里
Meanwhile, China started introducing 1,000 nautical milemissiles. So, for a future carrier strike drone, “you want a minimum of 1,500nautical miles” of range, Hendrix said. He’d cut back or even cancel the Navypurchase of the F-35C (with its 550-615 nautical mile range) to jump-start theUCLASS program and get drones on decks.
“现在，中国已经拥有了射程1000海里的导弹，那么为了应对这种威胁，美国海军就需要至少1500海里航程的飞机，所以要是我，我就取消整个F-35C的采购计划”，原作者说道，“这样，我们就可以有更多的资金用于无人机。”
If the Navy delayed F-35C by three years and cut back itstotal purchase, Hendrix calculates in the study, investing in Super Hornets anddrones instead, it could give each carrier “36 Super Hornets, 10 JSFs and 6 [drones]”within about 15 years.
If the Navy cancelled F-35C altogether, Hendrix writes, “itcould afford to purchase two squadrons of 12 Super Hornets [per carrier] (inaddition to the two Super Hornet squadrons already present) to replace the twosquadrons of 10 F-35Cs and purchase six squadrons of [drones] with 16 aircraftapiece (12 strikers and four tankers) and still be able to return money to thetaxpayers.”
“Ifwe really truly leveraged what we already know” — from the Predator and Reaper,the Global Hawk and Triton, and above all the carrier-launched X-47B — “I thinkthat’s achievable within the decade,” Hendrix said.
个人观点：现在中国海军作战飞机即在航程上没有优势（如果大黄酚携带副油箱的话），在出动效率上也没有优势，中国航母的发展还有很成的路要走，但现在多看看美国学界对航母的观点，还是有益的
该文由Jerry Hendrix撰写，其主要观点为福特级相比尼米兹级强调的更高的出动架次和搭载的F-35C战斗机不适用于美国海军在新时代面对的来自于中国的A2/D2威胁，全文如下，仅进行简要翻译
WASHINGTON: The high-cost, high-controversy centerpieces forthe future Navy fleet — the Ford-class aircraft carrier and the F-35C fighter —not only take it in the wrong direction, says a report out today. They doubledown on a strategic mistake made 20 years ago, when the Navy shortchangedrange, argues Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain now with the Center for aNew American Security in a new study.
Only investing in new, unmanned aircraft with longer range —ideally launched off smaller, cheaper carriers — can restore the carrier’srelevance in the face of Russian and Chinese ship-killing missiles, Hendrixargues. Like a recent study from the Hudson Institute, Hendrix sharplycriticizes the modern carrier air wing for being too short-ranged and arguesthe Navy’s UCLASS drone (Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance & Strike)should be optimized for long-range raids.
作者认为只有发展远距离无人机，并且最好是从稍小的，并且更便宜的航空母舰起飞的远距离无人机才是恢复对中国和俄罗斯远距离反舰导弹的优势的正确途径
In fact, both studies were at least partially inspired by apublic debate Hendrix had with one of the Hudson co-authors, Bryan McGrath,back in January. Unlike the Hudsonites, however, who stoutly defend bigcarriers in general and the Ford class in particular, Hendrix takes issue withthe ships as well as the airplanes flying off them.
该研究源于本文作者和另一位作家的争论，另一位作家，Bryan McGrath则强烈为大型航母的选择辩护
“Istill think that the Ford is too damn expensive. I still think we can doaircraft carriers more cheaply,” Hendrix told me. And he’s hardly alone: Theretired Navy pilot who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain,repeatedly has hammered the Ford program for being over budget and behindschedule. Hendrix notes that McCain himself flew off the USS Forrestal,considered America’s first modern “supercarrier” but still 20 percent smallerthan the subsequent Nimitz class or the Ford (80,000 tons at full load versus100,000).
“我依然认为福特级太贵了，我依然认为我们需要更便宜的航母”，他的观点得到了参议员麦凯恩的赞同，麦凯恩同作为海军飞行员，曾驾驶飞机从福莱斯特级航母上起飞，其排水量八万吨，远小于福特级的十万吨级
Yet despite being smaller, the Forrestal launched larger,longer-ranged aircraft than carriers do today. McCain, for example, flew theA-4 Skyhawk, whose range exceeds both the current standard strike fighter, theF/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and the forthcoming F-35C. (Skyhawk combat radius:550-625 nautical miles. Super Hornet: 500 nm. F-35C: officially 615 but Hendrixestimates, based on how the F-35A variant is falling short of its range spec,that the C will end up closer to 550). Other retired carrier aircraft had evenlonger ranges, the greatest being the A3D Skywarrior introduced in 1956, thelargest plane ever to fly from a carrier and boasting an 1,800-nm combatradius.
