※ 引述《ilyj2012 (麒麟才子)》之铭言：
: 美国首次承认F-35无法应对中国歼20和远程反舰巡弋飞弹
: https://goo.gl/LY6GVU
: 美国国家利益网站
: 美国海军战略与预算评估中心（CSBA）做了一个《重塑美国海军》的报告，
: 报告中提到F35的先天设计劣势造成它在同歼20对抗中处于下风，并且也无力
: 应对大陆射程超过600km的空射型超音速反舰巡弋飞弹-鹰击12。（因为F35的制空
: 能力不足以让他先击落给轰六K护航的大陆战机，而轰六K是携带鹰击12的母机）
: 国家利益网站在介绍这篇报告中提到：
: 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
: 美国的F/A-18E/F超级大黄蜂战机和洛克希德马丁公司的F35-C联合攻击机，都不是专门
: 的空中优势（制空型）战斗机，他们不适合同中国先进的制空型战机歼20，以及其他中
: 国五代战机进行抗衡。美国海军需要新的制空型战机，与像F-35这样的多任务攻击机相
对
: 的是，这些新的制空战机应该更聚焦于空中格斗，而不是攻击地面和水面目标，因此新
的
: 战机需要速度，持久力，机动能力和（更强大的）空对空探测能力，来让自己适合做
: 空对空的较量。
: 另外，报告也提到F35的作战能力无法应对可以发射超远射程超音速巡弋反舰飞弹的
: 大陆飞机。
: “With the ranges of air-launched ASCMs increasing to 1000 nm, ships may not
b
: depending on the target’s altitude.”
: 随着空射型反舰巡弋飞弹的射程已经达到1000海里，美军的神盾舰已经不能在敌人
: 轰炸机发射这些飞弹之前，靠自身的长距离面对空飞弹-例如标准6s（SM-6s）型
: 来击落敌人的轰炸机。这就需要航母舰队派出战机去击落敌人的轰炸机。但是因为
: 敌人的反舰飞弹的射程足够长，敌人的轰炸机不用前出太多，只需要躲在自己岸基
: 战斗机的掩护下就可以发射足以摸到我方航母的反舰巡弋飞弹。这就需要我方舰载
: 机先同敌方的战斗机进行搏斗，因此制空性能尤为重要。
台湾军武迷中知名的前辈网友Flak对此篇文章发表了他的解读，
跟ilyj2012的解读颇有差异
https://zh-tw.facebook.com/military.flak/posts/595615973960474
先说结论，原文重点并不是说F-35在同样条件（油料、数量...等）无法应对J-20，甚至
“不如”J-20，而是说美国海军需要“速度、航程、机动性与空对空传感器”（ speed,
endurance, maneuverability, and air-to-air sensor capability 的“匿踪有人战机
”（low observable manned fighters），而这正是六代机的发展方向，也就是说，这篇
文章其实只是要推销六代机的的研发计画（which the Navy is already studying as pa
rt of its Next Generation Air Dominance or F/A-XX analysis of alternatives）。
至于这一段：“F35的先天设计劣势造成它在同歼20对抗中处于下风，并且也无力应对大
陆射程超过600km的空射型超音速反舰巡弋飞弹-鹰击12。”原文中并没有说“F35的先天
设计劣势造成它在同歼20对抗中处于下风”，它说的是“不适合”（not be suitable to
defeat ）。为什么不适合？因为它设计以打击为主，这不能称为“先天设计劣势”。而
有哪里不适合呢？我们可以看原文认为合适者的条件：“速度、航程、机动性与空对空感
测器”＋“匿踪有人战机”
♦F-35缺乏“速度”，以及“超音速航程”。附图是美国空军的一张比较图，说明F-22
利用超巡以及较大的飞弹量，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“机动性”，最近的红旗演习显示，F-35虽然在超视距仍然有压倒性优势
，但近距离还是可以被击落7架的，相较之下，以前F-22都是打掉一两百架才掉一架的。
这个影响是说，F-35倾向“独善其身”：如果F-35不用拼命，是可以超视距打完就走人的
，自己也不会损失；但如果为了保护航母、友机、部落，需要跟敌机拼到一枪一弹的场合
，F-35是可能会折损的。而F-22才是“兼善天下”：就算甩掉隐形斗蓬，用拳头也可以打
死。
♦F-18E/F则缺乏“匿踪”也没有“速度”，就不用多解释
所以综合而言，F-35与F-18E/F都不符合理想中的空优战机条件，而完全符合的F-22则不
能从航舰上起降，所以美国海军需要F/A-XX六代机，如此而已。
至于“无力 应对大陆射程超过600km的空射型超音速反舰巡弋飞弹-鹰击12”完全是鬼扯
。原文说的是 air-launched ASCMs increasing to 1000 nm”，也就是1000浬级的巡弋
飞弹，射程足足是600km的三倍。应该是把轰六K携带的长剑巡弋飞弹当成反舰飞弹了。长
剑巡弋飞弹有没有反舰版？或者反舰版的射程是不是那么长？这两个问题暂且不论，原作
的意思是这射程让“标六飞弹”无法拦截到发射载机 （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报告说需要更长航程的战机来拦截载机（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. ）。这航程当然超过F-35的能力，连F-22都达不
到，所以需要更长航程的五代空优机，结论仍然是F/A-XX六代机，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.