话题讨论：欧洲空军正在消失，欧洲国家该怎么办？
The European Air Forces are Vanishing ...
译文简介
欧洲空军正在消失，欧洲国家该怎么办？
正文翻译
European air forces are suffering from a lack of training, lack of ammunition and a general lack of assets as force multipliers.
I react to a video about the lessons learned in Ukraine to examine a few alternatives.
欧洲空军正遭受着种种痛苦：缺乏训练、缺乏弹药和普遍缺乏作为力量倍增器的资产。
我看了一段关于吸取乌克兰教训的视频后，考虑了几个替代方案。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 1 )
收藏
If just limited to military obxts, I'd have thought a modern nuclear submarine would be more complex than a fighter? Anyway, good video.
如果仅仅局限于军事目标，我认为现代核潜艇比战斗机更复杂。总之，视频不错。
Modern SSBN and SSN are the pinnacle of military tech, they are nuclear space stations almost, 5th gen aircraft are a close second.
现代战略核潜艇和攻击核潜艇是军事技术的巅峰，它们几乎是核动力的空间站，第五代飞机紧随其后。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Idea of national guard/militia AF is extremely logical and I would argue natural solution for most of European AF. One connected practice from Cold war era in Yugoslavia was for military to pay good part of fuel needed for civilian aviation, which enabled higher flight hours for future possible reserve pilots.
国民警卫队/民兵空军的想法非常符合逻辑，我认为这是大多数欧洲空军的自然解决方案。冷战时期南斯拉夫的一个做法与此相关，即军方支付民用航空所需的大部分燃料，这使未来可能的后备飞行员能够获得较长的飞行时间。
同样的道理也适用于轻型战斗机，这是欧洲核心战斗机编队的自然解决方案(理想情况下由更有能力和更小的重型战斗机和/或轰炸机编队提供支援)。可悲的是，在过去的几十年里，我们可以看到大多数欧洲国家空军做出了一些奇怪的决定，他们主要追求高端的、复杂的、非常小的战斗机编队，而忽略了拥有轻型战斗机编队作为核心的可能性。
The only real exception is France. Others now see themselves as asset supplier for a coalition whose skeleton is formed by the USA. On the flip side, you do what the USA do. Also, consider that having some high-value assets is also a bargaining chip for measuring relative importance.
唯一真正的例外是法国。其他国家则将自己视为一个供应商，为一个由美国作为骨干的联盟提供资产。另一方面，为美国马首是瞻。同时，认为拥有一些高价值资产也是衡量相对重要性的一个筹码。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Millennium 7 * HistoryTech Well, our Armée de l'Air et de l'Espace is armed with a more than capable fighter, but the export sales of the Rafale to India and other big and medium markets is a problem for Dassault, as they can't properly ramp up the production to both their local and international clients, hence some of them getting used Rafales instead of brand-new ones.
@Millennium 7 * HistoryTech 嗯，我们法国空军拥有性能更好的战斗机，但对达索公司而言，向印度和其他大中型市场出口阵风是一个问题，因为他们不能适当地提高对本国和国际客户的产量，因此其中的一些国家得到的是二手阵风，而不是全新的。
这本身不是问题，因为我相信那些客户可以以折扣的方式获得那些新玩具，但这样会从我们的飞行员和军队军火库里拿走一些资产，一些用过的，所以可用的喷气式飞机数量在短期内不会增加。
另一方面，我们一直缺乏无人机部门，无论是开发还是拥有，原因是某些政治选择，或缺乏选择，以及大型空运能力，我们不得不要求美国或我们的欧洲邻国，或着用一些安东诺夫飞机来满足私人市场。
and it will fail as the equalities obsessed fill their ranks with those who have life cycles incompatible with useful service. UK national health service is example, the more they train, the more shortages persist as some are only good for part time, if that.
而且这种做法将会失败，因为那些痴迷于平等的人把那些生命周期与有用服务不相容的人填进了他们的队伍。以英国国家医疗服务为例，他们接受的培训越多，短缺就越严重，因为有些人只适合做兼职。
I think the most interesting issue that you bring up is that of Reserve Forces. I have a close relative in the US Army National Guard and so have the most exposure to that system. There are a couple of general questions that each country must uniquely answer about Reserves:
我认为你提出的最有趣的问题是预备役部队。我有一个近亲在美国陆军国民警卫队工作，所以对这个系统的接触最多。关于预备役，每个国家都必须回答几个普遍的问题:
- What role will the Reserves play in these conflicts?
