澳大利亚军事专家撰文：韩国想要建造国产航母，但他们其实并不需要航母

KiraTheMaster
The article explains how horribly flawed is South Korea's defense strategy. It appears that South Koreans never consider North Korea as a threat at all.

这篇文章解释了韩国的国防战略存在多么可怕的缺陷。韩国人似乎从未将朝鲜视为威胁。

SuppiluliumaX
Apart from their probable nuclear threat, the North Korean army is not the same as in the 1950s. So, the North Koreans are not really a threat to South Korea now, China is a way bigger problem for them.

除了可能的核威胁，朝鲜军队已经和上世纪50年代不一样了。现在的朝鲜对韩国来说并不是真正的威胁，中国是一个更大的问题。

OldManOnCampus
I'd argue that the tens of thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul remain the same threat .

我不同意，瞄准首尔的数万门朝鲜大炮仍然是个大威胁。

PeKaYking
There isn't any technology that's capable of protecting cities against artillery, and I assume that the Korean strategists assume that in case of an actual war, their military with vastly superior technology would be capable of swiftly capturing NK's artillery positions.
artillery isn't nearly as good at "leveling cities" as many people assume. In WW2 cities were besieged and bombarded with artillery for months on end uninterrupted, and the cities still weren't wiped off the map. If you watch any videos from Syria where buildings get hit by artillery shells, they very rarely are leveled by it in some kind of house of cards manner, rather it just makes a meter or two wide hole in the outer wall. This idea that North Korea can just wipe Seoul off the map in a few days or weeks with its conventional artillery is just not true.

没有任何技术能够保护城市不受火炮的攻击，我猜韩国战略家们认为，一旦发生战争，他们先进的军队将能够迅速摧毁占领朝鲜的炮兵阵地。
火炮并不像许多人想象的那样能够“夷平城市”。在第二次世界大战中，城市被包围，被炮火连续轰炸几个月，但这些城市仍然没有从地图上消失。如果你看过任何叙利亚战争的视频，你会发现建筑物很少会被炮弹夷为平地，而只是在外墙上打出一个个直径一米或两米宽的洞。这种认为朝鲜可以在几天或几周内用其常规火炮将首尔从地图上抹去的想法是不正确的。

lordderplythethird
It actually lacks even an overall fundamental comprehension of ROK's battleplans against DPRK, should DPRK forces invade, and frankly I'm surprised to see something so ignorant and riddled with bias here.
ROK's core defense strategy in the event of an invasion is to conduct an amphibious operation BEHIND the invading DPRK forces. This is done to basically send the invasion into an immediate halt, as the invading forces would now be faced with a 2 front battle, and would be doing so with their resupply routes cut off. The bulk of ROK's population and wealth resides in the northern regions closest to DPRK, so crippling an invasion as fast as it begins is paramount.
HOWEVER, virtually all ROK fighter squadrons are in the southern end of the peninsula, due to the credible threat posed to them from DPRK short/medium/long range missiles (something this article outright REFUSES to address). Because of this, land-based air power is not immediately on call in the event of an invasion, and potentially won't even be available at all depending on how effective a ballistic missile first strike is. A combat loaded F-16, the main fighter of the ROK Air Force, has a max combat range of around just 300 miles. It's over 150 miles from Gunsan Airport, the main F-16 base in ROK, just to the border north of Seoul. It's over 200 miles from Gunsan to Pyongyang. That's just a straight shot and not going through certain corridors that are less defended, or god forbid engaging in any defensive action, which will cripple that range. DPRK has over 500 medium-long range air defense batteries. Yes, they're not state of the art, but an S-125 can bring down an F -16 just fine as we saw in Desert Storm and Yugoslavia. As such, the safest route from Gunsan to Pyongyang is likely around 700 miles one way (out to Sea of Japan, north to the east of Hamhung, bank it, and go south straight into Pyongyang) due to the current low risk to DPRK from that avenue. 700 miles is more than all of ROK's fighters besides the F-15K can do. Yes, tankers exist, but tankers are easy prey that close to a front... So to suggest that ROK aircraft have the range to strike anywhere they want in DPRK is woefully misleading, bordering on (IMO) a blatant lie.
A carrier, even a light carrier such as what ROK is considering here, is 1000% a serious asset in providing near instant airpower for either front. Not only that, but the carrier could be operating in the Sea of Japan, striking critical DPRK facilities on their eastern coast, and forcing DPRK to divert resources from the invasion to that fight.

