Though guiding such missiles onto a distant moving target is tricky, no navy will be keen on putting several billion dollars and thousands of sailors in peril. Carriers have become too big to fail. As a result, they will probably have to remain at least 1,000km away from shore, a distance that their warplanes cannot cross without refuelling. That could have grave implications for America’s ability to project power across the Pacific—and so for all its allies. Carriers will also have to be cocooned with destroyers and frigates, which will absorb most of the resources of smaller navies, like those of Britain and France.
雖然將這種導彈引導到一個遙遠的移動目標是棘手的，沒有海軍會熱衷于把數十億美元和數以千計的水手置于危險之中。航空母艦太大，禁不起失敗。因此，他們可能不得不在離岸至少1000公里的地方停留，這是他們的戰機不加燃料就無法跨越的距離。這可能會嚴重影響美國在整個太平洋地區投射力量的能力——對其所有盟友也是如此。航空母艦還將被驅逐艦和護衛艦包圍，這將吸收英國和法國等小型海軍的大部分資源。
Carriers are not entirely obsolete. Most wars will not be greatpower clashes. They will remain useful against foes which lack modern missile systems. Even in intense conflicts, warships will require air power to protect them from the predations of enemy ships and aircraft. As long as navies have surface ships, they will want to be able to fly planes above them.
航空母艦并不是完全過時。大多數戰爭不會是大國之間的沖突。他們將繼續對缺乏現代導彈系統的敵人有用。即使在激烈的沖突中，軍艦也需要空中力量來保護它們免受敵人船只和飛機的掠奪。只要海軍有水面艦艇，他們就想讓飛機飛到其上空。
But what sort of planes? Even as missiles force carriers farther offshore, the average combat range of their air wings has shrunk, from 2,240km in 1956 to around 1,000km today. (Modern munitions travel farther, but do not make up the difference.) The obvious remedy is to use drones that can fly longer, riskier missions than human pilots, allowing their host carriers to keep a safe distance away. But the Pentagon unwisely scrapped its programme for such a drone in 2016, replacing it with one that would merely refuel inhabited planes.
但是什么樣的飛機呢？即使導彈迫使航空母艦遠離海岸，它們的平均戰斗距離也從1956年的2240公里縮小到今天的1000公里左右。（現代的彈藥可以飛得更遠，但無法彌補差距。）顯而易見的解決辦法是使用比人類飛行員飛行時間更長、執行風險更大任務的無人機，讓它們的主航母保持安全距離。但美國政府在2016年不明智地取消了這種無人機的計劃，代之以一種只會給有人駕駛的飛機加油的無人機。
Aircraft-carriers, like the warplanes on them, belong to a class of large, vastly expensive weapons that military types call “exquisite”. A more homely approach to military technology is warranted. Smaller, cheaper and, where possible, unmanned systems could be procured in larger numbers, dispersed more widely and used more daringly. Such forces may lack the prestige of massive warships. But they are better adapted to a world in which the projection of military power is growing ever harder.
航空母艦，就像它們上面的戰機一樣，屬于一種被軍方稱為“精致”的巨大而昂貴的武器。有必要對軍事技術采取一種更平常的方式。更小、成本更低，而且在可能的情況下，無人駕駛系統可以被大量采購、更廣泛地分散和更大膽地使用。這些部隊可能缺乏大型戰艦的威望。但它們更能適應一個軍事力量投射越來越困難的世界。
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
評論
打印