-预备役将参加什么类型的冲突?
-预备役在这些冲突中扮演什么角色?
根据这些问题的答案，政府可以开始构建其预备役。看看美国陆军国民警卫队，我经常会问他们为什么会这样存在。这些部队的目的是完全复制正规军队单位，只是非全职。在伊拉克和阿富汗，国民警卫队被派去轮换陆军和海军陆战队的正规军。这似乎是一个非常糟糕的使用与预备役的方式，并引起了许多与预备兵的摩擦。美国在任何主要大国的斗争中都需要很长时间来部署军队，因为它必须执行海外任务。这意味着第82空降师、第101空中突击师和第10山地师可能会相对较快地到达目的地。还有一些储存的装备，可以让一些较为重型的部队在这些部队之后不久前往韩国或欧洲。但陆军国民警卫队会是下一个被派去的部队吗? 可能不会。这意味着国民警卫队可能要几个月后才会出现在战区。如果我们这样看待我们现在的处境，那么这对美国可能卷入的冲突是否有效呢? 对此我不太确定。
我知道你的视频关注的是欧洲空军。你提到拥有一小批训练有素、装备精良的部队。他们会专注于防空和优势吗? 预备役会怎么做? 它的目标是弥补前线的损失，增加能力，还是成为构建新单位的骨架? 这些只是可能使用预备役的一些例子。
The Problem with complicated/expensive Multi-role setups is: they have to be available all the time, whatever the case may be. While two specialized platforms need to be available based on the situation. Making a "Supply shortage" of parts or ammunition for one or the other platform much less critical. Switzerland for example ignored the long-range missile threat for more than a Decade, and basically has only a short range air defense. However, they will use F-35's to patrol the sky. I do have my reservations with that decision. A defensive patrolling fleet does not need to be stealth. Quick, yes( for interceptions) Enduring (yes, for patrols, we like combat range very much) and being able to carry a lot of different weapons, in case of actual war. As a landlocked Country, surrounded by EU countries, switzerland would most likely be informed about intruding aerial obxts, long before they enter airspace. Unless the Attacker was an EU country ofc.
复杂/昂贵的多用途配置的问题在于：它们必须随时可用，无论情况如何。同时需要根据具体情况，有两个专门的平台处于可用状态。让一个或另一个平台的零部件或弹药的“供应短缺”变得不那么重要。例如，瑞士十多年来忽视了远程导弹的威胁，基本上只有短程防空。然而，他们将使用F-35巡逻天空。我确实对这个决定有所保留。防御性巡逻舰队不需要隐身。快速，很重要(对于拦截)，持久，很重要（对于巡逻，我们非常喜欢作战范围)，并且能够携带很多不同的武器，以防发生真正的战争。作为一个被欧盟国家包围的内陆国家，瑞士极有可能在入侵的航空目标进入领空之前就得到告知。除非攻击者是欧盟成员国本身。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
In my opinion, both NATO and the EU have peaked, and they are destined to demise. It may take a few decades, though, and hopefully, they will go with a whimper rather than a bang.
在我看来，北约和欧盟都已经达到了顶峰，它们注定要灭亡。不过，这可能要花上几十年的时间，而且希望他们悄悄完蛋而不是轰然崩塌。
As an italian, the defeat of Draghi has been nothing more than a common palace intrigue we are used to see. Moreover, Italy is not so much important in the West, but I see your point. However, I'm wondering: once the threat of russians will cease, why european countries should be interested in remaining in the NATO alliance? To die for the US in fighting China? I don't know, I feel NATO is not aging well. Even now, NATO is useful to Polonia and east Europe which fears Russia, but let's talk clear, Russia has not the sufficient economic power to pose a serious treat to western european Countries. Or we really think that we will see russian tanks in Rome and Paris?
作为一个意大利人，德拉吉的失败只不过是我们习以为常的普通宫廷阴谋。此外，意大利在西方不怎么重要，但我明白你的意思。然而，我想知道：一旦俄罗斯的威胁停止，为什么欧洲国家还会有兴趣留在北约? 在与中国的战斗中给美国卖命? 我不知道，我觉得北约未能安享晚年。即使是现在，对于害怕俄罗斯的波罗尼亚和东欧，北约也是有用的，但我们要讲清楚，俄罗斯没有足够的经济实力对西欧国家构成威胁，或者我们真的认为我们会在罗马和巴黎看到俄罗斯坦克?