然而，福莱斯特级尽管更小，携带的舰载机杭城却大于福特级。例如A4拥有550海里的作战半径，相比较而言，超级大黄酚只有500海里，F-35C虽然官方数字号称615海里，但考虑到其屡次战术指标不达标，C型作战半径恐怕只有550海里左右
So what does a 100,000-ton carrier get you? Potentially,more planes, but budget constraints mean Nimitzes carry a third less than theirmaximum capacity, said Hendrix. “You used to carry 90 airplanes and you’recarrying 62 — and the planes are smaller,” he told me. “If you’re willing toaccept a 62-aircraft air wing…you don’t need 100,000 tons.”
那么，十万吨级的现代化航母能给你什么呢？答案是更多的飞机，然而受限于预算，没搜尼米兹级航母只能携带三分之二的舰载机，即62架而不是原定的90架，那么如果你既然只需要62架飞机，为什么还要生产十万吨航母呢？
If you are choosing between 100,000-ton carriers, what does a new Ford, at up to $13 billion, get you over a Nimitz, which averaged $4.5billion? The Ford has all sorts of upgrades that reduce maintenance, reducecrew size, and — by the Navy’s estimates — reduce operating costs over theship’s life. Operationally, however, its main emphasis has been on newcatapults, arresting gear, deck layout, and radar to maximize the sortie rate,the speed at which aircraft can be recovered, refueled, rearmed, and sent outagain. All told, these improvements are supposed to allow the Ford a sustainedsortie rate of 160 per day, compared to 120 for a Nimitz. That’s a striking 33percent increase. In terms of the number of aircraft that they can put ontarget over a 24-hour period, three Fords equal four Nimitzes.
那么另一个问题，十万吨级130亿美元的福特级相比45亿美元的尼米兹级有什么优势呢？福特级对尼米兹级进行了全面的升级，更简单的维护，更少的船员，更低的全寿命运营成本。其最新的科技集中于弹射器，阻拦锁，甲板布局以及雷达系统，他们可以提高出动率、捕捉率、加快加油加弹速度。这些措施能让航母每天出动架次从120增加到160次，所以从数学上讲，3艘福特级相当于4艘尼米兹
The problem, said Hendrix, is that the carrier’s ability togenerate sorties matters most at short ranges. If you’re sending lots of SuperHornets on short hops from the Mediterranean to Syria to attack the IslamicState, then, sure, how fast your carrier can turn them around when they getback is a major limiting factor in the number of strikes you can conduct. Butif you’re sending long-range aircraft on deep strikes into a modernanti-access/area denial zone, the limiting factor is how long it takes for themto cover all that distance. Your carrier’s ability to turn planes aroundquickly for another mission on their return doesn’t matter much in the mostdemanding kind of conflict. Ford‘s maximum of 160 sorties a day versus Nimitz’s120 doesn’t matter, Hendrix said, when “in an A2/AD environment you’re nevergoing to be generating that many sorties.”
然而，原文作者的疑问就在于此，他认为，如果航母需要在地中海执行对叙利亚的打击任务，那么这个一天出动架次当然很重要。然而，对于现代化A2/D2区域作战，你永远不需要那么高的出动架次，决定航母作战效率的舰载机的航程
That requires a major change in mindset for the Navy, whichhas focused on maximizing sorties over minimal distances since 1996.(Ultra-long-range missions from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan are theexception, not the rule). In ’96, the air wing still had specialized long-rangeplanes like the A-6 Intruder bomber, the S-3 Viking submarine-hunter, and theF-14 Tomcat fighter with its Bombcat bomber variant. But without the pressureof a Soviet threat, and without the budgets of the Cold War era either, theNavy retired these specialists and bought increasing numbers of themulti-purpose but short-ranged F-18 Hornet. The average range of the air wingshrank from over 800 nautical miles in 1996 to under 500 in 2006, a 38 percentdrop in a decade.
