※ 引述《ilyj2012 (麒麟才子)》之銘言：
: 美國首次承認F-35無法應對中國殲20和遠程反艦巡弋飛彈
: https://goo.gl/LY6GVU
: 美國國家利益網站
: 美國海軍戰略與預算評估中心（CSBA）做了一個《重塑美國海軍》的報告，
: 報告中提到F35的先天設計劣勢造成它在同殲20對抗中處於下風，並且也無力
: 應對大陸射程超過600km的空射型超音速反艦巡弋飛彈-鷹擊12。（因為F35的制空
: 能力不足以讓他先擊落給轟六K護航的大陸戰機，而轟六K是攜帶鷹擊12的母機）
: 國家利益網站在介紹這篇報告中提到：
: The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighte
r?
: maneuverability, and air-to-air sensor capability needed for counter-air ope
ra
: 美國的F/A-18E/F超級大黃蜂戰機和洛克希德馬丁公司的F35-C聯合攻擊機，都不是專門
: 的空中優勢（制空型）戰鬥機，他們不適合同中國先進的制空型戰機殲20，以及其他中
: 國五代戰機進行抗衡。美國海軍需要新的制空型戰機，與像F-35這樣的多任務攻擊機相
對
: 的是，這些新的制空戰機應該更聚焦於空中格鬥，而不是攻擊地面和水面目標，因此新
的
: 戰機需要速度，持久力，機動能力和（更強大的）空對空探測能力，來讓自己適合做
: 空對空的較量。
: 另外，報告也提到F35的作戰能力無法應對可以發射超遠射程超音速巡弋反艦飛彈的
: 大陸飛機。
: “With the ranges of air-launched ASCMs increasing to 1000 nm, ships may not
b
: depending on the target’s altitude.”
: 隨著空射型反艦巡弋飛彈的射程已經達到1000海里，美軍的神盾艦已經不能在敵人
: 轟炸機發射這些飛彈之前，靠自身的長距離面對空飛彈-例如標準6s（SM-6s）型
: 來擊落敵人的轟炸機。這就需要航母艦隊派出戰機去擊落敵人的轟炸機。但是因為
: 敵人的反艦飛彈的射程足夠長，敵人的轟炸機不用前出太多，只需要躲在自己岸基
: 戰鬥機的掩護下就可以發射足以摸到我方航母的反艦巡弋飛彈。這就需要我方艦載
: 機先同敵方的戰鬥機進行搏鬥，因此制空性能尤為重要。
台灣軍武迷中知名的前輩網友Flak對此篇文章發表了他的解讀，
跟ilyj2012的解讀頗有差異
https://zh-tw.facebook.com/military.flak/posts/595615973960474
先說結論，原文重點並不是說F-35在同樣條件（油料、數量...等）無法應對J-20，甚至
「不如」J-20，而是說美國海軍需要「速度、航程、機動性與空對空感測器」（ speed,
endurance, maneuverability, and air-to-air sensor capability 的「匿蹤有人戰機
」（low observable manned fighters），而這正是六代機的發展方向，也就是說，這篇
文章其實只是要推銷六代機的的研發計畫（which the Navy is already studying as pa
rt of its Next Generation Air Dominance or F/A-XX analysis of alternatives）。
至於這一段：「F35的先天設計劣勢造成它在同殲20對抗中處於下風，並且也無力應對大
陸射程超過600km的空射型超音速反艦巡弋飛彈-鷹擊12。」原文中並沒有說「F35的先天
設計劣勢造成它在同殲20對抗中處於下風」，它說的是「不適合」（not be suitable to
defeat ）。為什麼不適合？因為它設計以打擊為主，這不能稱為「先天設計劣勢」。而
有哪裡不適合呢？我們可以看原文認為合適者的條件：「速度、航程、機動性與空對空感
測器」＋「匿蹤有人戰機」
♦F-35缺乏「速度」，以及「超音速航程」。附圖是美國空軍的一張比較圖，說明F-22
利用超巡以及較大的飛彈量，可以控制100浬?120浬的空域，而F-35只有65浬?100浬。
♦F-35也缺乏「機動性」，最近的紅旗演習顯示，F-35雖然在超視距仍然有壓倒性優勢
，但近距離還是可以被擊落7架的，相較之下，以前F-22都是打掉一兩百架才掉一架的。
這個影響是說，F-35傾向「獨善其身」：如果F-35不用拼命，是可以超視距打完就走人的
，自己也不會損失；但如果為了保護航母、友機、部落，需要跟敵機拼到一槍一彈的場合
，F-35是可能會折損的。而F-22才是「兼善天下」：就算甩掉隱形斗蓬，用拳頭也可以打
死。
♦F-18E/F則缺乏「匿蹤」也沒有「速度」，就不用多解釋
所以綜合而言，F-35與F-18E/F都不符合理想中的空優戰機條件，而完全符合的F-22則不
能從航艦上起降，所以美國海軍需要F/A-XX六代機，如此而已。
至於「無力 應對大陸射程超過600km的空射型超音速反艦巡弋飛彈-鷹擊12」完全是鬼扯
。原文說的是 air-launched ASCMs increasing to 1000 nm」，也就是1000浬級的巡弋
飛彈，射程足足是600km的三倍。應該是把轟六K攜帶的長劍巡弋飛彈當成反艦飛彈了。長
劍巡弋飛彈有沒有反艦版？或者反艦版的射程是不是那麼長？這兩個問題暫且不論，原作
的意思是這射程讓「標六飛彈」無法攔截到發射載機 （ships may not be able to use
long-range surface-to-air interceptors such as SM-6s to engage enemy bombers）
，所以原文引述的CSBA報告說需要更長航程的戰機來攔截載機（U.S. fighters would ne
ed to loiter 300nm to 1000 nm away from their CVN depending on the type of ASC
M being carrier by enemy aircraft. ）。這航程當然超過F-35的能力，連F-22都達不
到，所以需要更長航程的五代空優機，結論仍然是F/A-XX六代機，如此而已。
附上The National Interest上面的原文：
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-needs-new-fighter-russia
-china-are-blame-19409
https://goo.gl/LY6GVU
A new naval future fleet architecture study from the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) suggests that the United States Navy will need to
develop a dedicated air superiority fighter to counter Russian and Chinese ad
vances.