事实上，这篇文章甚至缺乏对韩国（针对朝鲜的）作战计划的基本理解，坦率地说，我很惊讶在这里看到如此无知且充满偏见的文章。
面对朝鲜入侵，韩国的核心防御战略，是在入侵的朝鲜军队背后进行两栖作战。这样做是为了遏制朝鲜军队的入侵势头,让入侵部队陷入腹背受敌的境地，并将他们的补给路线切断。
韩国的人口和经济区大部分位于北部接近朝鲜的地区,所以斩断朝鲜的进攻势头是首要任务。
然而，实际上所有的韩国战斗机中队都在半岛的南端，因为他们面临着来自朝鲜短程/中短程/远程导弹的威胁(这篇文章拒绝讨论这个问题)。
正因为如此，在入侵发生时，韩国的陆基空中力量不能立即待命，甚至可能根本无法使用，这取决于朝鲜弹道导弹第一波次打击的有效性。由于韩国空军主力战斗机F16的最大作战航程只有300英里左右。韩国主要的空军基地群山机场，就在首尔北部靠近边境的位置。从群山机场到平壤有两百多英里的直线距离。如果要绕道穿越朝鲜防空力量较弱的空中走廊，航程就会进一步增大。
朝鲜拥有500多套中远程防空单位。是的，它们不是最先进的，但S-125可以击落F -16，就像我们在沙漠风暴和南斯拉夫战争中看到的那样。
因此，从群山机场到平壤最安全的单程路线可能达到700英里左右，(起飞进入日本海，向北飞到咸兴市以东，绕过咸兴市，然后向南直接进入平壤)，目前这条路线对韩国来说风险很低。
除了F-15K，所有韩国战机的航程都达不到700英里。是的，可以使用加油机，但靠近前线的加油机很容易成为猎物……说韩国战斗机有能力打击朝鲜的任何地方纯粹是误导，在我看来，这是赤裸裸的谎言。
一艘航母，即使是韩国这样的轻型航母，也绝对是一个极其重要的作战单位，可以为前线提供即时的空中支援力量。不仅如此，航母还可以在日本海作战，打击朝鲜东部沿海的关键设施，迫使朝鲜将资源从入侵转移到防御中去。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

ROK expects to realistically be on their own for 5-30 days, at which point US forces will be mobilized and joining the fight.
ROK likely could not defeat DPRK on their own. DPRK's military is simply too large, for ROK's forces to defeat them. For example, the K2 tank is arguably one of the best in the world, yet M48s make up almost half their MBT fleet. They're a mix of old and new, and there's A LOT more old than new. Does having 200 K2s mean all that much if the bulk of your fleet are M48s and your enemy is using T-62 clones with a massive 125mm main gun and ATGMs on them (something ROK doesn't do)? The answer's likely no, and that concept ends up being pretty common when comparing the two. The main difference is in air power, but ROK air power is EXTREMELY susceptible to DPRK ballistic missiles, given they only operate out of roughly 4-6 air bases. The general idea is to rapidly halt and hold, and wait for US forces to come in, where ROK and US combine to overwhelm and defeat DPRK.