海军做出这种改变的原因来自于环境的变化，由于不再有苏联的威胁，以及没有冷战时期国防预算的支持，海军退役了一些专用飞机，例如A-6, S-3, 以及F-14，转而采购了更多多重任务战斗机。从1996年到2006年，海军飞机的作战半径缩小了百分之三十八，从800海里降到了500海里
Meanwhile, China started introducing 1,000 nautical milemissiles. So, for a future carrier strike drone, “you want a minimum of 1,500nautical miles” of range, Hendrix said. He’d cut back or even cancel the Navypurchase of the F-35C (with its 550-615 nautical mile range) to jump-start theUCLASS program and get drones on decks.
“现在，中国已经拥有了射程1000海里的导弹，那么为了应对这种威胁，美国海军就需要至少1500海里航程的飞机，所以要是我，我就取消整个F-35C的采购计划”，原作者说道，“这样，我们就可以有更多的资金用于无人机。”
If the Navy delayed F-35C by three years and cut back itstotal purchase, Hendrix calculates in the study, investing in Super Hornets anddrones instead, it could give each carrier “36 Super Hornets, 10 JSFs and 6 [drones]”within about 15 years.
If the Navy cancelled F-35C altogether, Hendrix writes, “itcould afford to purchase two squadrons of 12 Super Hornets [per carrier] (inaddition to the two Super Hornet squadrons already present) to replace the twosquadrons of 10 F-35Cs and purchase six squadrons of [drones] with 16 aircraftapiece (12 strikers and four tankers) and still be able to return money to thetaxpayers.”
“Ifwe really truly leveraged what we already know” — from the Predator and Reaper,the Global Hawk and Triton, and above all the carrier-launched X-47B — “I thinkthat’s achievable within the decade,” Hendrix said.
个人观点：现在中国海军作战飞机即在航程上没有优势（如果大黄酚携带副油箱的话），在出动效率上也没有优势，中国航母的发展还有很成的路要走，但现在多看看美国学界对航母的观点，还是有益的
原文来自于Breaking Defense网站，链接：http://breakingdefense.com/2015/ ... &_hsmi=22986313
Screen-Shot-2015-10-19-at-10.28.16-AM.png (59.96 KB, 下载次数: 15)
下载附件 保存到相册
该文由Jerry Hendrix撰写，其主要观点为福特级相比尼米兹级强调的更高的出动架次和搭载的F-35C战斗机不适用于美国海军在新时代面对的来自于中国的A2/D2威胁，全文如下，仅进行简要翻译
WASHINGTON: The high-cost, high-controversy centerpieces forthe future Navy fleet — the Ford-class aircraft carrier and the F-35C fighter —not only take it in the wrong direction, says a report out today. They doubledown on a strategic mistake made 20 years ago, when the Navy shortchangedrange, argues Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain now with the Center for aNew American Security in a new study.
Only investing in new, unmanned aircraft with longer range —ideally launched off smaller, cheaper carriers — can restore the carrier’srelevance in the face of Russian and Chinese ship-killing missiles, Hendrixargues. Like a recent study from the Hudson Institute, Hendrix sharplycriticizes the modern carrier air wing for being too short-ranged and arguesthe Navy’s UCLASS drone (Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance & Strike)should be optimized for long-range raids.
作者认为只有发展远距离无人机，并且最好是从稍小的，并且更便宜的航空母舰起飞的远距离无人机才是恢复对中国和俄罗斯远距离反舰导弹的优势的正确途径
In fact, both studies were at least partially inspired by apublic debate Hendrix had with one of the Hudson co-authors, Bryan McGrath,back in January. Unlike the Hudsonites, however, who stoutly defend bigcarriers in general and the Ford class in particular, Hendrix takes issue withthe ships as well as the airplanes flying off them.
该研究源于本文作者和另一位作家的争论，另一位作家，Bryan McGrath则强烈为大型航母的选择辩护
“Istill think that the Ford is too damn expensive. I still think we can doaircraft carriers more cheaply,” Hendrix told me. And he’s hardly alone: Theretired Navy pilot who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain,repeatedly has hammered the Ford program for being over budget and behindschedule. Hendrix notes that McCain himself flew off the USS Forrestal,considered America’s first modern “supercarrier” but still 20 percent smallerthan the subsequent Nimitz class or the Ford (80,000 tons at full load versus100,000).