@pst97 i am from argentina, i never understood how italy (and spain) entered in the plans of nato. What benefits did italy get?
@pst97 我来自阿根廷，我一直不明白意大利(和西班牙)是如何加入北约计划的。意大利得到了什么好处?
@Franco Scicolone well, we lost the WWII, the US freed us from nazis who, after the armistice of 8th september 1943, became the enemy. Moreover in Italy the communism was really strong and rooted in most of the peninsula and this was a threat for US. For these reasons americans decided to support economically Italy post-war reconstruction in exchange for our loyalty and subordination. So Italy have never decided to be part of NATO, it was simply imposed by the winners of WWII (nothing strange on this point, we lost our soveregnity to pay for the horrendous crimes of fascism).
@Franco Scicolone 好吧，我们输了二战，美国把我们从纳粹手中解放出来，在1943年9月8日的停战协定后，纳粹变成了我们的敌人。此外，共产主义在意大利曾经非常强大，扎根于半岛的大部分地区，这对美国是一个威胁。出于这些原因，美国人决定在经济上支持意大利战后重建，以换取我们的忠诚和服从。所以从来不是意大利决定成为北约的一部分，这种身份只是被二战的胜利者强加的(这一点也不奇怪，我们失去了主权，为法西斯主义的可怕罪行付出了代价)。
@pst97 losing sovereignity is never negotiable or acceptable. Italy has no intentioms of control in the mediterranean at least? Or get back a military industry separated from nato?
@pst97 失去主权是不可谈判的，也是不可接受的。至少意大利没有控制地中海的意图? 或者重新获得一个独立于北约的军事工业?
@Franco Scicolone we have a good industrial base overall, especially here in the North of Italy. But our economy is crumbling as well as our population is aging and diminishing terribly, so we have no possibilities to maintain an effective military force or control anything outside our territorial water. I can say we are a "post-history Country".
@Franco Scicolone 我们总体上有良好的工业基础，特别是在意大利北部。但我们的经济正在崩溃，我们的人口正在老龄化和急剧减少，所以我们不可能保持一支有效的军事力量，或控制我们领海以外的任何东西。我可以说我们是一个“后历史国家”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@pst97 mmm see, thats a shame. Its probably the only country in europe i feel fondness
@pst97 嗯，明白了，真可惜。它可能是我唯一喜欢的欧洲国家。
@Franco Scicolone thank you, many italians came to argentina to flee from povertry, so we are boundedin some ways. I don't know how is it going there, but I hope our Countries will overcome this difficult moment.
@Franco Scicolone 谢谢，很多意大利人是逃离贫困的阿根廷人，所以我们在某些方面是有羁绊的。我不知道进展如何，但我希望我们两国将克服这一困难时刻。
@pst97 we have the imf and eurofile elites so would you imagine that. Thanks, hope things get better for both continents
@pst97 我们有imf和eurofile的精英，你能想象吗? 谢谢，希望两大洲的情况都能好转。
When I was in the university studying aeronautics we were taught about the program of JSF. At that moment I had a strong feeling that JSF program will destroy combat aircraft industries of many countries in from of at least whole generation. Later I studied aboard in Germany and back then there were scandals about Bundeswehr e.g. inaccuracy of G36s and shortages of missiles for jet fighters. IMO the NATO plays a important role in weakening defenses of European countries. In order to keep its existence after the collapse of the Soviet unx, the NATO keeps making new strategic targets, but European countries are in fact relying on the US’ military existence to shred their own budget on defense. These were happening before the Ukraine conflict even in 2014. The new conflict just put there problems again under the spotlight.
当我在大学学航空学的时候，我们学过JSF项目。那一刻，我有一种强烈的感觉，JSF项目将摧毁许多国家的战斗飞机工业，至少是整整一代。后来我在德国留学，当时德国国防军发生丑闻，比如G36的不准确，以及喷气式战斗机短缺导弹。在我看来，北约在削弱欧洲国家防御方面起着重要作用。苏联解体后，北约为了维持自身的存在，不断制定新的战略目标，但事实上，欧洲国家依靠美国的军事存在来削减自己的国防预算。这些情况在2014年乌克兰冲突之前就已经发生了。新的冲突只是把这些问题再次置于聚光灯下。
Do you know if this issue will be fixed?
你知道这个问题是否会得到解决?