韩国希望能在开战后的5-30天内独立作战，随后美国将动员军队并加入战斗。
韩国可能无法单凭一己之力击败朝鲜。朝鲜的军队太庞大，韩国的军队无法击败他们。例如，K2坦克可以说是世界上最好的坦克之一，然而老旧的M48坦克几乎占了他们坦克数量的一半。韩国军队是装备新旧武器的混合体，而且旧武器装备比新的多。如果你的坦克部队大部分是M48，而你的敌人装备的是T-62克隆版，拥有巨大的125毫米主炮和反坦克导弹(韩国没有)，那么即使韩国拥有200辆k2又能怎么样。朝韩的军事差距主要体现在空中力量方面，但韩国空中力量极易受到朝鲜弹道导弹的影响，因为他们只有大约4-6个空军基地。
所以韩国的总体战略思想是，遏制住朝鲜的攻势并坚守住，然后等待美军加入战场，韩国和美国联合起来打败朝鲜。

Cal_Ibre
Happy to see someone point this out. This is the real reason for the carriers and the most sensible approach to fighting the North. Northern infrastructure is atrocious and the center of North Korea is mountainous. The northern advance will be supplied mainly by two narrow highways in the Southwest of the country, and an amphibious landing could easily cut them.

很高兴看到有人指出这一点。这是韩国建造航母的真正原因，也是对抗北方的最明智的方法。朝鲜的基础设施非常差，而且朝鲜的中部是山区。向南进攻将主要依靠该国西南部两条狭窄的公路，两栖登陆可以很容易地切断他们。

clorox901
Korea should develop its own defense industry, to wean itself off from the USA and gain strategic autonomy.

韩国应该发展自己的国防工业，摆脱对美国的依赖，获得战略自主权。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

emprahsFury
I agree with the conclusion that SK does not need an aircraft carrier, but the supercilious tone of this article is hard to bear.

我同意韩国不需要航母的结论，但这篇文章傲慢的语气让人难以忍受。

Peatey
South Korea is a shrimp among 4 whales (USA, Russia, China, Japan) and North Korea. It must build credible defense against North Korea to deter, but it cannot possibly build credible defense against the whales.
Historically it has alternated between being a territory of China and Japan. So it needs a protector. Only USA can project power enough to protect Korea. So it must be useful to the USA.
What will be useful to USA? Like the UK, an expeditionary force combined with a carrier or two to be a member of a coalition of the willing. That is the road to survival for Korea. The carrier mission is not force projection on the coast of North Korea. It’s to join the US and Japan in the blockade of China in 2030.
It’s the same reason Korea joined the Vietnam War and UK joined US in Iraq.

韩国是四头鲸鱼(美国、俄罗斯、中国、日本)和朝鲜中间的一只小虾。它必须建立针对朝鲜的可靠防御来进行威慑，它无法建立针对鲸鱼的可靠防御。
历史上，它曾是中国和日本的领土。所以它需要一个保护者。只有美国能投射足够的力量来保护韩国。所以航母肯定对美国是有用的。
什么对美国有用?就像英国一样，一支以一两艘航母为核心组建起来的远征军，加入美国主导的军事联盟。这就是韩国的生存之路。韩国建造航母并不是要对朝鲜进行军力投射。而是在2030年加入美国和日本对中国的封锁。
这和朝鲜加入越南战争、英国加入伊拉克战争的原因一样。

Fonference_Cun
You are making some astoundingly nonsensical points here.
(1) What use would the Americans have for a Korean aircraft carrier? Americans build it bigger, and run it better. From the perspective of the wider US-Korea alliance, a Korean aircraft carrier is at best a nuisance to the US, and a dangerous distraction away from the threat posed by Pyongyang.
(2) Korea did not alternate between being a territory of China and Japan. This is the biggest mistake that pop Western "geopolitical analysts" make.
Japan's influence in Korea was always limited, as it was always an inward-looking country, save for the brief period of the Imjin War in the late 16th century, and during the late 19th century to 1945, during the period of Japanese imperialism. Japan has never attempted a foreign expansion outside of these relatively brief time periods.
China was more assertive towards Korea due to its land connection, but Chinese hegemony was never firmly established until the Mongol Yuan dynasty crushed Goryeo in the 13th century. Even then, Korea was not a "territory".