“我依然认为福特级太贵了，我依然认为我们需要更便宜的航母”，他的观点得到了参议员麦凯恩的赞同，麦凯恩同作为海军飞行员，曾驾驶飞机从福莱斯特级航母上起飞，其排水量八万吨，远小于福特级的十万吨级
Yet despite being smaller, the Forrestal launched larger,longer-ranged aircraft than carriers do today. McCain, for example, flew theA-4 Skyhawk, whose range exceeds both the current standard strike fighter, theF/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and the forthcoming F-35C. (Skyhawk combat radius:550-625 nautical miles. Super Hornet: 500 nm. F-35C: officially 615 but Hendrixestimates, based on how the F-35A variant is falling short of its range spec,that the C will end up closer to 550). Other retired carrier aircraft had evenlonger ranges, the greatest being the A3D Skywarrior introduced in 1956, thelargest plane ever to fly from a carrier and boasting an 1,800-nm combatradius.
然而，福莱斯特级尽管更小，携带的舰载机杭城却大于福特级。例如A4拥有550海里的作战半径，相比较而言，超级大黄酚只有500海里，F-35C虽然官方数字号称615海里，但考虑到其屡次战术指标不达标，C型作战半径恐怕只有550海里左右
So what does a 100,000-ton carrier get you? Potentially,more planes, but budget constraints mean Nimitzes carry a third less than theirmaximum capacity, said Hendrix. “You used to carry 90 airplanes and you’recarrying 62 — and the planes are smaller,” he told me. “If you’re willing toaccept a 62-aircraft air wing…you don’t need 100,000 tons.”
那么，十万吨级的现代化航母能给你什么呢？答案是更多的飞机，然而受限于预算，没搜尼米兹级航母只能携带三分之二的舰载机，即62架而不是原定的90架，那么如果你既然只需要62架飞机，为什么还要生产十万吨航母呢？
If you are choosing between 100,000-ton carriers, what does a new Ford, at up to $13 billion, get you over a Nimitz, which averaged $4.5billion? The Ford has all sorts of upgrades that reduce maintenance, reducecrew size, and — by the Navy’s estimates — reduce operating costs over theship’s life. Operationally, however, its main emphasis has been on newcatapults, arresting gear, deck layout, and radar to maximize the sortie rate,the speed at which aircraft can be recovered, refueled, rearmed, and sent outagain. All told, these improvements are supposed to allow the Ford a sustainedsortie rate of 160 per day, compared to 120 for a Nimitz. That’s a striking 33percent increase. In terms of the number of aircraft that they can put ontarget over a 24-hour period, three Fords equal four Nimitzes.
那么另一个问题，十万吨级130亿美元的福特级相比45亿美元的尼米兹级有什么优势呢？福特级对尼米兹级进行了全面的升级，更简单的维护，更少的船员，更低的全寿命运营成本。其最新的科技集中于弹射器，阻拦锁，甲板布局以及雷达系统，他们可以提高出动率、捕捉率、加快加油加弹速度。这些措施能让航母每天出动架次从120增加到160次，所以从数学上讲，3艘福特级相当于4艘尼米兹
The problem, said Hendrix, is that the carrier’s ability togenerate sorties matters most at short ranges. If you’re sending lots of SuperHornets on short hops from the Mediterranean to Syria to attack the IslamicState, then, sure, how fast your carrier can turn them around when they getback is a major limiting factor in the number of strikes you can conduct. Butif you’re sending long-range aircraft on deep strikes into a modernanti-access/area denial zone, the limiting factor is how long it takes for themto cover all that distance. Your carrier’s ability to turn planes aroundquickly for another mission on their return doesn’t matter much in the mostdemanding kind of conflict. Ford‘s maximum of 160 sorties a day versus Nimitz’s120 doesn’t matter, Hendrix said, when “in an A2/AD environment you’re nevergoing to be generating that many sorties.”
然而，原文作者的疑问就在于此，他认为，如果航母需要在地中海执行对叙利亚的打击任务，那么这个一天出动架次当然很重要。然而，对于现代化A2/D2区域作战，你永远不需要那么高的出动架次，决定航母作战效率的舰载机的航程
That requires a major change in mindset for the Navy, whichhas focused on maximizing sorties over minimal distances since 1996.(Ultra-long-range missions from the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan are theexception, not the rule). In ’96, the air wing still had specialized long-rangeplanes like the A-6 Intruder bomber, the S-3 Viking submarine-hunter, and theF-14 Tomcat fighter with its Bombcat bomber variant. But without the pressureof a Soviet threat, and without the budgets of the Cold War era either, theNavy retired these specialists and bought increasing numbers of themulti-purpose but short-ranged F-18 Hornet. The average range of the air wingshrank from over 800 nautical miles in 1996 to under 500 in 2006, a 38 percentdrop in a decade.