NATO gives certain, most, European countries cover for not spending enough on defence even though membership of NATO binds countries to certain spending levels. The problem is European political cowardice, not NATO.
北约给了某些、大部分欧洲国家借口，这样他们就可以不在国防方面进行足够开支，尽管北约成员国的身份将各国的开支限制在一定水平上。问题出在欧洲政治上的懦弱，而不是北约。
The little kids joining the gang with the big bully.
小孩子们加入了大恶霸的团伙。
I agree. Before this war, people complained about how America spent way too much on military expenditures and how we couldn’t afford amenities like other European countries. Now we look dumb for not spending more on our tech with how these countries are catching up in capacity.
我同意。在这场战争之前，人们抱怨美国在军事开支上花费太多，以及我们无法像其他欧洲国家那样搭顺风车。现在我们看起来很愚蠢，因为没有在我们的技术上花更多的钱，而这些国家正在能力方面追赶上来。
@Larry Sprott only catching up to our 5th generation bombers and fighters that where designed in the late 80s, we are devolving 6th generation fighters or already have it
@Larry Sprott 仅仅赶上了我们80年代末设计的第五代轰炸机和战斗机，我们正在推出第六代战斗机，或者已经有了。
You refer to NATO as a separate body but it isn't. It's an alliance of member countries, led by the USA.
It's true that the USA uses NATO as a foreign policy tool in Europe, specifically to isolate Russia.
However, it's also true that Europe allows the USA to do this, because European governments struggle to reach agreement about military policy decisions, which provides the USA with the opportunity to intervene and arbitrate.
你把北约说成了一个独立的组织，但它不是。这是一个由美国领导的成员国联盟。
的确，美国在欧洲把北约作为一个外交政策工具，特别用来孤立俄罗斯。
然而，事实上，欧洲也允许美国这么做，因为欧洲政府很难就军事政策决定达成一致，这为美国提供了干预和仲裁的机会。
@GonzoTehGreat
If only some European leader would come around and show us a different way of looking at things...
@GonzoTehGreat
要是某个欧洲领导人能改变看法，向我们展示看待事物的另一种方式就好了……
@Richard L Do you really mean that NATO is doing this? I'm more leaning towards it's the USA using NATO to achieve this and keep its influence over (western) Europe. And then the European politicians are very happy to oblige by cutting their domestic production and expenses.
@Richard L 你真的是说北约在做这件事吗? 我更倾向于美国利用北约来实现这一目标，并保持其对(西欧)欧洲的影响力。然后，欧洲政客们就会非常乐意地削减国内生产和开支。
@Diablo found the "US weapons are 50 years ahead of everyone else" guy...
@Diablo “美国科技领先所有其他国家50年”的家伙出现了……
@Gregg Strasser I don't think the problem can be solved by a single leader. People always seem to think an authoritarian approach will work better, but (as history as repeatedly proven) it rarely does, as there's no guarantee they'll be competent and once in power they tend to be reluctant to relinquish it, making them difficult to replace.
@Gregg Strasser 我不认为一个领导人就能解决这个问题。人们似乎总是认为威权主义的做法更好，但(正如历史一再证明的那样)很少是这样，因为没有人能保证他们能够胜任，而且一旦掌权，他们往往不愿放弃权力，这使得他们很难被换掉。
相反，理想情况下，欧洲政界人士应该就共同的军事和外交政策达成共识，然后任命对这个“战争委员会”负责的军事领导人。不幸的是，我不认为欧洲有能力达成这样的共识，这意味着它将继续处于分裂状态，并受美国的影响。
@GonzoTehGreat
Ya... we didn’t vote our way into this mess. We’re not going to vote our way out.
@GonzoTehGreat
是啊……我们当年没有用投票把我们推进这个烂摊子。将来也不会选这条路。
@GonzoTehGreat Prior German defence minister copy pasted 4/5ths of his doctorate and the prime minister actually tried to protect his job.
@GonzoTehGreat 德国前国防部长的博士学位的五分之四是复制粘贴来的，那个总理实际上试图保住他的饭碗。
@Gregg Strasser Actually Germany DID vote themselves into this mess.
Despite a democratically fair PR electoral system, Merkel was repeatedly elected and decided to INCREASE dependency on Russian Natural Gas, whilst reducing the use of Nuclear Power, both of which are now proving to be costly mistakes.