你的观点非常荒谬。
（1）美国人要一艘韩国航空母舰有什么用?美国人造的航母更大，运用地更好。从美韩同盟的宏观角度来看，韩国建造航空母舰对美国来说更多是一种负担，反而分散了人们的注意力，使人们忽视了朝鲜的威胁。
（2）韩国要么曾是中国的领土，要么曾是日本的领土。这是西方“地缘政治分析师”犯的最大错误。
日本在朝鲜的影响一直有限，因为朝鲜一直是一个封闭的国家，除了16世纪末短暂的壬辰战争，以及19世纪末到1945年的日据时期。在这些相对短暂的时期之外，日本从未将势力扩展到朝鲜半岛。
由于领土接壤，中国对朝鲜的影响力更强，但中国从未在半岛建立牢固的霸权，直到蒙元在13世纪摧毁了高丽。即使在那时，韩国也不是蒙元的“领土”。

Peatey
You’re stating conventional Korean narrative, convenient for a Korean. Read similar narrative from the perspective of Polish.
You’re free to use whatever semantic you want: territory, vassal, second-tier ally in sphere of influence The degree of Korea’s independence is negatively correlated with the degree of internal cohesiveness of its neighbors.
I told you what the use US has: another carrier and another member of “coalition of the willing”. Yes, Korea (like UK) will be either the unit thrown into the meat-grinder (Korea in Vietnam) or non-critical but still useful flank support (UK in Iraq). USA still finds it useful.
Stop thinking that USA still has super-priority interest on North Korea. USSR is no more. South Korea has to stay useful in a different way. As usual, it’ll mean more payment, both directly as well as indirect (contribution of military force).

你只是在重复韩国人的一贯说法，韩国人当然这样想。波兰也可以给出同样的说辞。
你可以随心所欲地玩弄文字游戏:领土、附属国、势力范围内的二级盟友。
但是从历史的角度看，韩国的独立程度一般与其邻国的稳定程度呈负相关。邻国越稳定，韩国的独立程度越低，反之亦然。
我告诉过你，韩国建造航母对加入美国军事联盟体系很有用。是的，韩国军队要么被扔进绞肉机(越南战争)，要么做一些不重要但仍然有用的辅助支援(英国在伊拉克)。韩国建造航母对美国来说是有用的。
不要认为美国有多关注朝鲜。苏联已经不复存在了。韩国必须以另一种方式保持有用。和往常一样，这将意味着更多的资金投入，以及直接的和间接的军事贡献。

Fonference_Cun
whatever semantic you want: territory, vassal, second-tier ally in sphere of influence, trading partner that persistently runs deficit.
These are not semantics. Those words have vastly different meanings, and have vastly different consequences in real life. For example, California is a "territory" of the United States; Jordan is a "second-tier ally in sphere of influence" to that same country. Do you just wave about and scoff at the different political statuses between California and Jordan too?
Maybe the Koreans and the Poles obxt to this sort of deliberate obfuscation of their historical relationships with their larger neighbors, precisely because it comes from a position of feigned ignorance and contempt, which you seem to display.
And imagine thinking that Pyongyang isn't a concern to the US. NK in itself may not be a huge threat, but it is a massive land bridge that connects China to a major US ally. People always seem to forget that PRC and NK are allied, and that they will act in concert against South Korea and Japan in emergencies.
And now, South Korea wants to spend billions, billions that could have gone to anti-NK or anti-China defense, on an expeditionary fleet that will frankly add little value compared to a US carrier group. And you think the Americans will be happy about that?