海军做出这种改变的原因来自于环境的变化，由于不再有苏联的威胁，以及没有冷战时期国防预算的支持，海军退役了一些专用飞机，例如A-6, S-3, 以及F-14，转而采购了更多多重任务战斗机。从1996年到2006年，海军飞机的作战半径缩小了百分之三十八，从800海里降到了500海里
Meanwhile, China started introducing 1,000 nautical milemissiles. So, for a future carrier strike drone, “you want a minimum of 1,500nautical miles” of range, Hendrix said. He’d cut back or even cancel the Navypurchase of the F-35C (with its 550-615 nautical mile range) to jump-start theUCLASS program and get drones on decks.
“现在，中国已经拥有了射程1000海里的导弹，那么为了应对这种威胁，美国海军就需要至少1500海里航程的飞机，所以要是我，我就取消整个F-35C的采购计划”，原作者说道，“这样，我们就可以有更多的资金用于无人机。”
If the Navy delayed F-35C by three years and cut back itstotal purchase, Hendrix calculates in the study, investing in Super Hornets anddrones instead, it could give each carrier “36 Super Hornets, 10 JSFs and 6 [drones]”within about 15 years.
If the Navy cancelled F-35C altogether, Hendrix writes, “itcould afford to purchase two squadrons of 12 Super Hornets [per carrier] (inaddition to the two Super Hornet squadrons already present) to replace the twosquadrons of 10 F-35Cs and purchase six squadrons of [drones] with 16 aircraftapiece (12 strikers and four tankers) and still be able to return money to thetaxpayers.”
“Ifwe really truly leveraged what we already know” — from the Predator and Reaper,the Global Hawk and Triton, and above all the carrier-launched X-47B — “I thinkthat’s achievable within the decade,” Hendrix said.
个人观点：现在中国海军作战飞机即在航程上没有优势（如果大黄酚携带副油箱的话），在出动效率上也没有优势，中国航母的发展还有很成的路要走，但现在多看看美国学界对航母的观点，还是有益的
一条福特换三条弹射版cvf。
靠几条航母就能威胁土鳖的日子已经一去不复返了
无论是什么时代，距离永远是航母最好的防御手段，这就对舰载机的航程提出较高要求。
起飞重量近40吨的重型机多用途舰载机+飞翼无人机+舰载巡航导弹甚至舰载反舰弹道导弹，将能够提供2000km左右的打击半径，远超当今美帝的水平，这就能在对战中形成单方向攻防战，这样的航母编队是非常难以应对的狠角色。
无论是什么时代，距离永远是航母最好的防御手段，这就对舰载机的航程提出较高要求。
起飞重量近40吨的重型机多用途舰载机+飞翼无人机+舰载巡航导弹甚至舰载反舰弹道导弹，将能够提供2000km左右的打击半径，远超当今美帝的水平，这就能在对战中形成单方向攻防战，这样的航母编队是非常难以应对的狠角色。
wwwbak 发表于 2015-10-20 19:48
靠几条航母就能威胁土鳖的日子已经一去不复返了
其实还是一种威胁，只不过威胁得到了有效的抑制，不如以前那么致命而且难易对抗。
靠几条航母就能威胁土鳖的日子已经一去不复返了
其实还是一种威胁，只不过威胁得到了有效的抑制，不如以前那么致命而且难易对抗。
那么大航程感觉野马要复活了
当超高速、长航程的战斗机、轰炸机出现后，或长航程、滞空时间长的无人攻击机、轰炸机出现后，航空母舰的作战优势必将进一步下降。
对美国这种爱管闲事的国家。。航母还是需要的。。除了中国，还有俄罗斯那边有好多入海口需要封锁。。。另外亚非拉各地也不太平，随时需要过去显摆一下~~~
足够的航程可以保护航母，让航母在大洋充分机动，增加隐蔽性和攻击的突然性，让大洋稀释敌人的侦查力量。再加上固定翼预警机配合，甚至可以利用预警机的载机发展加油机。
足够的航程可以保护航母，让航母在大洋充分机动，增加隐蔽性和攻击的突然性，让大洋稀释敌人的侦查力量。再加上固定翼预警机配合，甚至可以利用预警机的载机发展加油机。
必须让这个清醒的议员滚蛋，让米帝造30条福特级，载2700架肥电
这蠢材议员又瞎扯，A-4M带一个2000磅级别的MK-28，2个300gal副油箱，走hi-hi-hi剖面才660海里，跟F-35C比？也就A-6能比比了，A-6是4枚MK-83不用外挂副油箱，hi-lo-hi 654海里，hi-lo-lo-hi ，50海里低空突防计，600海里左右，不也就跟F-35C差不多？接着鸵鸟，接着幻想吧
不过超级虫子作战半径短倒是真的，但那也是相比F-14和A-6，前者是可变后掠翼，后者优化航程载荷的布局，F/A-18E/F 2枚SLAM-ER，3个480gal副油箱，2中2近，hi--hi-hi作战半径 945海里，也不少了
其实，真正腿短一点的是F-4，B型好一点，但是J/S两型不太理想，但也不妨碍人家仍铁炸弹啊
liangdabendan 发表于 2015-10-20 22:29
足够的航程可以保护航母，让航母在大洋充分机动，增加隐蔽性和攻击的突然性，让大洋稀释敌人的侦查力量。再 ...