“Counter-air operations will require low observable manned fighters with an u
nrefueled combat radius of more than 500 nm,”The CSBA report states. “These
characteristics will keep refueling aircraft out of range of enemy air defens
es while enabling the fighters to reach and engage bombers in a dynamic enviro
nment inside the enemy’s air defense envelope.”
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter
—which are not dedicated air superiority fighters—would not be suitable to d
efeat advanced adversary air defenses or enemy aircraft such as the Chengdu J-
20 or other Chinese fifth-generation warplanes. “In contrast to today’s mult
imission strike-fighters, such as the F-35C, the design of these aircraft woul
d need to focus mostly on the fighter mission rather than strike, so that they
would have the speed, endurance, maneuverability, and air-to-air sensor capab
ility needed for counter-air operations,” the report states.
The new fighter would not only have to engage other fighters,like the Cold Wa
r-era Grumman F-14 Tomcat, the new aircraft would have to intercept Russian an
d Chinese strategic bombers before they could launch their payload of anti-shi
p cruise missiles (ASCM) at a carrier strike group. But unlike the F-14, the n
ew interceptor would have to eliminate enemy bombers inside the range of hosti
le air defenses.
“With the ranges of air-launched ASCMs increasing to 1000 nm, ships may not b
e able to use long-range surface-to-air interceptors such as SM-6s to engage e
nemy bombers before they can launch their ASCMs,” the report states. “CVW ai
rcraft will need to conduct this counter-air mission. Long range ASCMs also en
able an adversary’s bombers to launch attacks on the incoming Maneuver Force
while the bombers are still protected by shore-based air defenses: defenses th
at can reach out to about 500 nm, depending on the target’s altitude.”
The CSBA report—which was commissioned by the U.S. Navy—calls for each carri
er air wing to be equipped with one squadron of the notional new stealth fight
ers. However, the CSBA concept calls for a pair of carriers and air wings to o
perate together an integrated maneuver force rather than as part of a single s
trike group.
“Within the Maneuver Force, aircraft could be shifted between the two CSGs, s
o one CSG supports ongoing operations, while the other rearms and makes repair
s or modifications on both carriers’ aircraft. And with multiple CVW aircraft
available, the Maneuver and Deterrence Force could provide aircraft to the jo
int force, such as fighters and UCAVs to support land-based bombers, and have
enough strike-fighters remaining for CAP, SUW, or CAS operations closer to the
CVN,” the report states. “To fully exploit approaches like these, the propo
sed fleet architecture combines the Maneuver Force’s two CVWs into one large
CVW. This model would require a larger air wing staff, but would be better sui
ted for large-scale multi-dimensional war at sea.”
In addition to a new stealth fighter—which the Navy is already studying as pa
rt of its Next Generation Air Dominance or F/A-XX analysis of alternatives—th
e study also calls for the development of a long-range unmanned strike aircraf
t.
The Navy is taking the report very seriously as it studies how to rebuild its
fleet after more than a decade of neglect. "The Navy is at an inflection point
where we are back in competition,” chief of naval operations Adm. John Richa
rdson told The National Interest in an emailed statement.
“Many of the ideas from these studies will help us win that competition. To
win, our thinking must sharp and these studies help us - they give us exactly
what we want...some fresh ideas. Each study provided ideas that in some cases
validated and advanced the Navy's current thinking. Some of the recommendatio
ns from the studies are so sound that we will act on them quickly. Other idea
s show promise and we'll study those hard. The studies will be rolled into ou
r program of analysis, war games, experiments, technology demonstrations, and
prototyping."
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow
him on Twitter:@davemajumdar.