这些不是文字游戏。这些词有着截然不同的含义，在现实生活中也有着截然不同的政治意义。例如，加利福尼亚是美国的“领地”;约旦是美国“势力范围内的二级盟友”。
你能说加州和约旦的政治地位相同吗?
也许韩国人和波兰人反对这种故意混淆他们与邻国历史关系的做法，这种做法来自一种无知和傲慢的立场态度，而你似乎正在表现出这种态度。
想象一下，美国对朝鲜不感兴趣。朝鲜本身不是一个巨大的威胁，但它是一座巨大的大陆桥，连接着中国和美国的主要盟友。人们似乎总是忘记中国和朝鲜是盟友，他们会在紧急情况下联合起来对付韩国和日本。
现在，韩国想要花费数十亿美元，数十亿美元本来可以用于加强对朝鲜或对中国的防御，坦白地说，与美国航母战斗群相比，韩国航母舰队的价值微乎其微。你觉得美国人会高兴吗

mrchaotica
The Australian military expert was inspired by the fact that his home country, Australia, collects huge taxes while failing to build up its own defence industry.
Australia has a vast territory, is a large agricultural country and rich in resources. As a result, manufacturing accounts for a very small share of the Australian economy. Australia's efforts to revive its manufacturing sector have foundered after the end of production of the country's proud Holden car brand in 2017.
Australia's first indigenous submarine has fallen short of expectations despite a programme to build it on a budget twice as large as planned. The Australian navy's first Aegis destroyer, which is 70 percent larger than the South Korean Navy's Sejong King and has a budget two and a half times larger, has come under heavy criticism within Australia.
Australia's new generation of conventional submarines has yet to be assembled, but they are already over their original planned budget and could cost Won6tn each. The new generation submarine development programme, which began in 2014, will not complete the first vessel until 2034.
Another project is the Canberra class multi-purpose landing ship. The Spanish-designed, Australian-built Canberra-class multi-purpose landing ship costs more than three times as much as its Spanish counterpart,
Australia's original plan for the Canberra class landing ship to carry the F-35B turned out to require a massive makeover and ended up becoming a "half-carrier" of sorts. That is to say, Australia spent 2.5 trillion won and failed to build a real aircraft carrier.
Seeing that the country has wasted nearly 100 trillion won in taxes on its defense industry for decades without success, it is natural for Australian military experts to be negative about South Korea spending 2.5 trillion won on a carrier.

澳大利亚军事专家之所以有这样的想法，是因为他的祖国澳大利亚在收取巨额税金的同时，却没有建立起本土国防产业。
澳大利亚拥有广阔领土，是农业大国和资源富国。因此，制造业在澳大利亚经济中所占的比重非常小。2017年澳大利亚引以自豪的汽车品牌“HOLDEN”停产后，澳大利亚想要重振本国制造业的努力不断失败。
澳大利亚第一艘国产潜艇建造项目的预算虽然比计划增加了一倍，但潜艇的性能没有达到预期水平。澳大利亚海军第一艘宙斯盾驱逐舰的体积比韩国海军“世宗大王”号宙斯盾驱逐舰大70%，预算却是“世宗大王”号的2.5倍，在澳大利亚内部受到了强烈批评。
澳大利亚新一代常规潜艇目前尚未开始组装，但已经超过了当初计划的预算，一艘潜艇的价格可能达6万亿韩元。从2014年开始实施的新一代潜艇开发计划，要到2034年才能完成第一艘潜艇的建造。
另一个项目是“堪培拉”级多用途登陆舰。采用西班牙设计，澳大利亚建造的“堪培拉”级多用途登陆舰的价格，比西班牙版的价格高了3倍还不止，
澳大利亚原本计划让“堪培拉”级登陆舰搭载F-35B，后来发现需要大规模改造，结果勉强成为了“半个航母”。也就是说，澳大利亚花费2.5万亿韩元，却没能建造出真正的航空母舰。
看到祖国数十年来在国防产业里浪费了近100万亿韩元的税金却没能成功，澳大利亚军事专家对韩国花2.5万亿韩元建造航母持否定态度自然是理所当然的事情。