卫星组网的年代，大洋越来越难以稀释侦察力量；
美帝曾经有个组网方案，全球重访周期缩短到8分钟，侦察指令权力下放到旅团级；
至少技术上，美帝、欧洲和中国现在都可以实现；
就是海量数据处理技术还需要开发一下——对大型特定目标持续跟踪可以简化部分问题。
足够的航程可以保护航母，让航母在大洋充分机动，增加隐蔽性和攻击的突然性，让大洋稀释敌人的侦查力量。再 ...
卫星组网的年代，大洋越来越难以稀释侦察力量；
美帝曾经有个组网方案，全球重访周期缩短到8分钟，侦察指令权力下放到旅团级；
至少技术上，美帝、欧洲和中国现在都可以实现；
就是海量数据处理技术还需要开发一下——对大型特定目标持续跟踪可以简化部分问题。
美帝认为“不够远”的舰载机，兔子家没几架家养机做得到。
尤缺战略轰炸机力量。
应该换个思路，兔子近期应该发展的作战半径3000KM的远程轰炸机，主要收拾航母而非敌国城市。
美帝认为“不够远”的舰载机，兔子家没几架家养机做得到。
尤缺战略轰炸机力量。
应该换个思路，兔子近期应该发展的作战半径3000KM的远程轰炸机，主要收拾航母而非敌国城市。
个人觉得发展歼20舰载型号是可行的，利用超远航程打击敌方，而自家航母在一个相对安全的地方。
肥电空战还不如f16（没有隐身涂层的情况）
美帝的航母是管闲事的，所以还是应该保持高出动率
美帝的航母是管闲事的，所以还是应该保持高出动率
永远不要听美国人说什么，要看他怎么做
胡取禾 发表于 2015-10-20 23:21
必须让这个清醒的议员滚蛋，让米帝造30条福特级，载2700架肥电
非也，应该造10条DDG1000,100条LCS
必须让这个清醒的议员滚蛋，让米帝造30条福特级，载2700架肥电
非也，应该造10条DDG1000,100条LCS
CVN福特 发表于 2015-10-20 20:10
无论是什么时代，距离永远是航母最好的防御手段，这就对舰载机的航程提出较高要求。
起飞重量近40吨的重型 ...
2000KM的战斗半径知道要飞多少时间吗？来回起码4小时，飞行员能行？所以航母对中国的威胁已经一去不复返了。
无论是什么时代，距离永远是航母最好的防御手段，这就对舰载机的航程提出较高要求。
起飞重量近40吨的重型 ...