@Gregg Strasser 事实上，德国确实把自己选进了这个烂摊子。
尽管有一个民主公正的公关选举制度，默克尔多次当选，并决定增加对俄罗斯天然气的依赖，同时减少核能的使用，这两个做法现在被证明是代价高昂的错误。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
That happened in the Battle of Britain where the RAF had a lot of Auxiliary AF pilots who could fly Spitfires and Hurricanes but weren't trained to the same level as the "regulars". Initially they had a very hard time dealing with the Luftwaffe but improved pretty quickly and were able to play an important role in "The Battle". The fact that they could fly made them much more valuable than guys who'd never sat in a cockpit. Without them, things could have been a lot worse. One of them was the son of a top executive at a big petroleum company who before the war started made sure there was enough fuel to keep his son and his friends flying when there were budget shortages, that make a big difference when the time came. The RAAF was a voluntary service you could join when you reached 16, you were trained but not paid.
这种情况在英国战役中发生过，当时英国皇家空军有很多可以驾驶喷火式战斗机和飓风式战斗机的后备空军飞行员，但他们没有接受过与“正规军”同等水平的训练。起初，他们在与德国空军的对抗中遇到了困难，但很快就改善了，并在“战斗”中发挥了重要作用。他们会开飞机的事实让他们比那些从没坐过驾驶舱的人更有价值。没有他们，情况可能会更糟。其中一个是一家大型石油公司高管的儿子，他在战争开始前确保有足够的燃料让他的儿子和他的朋友们在预算短缺时飞行，这在时间到来时产生了很大的影响。皇家空军是一项志愿服务，年满16岁就可以加入，参加者可以接受训练，但没有工资。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@pagarb
Unfortunately the raf activated them and then often left them to it... as a result one squadron had 2 Pilots left with the others all kia after the initial period...
They then got most of the survivors of the battle of Britain and transfered them to the far east... but without an integrated air defence system they mostly died.. if they were lucky...
@pagarb 不幸的是，皇家空军激活了他们，然后经常让他们自生自灭……结果就是，一个中队飞行员只剩下2名，其他的都战死了。
然后他们把英国战役的大部分幸存者转移到远东地区……但是那里没有完整的防空系统，他们大部分都死了。如果他们幸运的话……
All excellent points in reaction to an already excellent interview by Chris.
这些观点都很棒，为了回应Chris本就很棒的采访。
然而，我必须承认，对于某些中小型国家的军队相当空洞的问题，只会让我们再次提出一个问题，他们自己或者北约其他国家对他们有什么期望。像捷克共和国这样的国家可能有一些战斗机，但依赖一个联盟来增幅和支持他们。从本质上说，他们终究是揩油的，而不是自愿的。但是，如果联盟中的许多国家都面临着同样的问题，那么我们就遇到了一个难题。
北约看起来确实是一个独立自卫军的联合组织，依靠相互支持来抵御更大的威胁。
All stuff to contemplate.
对于把钱花在无法高效使用的东西上是否有价值的问题，我可以明白你对贾斯丁观点的反对，但这又回到了大西洋联盟的本质上。到什么时候某些投资就不再有价值了，以及如果是这样，每个国家能为联盟贡献什么以及联盟对他们的贡献是什么。
这些都值得思考。
France is independent in terms of parts compared with Eurofighter, they were right, they haved a strategy.
与欧洲战斗机相比，法国在部件方面是独立的，他们是对的，他们有一个战略。
Finland is a country of 5.5 million people and it can afford an air force of 64 modern fighters. Don't tell me the UK, Germany, France, Poland, or Italy couldn't afford modern multirole air forces.
芬兰是一个拥有550万人口的国家，拥有一支有64架现代化战斗机的空军。不要告诉我英国、德国、法国、波兰或意大利负担不起现代多用途空军。
除此之外，我基本同意你的看法。拥有飞机，并且节省飞行员培训，要好过拥有训练有素的飞行员，但飞机太少。欧洲国家绝对应该购买更多欧洲飞机。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Greece is one of the few Air Forces in Europe that have extensive training and experience due to Turkey's violation with aircraft they chase each other almost everyday and occasional do dogfights too. I have seen it with my own eyes two planes above school chasing each other.
由于土耳其的飞机侵犯，希腊是欧洲为数不多的拥有丰富训练和经验的空军之一，他们几乎每天都在追逐对方，偶尔也会混战。我亲眼在学校上空见过两架飞机互相追逐。