2000KM的战斗半径知道要飞多少时间吗？来回起码4小时，飞行员能行？所以航母对中国的威胁已经一去不复返了。
C是国会逼着买的，海军是一幅爱要不要的态度。
又回到了冷兵器时代那个规则了——
即一寸长，一寸强；一寸短，一寸险
哈哈，有意思。。。
即一寸长，一寸强；一寸短，一寸险
哈哈，有意思。。。
航母已经没法玩了。
兰德报告也有类似看法: 航母只合适欺负小国，对于大国应发展长程或太空武器。
每当别国的航母发展上正规的时候，MD那边总会冒出一堆的对大型CVN的批判声音
8万吨叫远小于10万吨？
因为现在只放62架飞机，就只买能带62架飞机的稍小航母？SB逻辑啊！真开战时，大型航母随时可以把舰载机从62架提升到90架，那么稍小的航母咋办？
只限于目前的狭隘眼光永远建不成大海军
实际上越大的航母，性价比越高，节约航母吨位的做法毫无意义
当一个国家掌握10万吨航母的建造技术时，再去造8万吨的，除了浪费金钱，其他一无所得。
事实早就证明，吨位与造价根本不是显著的线型正比关系，不然4万吨的戴高乐也不会那么贵了，戴高乐以尼米兹40%的吨位，却基本耗费了后者80%的建造成本
对于这些MD外行或者有意散步的航母谣言，有关国家一定要坚定意志，只要美国海军还坚持10万吨的航母路线，别国就一定不能被蛊惑搞神马小一点的CV
在CV、CVN的征途上，永远是 大就是美，小就是搓。造小而搓的航母去给未来战场上大而美的航母送菜，那才是极大的财政浪费！
8万吨叫远小于10万吨？
因为现在只放62架飞机，就只买能带62架飞机的稍小航母？SB逻辑啊！真开战时，大型航母随时可以把舰载机从62架提升到90架，那么稍小的航母咋办？
只限于目前的狭隘眼光永远建不成大海军
实际上越大的航母，性价比越高，节约航母吨位的做法毫无意义
当一个国家掌握10万吨航母的建造技术时，再去造8万吨的，除了浪费金钱，其他一无所得。
事实早就证明，吨位与造价根本不是显著的线型正比关系，不然4万吨的戴高乐也不会那么贵了，戴高乐以尼米兹40%的吨位，却基本耗费了后者80%的建造成本
对于这些MD外行或者有意散步的航母谣言，有关国家一定要坚定意志，只要美国海军还坚持10万吨的航母路线，别国就一定不能被蛊惑搞神马小一点的CV
在CV、CVN的征途上，永远是 大就是美，小就是搓。造小而搓的航母去给未来战场上大而美的航母送菜，那才是极大的财政浪费！
然而，这个错误真让人流口水。。。
chendawei1 发表于 2015-10-21 23:47
2000KM的战斗半径知道要飞多少时间吗？来回起码4小时，飞行员能行？所以航母对中国的威胁已经一去不复返 ...
载人战机实际飞行半径1600km左右（差不多是苏27水平），剩下的400km靠反舰导弹、对地导弹等武器射程，我说的是打击半径2000km而不是作战半径。
chendawei1 发表于 2015-10-21 23:47
2000KM的战斗半径知道要飞多少时间吗？来回起码4小时，飞行员能行？所以航母对中国的威胁已经一去不复返 ...
载人战机实际飞行半径1600km左右（差不多是苏27水平），剩下的400km靠反舰导弹、对地导弹等武器射程，我说的是打击半径2000km而不是作战半径。
水面海战武器的射程 永远是最重要的指标~
因为海战的环境太简单了，没有地方可以躲藏~
只能硬碰硬~
但是我也不认为 航母舰载机的航程 对 反舰dddd能有什么威胁~
这完全是非对称的打击~
深入敌后猎杀dddd的 作战不仅危机四伏，而且超出了 航母支援飞机的支援范围，
没有预警机 电子战飞机的支持，f35甚至都没有战场感知能力（不敢开雷达，难道靠红外感知能力在广阔的敌后搜寻目标？）~
而且极端情况下 反舰dddd的射程可以扩展到战术飞机望尘莫及的 范围~
不过美帝也不用太担心，我兔即使涉及到主权的问题，也绝不轻易诉诸武力，力求避免擦枪走火， 人畜无害得要死~
因为海战的环境太简单了，没有地方可以躲藏~
只能硬碰硬~
但是我也不认为 航母舰载机的航程 对 反舰dddd能有什么威胁~
这完全是非对称的打击~
深入敌后猎杀dddd的 作战不仅危机四伏，而且超出了 航母支援飞机的支援范围，
没有预警机 电子战飞机的支持，f35甚至都没有战场感知能力（不敢开雷达，难道靠红外感知能力在广阔的敌后搜寻目标？）~
而且极端情况下 反舰dddd的射程可以扩展到战术飞机望尘莫及的 范围~
不过美帝也不用太担心，我兔即使涉及到主权的问题，也绝不轻易诉诸武力，力求避免擦枪走火， 人畜无害得要死~
CVN福特 发表于 2015-10-20 20:10
无论是什么时代，距离永远是航母最好的防御手段，这就对舰载机的航程提出较高要求。
起飞重量近40吨的重型 ...
因此未来大洋决战时，可以看见敌我双方的狠角色航母编队对殴反舰弹道导弹的情景。双方反舰弹道导弹在大洋上空划出一条交叉的轨迹。。。。。。。
CVN福特 发表于 2015-10-20 20:10
无论是什么时代，距离永远是航母最好的防御手段，这就对舰载机的航程提出较高要求。
起飞重量近40吨的重型 ...
因此未来大洋决战时，可以看见敌我双方的狠角色航母编队对殴反舰弹道导弹的情景。双方反舰弹道导弹在大洋上空划出一条交叉的轨迹。。。。。。。
每当别国的航母发展上正规的时候，MD那边总会冒出一堆的对大型CVN的批判声音
8万吨叫远小于10万吨？
因为 ...
即使敌我双方都有反舰弹道导弹，有航母的一方因为有信息优势而获胜！
8万吨叫远小于10万吨？
因为 ...
即使敌我双方都有反舰弹道导弹，有航母的一方因为有信息优势而获胜！
载人战机实际飞行半径1600km左右（差不多是苏27水平），剩下的400km靠反舰导弹、对地导弹等武器射程， ...
按一般飞机巡航速度800多算，就这1600来回也得近4小时呢～也累半死
按一般飞机巡航速度800多算，就这1600来回也得近4小时呢～也累半死
按一般飞机巡航速度800多算，就这1600来回也得近4小时呢～也累半死
超巡机能顶住啊，亚音速出发超音速返航，3个小时都够了
超巡机能顶住啊，亚音速出发超音速返航，3个小时都够了
按一般飞机巡航速度800多算，就这1600来回也得近4小时呢～也累半死
制空战斗机上的飞行员不能吃饭，不能喝水，尿尿只有一个尿壶，不能睡觉。所以我坚持认为即使现代航空技术的战斗机即使作战半径无限也还是无法取代航母的。
能够取代航母制海核心的唯一在于高超音速飞行器。
制空战斗机上的飞行员不能吃饭，不能喝水，尿尿只有一个尿壶，不能睡觉。所以我坚持认为即使现代航空技术的战斗机即使作战半径无限也还是无法取代航母的。
能够取代航母制海核心的唯一在于高超音速飞行器。
拿现在不知贬值多少的美金跟当年比？写这文章的人没事吧
无论是什么时代，距离永远是航母最好的防御手段，这就对舰载机的航程提出较高要求。
起飞重量近40吨的重型 ...
会死的很快，2000km，载机怎么和母舰通联？
要谈航母，必须理解飞机怎么获取地方目标的方式和原理，否则就是漏洞百出。
起飞重量近40吨的重型 ...
会死的很快，2000km，载机怎么和母舰通联？
要谈航母，必须理解飞机怎么获取地方目标的方式和原理，否则就是漏洞百出。
每当别国的航母发展上正规的时候，MD那边总会冒出一堆的对大型CVN的批判声音
8万吨叫远小于10万吨？
因为 ...
技术进步太快啦，航母如此昂贵的东西，最合适的发展路线是肯定不是大航母，大航母真不适合中国。中国航母出路在于数量。怎么发展,自己推演。
8万吨叫远小于10万吨？
因为 ...
技术进步太快啦，航母如此昂贵的东西，最合适的发展路线是肯定不是大航母，大航母真不适合中国。中国航母出路在于数量。怎么发展,自己推演。
复活隐身猫吧
站在美帝的角度上看，这砖家就是烧饼。纯属本末倒置，福特比尼米兹效率高全寿命成本低，就是省钱，起飞效率高就是高能，因为没钱买不起飞机与航母好坏有什么关系。
继猪妈、LCS、F35C之后，福特级也被骂了，这下USN近年来的新项目终于全部被骂完了，哈哈
月儿上且小 发表于 2015-10-22 18:01
会死的很快，2000km，载机怎么和母舰通联？
要谈航母，必须理解飞机怎么获取地方目标的方式和原理，否则 ...
体系完整的时候有通讯卫星，体系不完整的时候可以有无人机或预警机中继。
会死的很快，2000km，载机怎么和母舰通联？
要谈航母，必须理解飞机怎么获取地方目标的方式和原理，否则 ...
体系完整的时候有通讯卫星，体系不完整的时候可以有无人机或预警机中继。