威尔士亲王号航空母舰已搭载24架英国F-35B战斗机，并宣布英国航母打击群具备全面作战能力

HighHandicapGolfist
Europe now has three credible carrier battle groups embarking F35Bs or Rafael's in UK and France, then two credible light carriers in Italy fielding F35Bs. All with solid Aster based Air Defence Destroyers and genuinely excellent anti-submarine frigates as escorts.
Russia from a Naval perspective is an absolute joke vs Europe. It cannot field a single carrier group and even if by some miracle it did, it would be with 50 year old planes facing five with 5-10 year old planes.
I don't think people realize the scale of the gap. Its not even close at Sea or in the Air.
Italy and the UK now have 250 stealth fighter bombers between just them. Russia has.. zero.

欧洲如今拥有三支可靠的航母战斗群，由英国和法国搭载 F-35B 或“阵风”，再加上意大利两艘可靠的轻型航母，也配备 F-35B。它们都由强大的、基于紫菀防空系统的防空驱逐舰以及真正优秀的反潜护卫舰护航。
从海军角度看，俄罗斯在欧洲面前完全是个笑话。它连一支航母战斗群都无法凑出来——即便奇迹般凑出来，也只能用 50 年前的旧飞机对上五支配备 只有5～10 年机龄战机的航母编队。
我觉得很多人根本没意识到差距的规模。海上、空中实力完全不是一个等级。
如今仅英国和意大利就拥有 250 架隐形战斗轰炸机，而俄罗斯拥有的……为零。

Marionberry_6088
They have a lot of submarines though and they're not as crap as they used to be.
Not saying it's a threat we can't counter, but the fact they can't field a carrier strike group doesn't mean we don't need to take the naval threat in the high north very seriously.
One sub on the loose in the North Atlantic is still a major threat.

但俄罗斯确实有不少潜艇，而且比以前没那么差了。
不是说这是无法应对的威胁，但光是他们没有航母打击群，并不意味着我们在北大西洋高纬度地区就可以不严肃对待海上威胁。
北大西洋里只要有一艘俄罗斯潜艇游荡，就依然是重大威胁。

Eric1491625
Russia is weaker in conventional sea and air due to having a much larger nuclear force and Britain being very army-light due to being an island nation. More spending in one category is less spending in another.
Both Russia and the UK had similar pre-war defence budgets, one with 250 nukes and another with 1,500, and one with 5x the pre-war ground troops of the other. 

俄罗斯的常规海空实力更弱，是因为它拥有规模大得多的核力量，而英国作为岛国，陆军力量相对较小。一个领域投入更多，必然意味着另一个领域投入更少。
战前两国的国防预算类似，一个有 250 枚核弹头，另一个则有 1,500 枚；一个的战前地面部队规模是另一个的 5 倍。

Marionberry_6088
Yh, but Russia's budget has gone up a lot post-war and theirs also goes further just because they need to pay the workers in the factories and shipyard far less.
Overall they have c. 13 in-service nuclear-powered (but not armed) attack subs and another 6 ordered.
The UK has 7 atm and will go up to 12 precisely because we recognise this is their main credible threat.

是，不过俄国战后预算涨了很多，而且他们的成本更低，因为他们在工厂和造船厂付给工人的工资远低于我们。
总体来看，他们大约有 13 艘现役的核动力（但非核武装）攻击潜艇，另有 6 艘在订购中。
英国目前有 7 艘，并将增至 12 艘，正是因为我们认识到这是他们唯一真正可信的威胁来源。

ForTheGloryOfAmn
Of those 1,500 how many are truely operational and in active service by Russian armed forces is the real question.
France nuclear dissuasion costs over €6 billion euros a year for: maintenance of a 290 nuclear warheads stockpile + M51 SLBMs + ASMP missiles + R&D + modernisation programs + infrastructure + secure communications + intelligence (satellites, radars, target analysis, etc) + personnel training + decommissioning…
Can Russia really afford that with its 1,500 warheads stockpile?

那 1,500 枚核弹头里，有多少是真正处于可操作、由俄军现役使用的，才是问题的关键。
法国的核威慑每年成本超过 60 亿欧元，用于维护 290 枚核弹头库存、M51 潜射导弹、ASMP 导弹、研发、现代化项目、基地与设施、安全通信、情报（卫星、雷达、目标分析）、人员训练以及退役流程……
俄罗斯真的能负担得起维护 1,500 枚弹头的费用吗？

BananaJuice1
Don't mean to be that guy but how are you arriving at 1500 for Russia? They have higher than this number in strategic let alone nonstrategic (deployed) weapons

不是挑刺，但你这个 1,500 的数字是怎么得出来的？他们的战略核武器数量本来就比这多，非战略（部署）武器更不用说。

PoiHolloi2020
Russia from a Naval perspective is an absolute joke vs Europe. It cannot field a single carrier group and even if by some miracle it did,
If it did Ukraine would sink it

俄罗斯从海军视角看是个笑话……就算俄罗斯奇迹般弄出一支航母群……
如果真弄出来，乌克兰会把它炸掉。

Careful_Bell8426
All well and good but, just like Russia, you won't know what all those numbers and theory really means until shit actually hits the fan.

说得好听动听，但就像俄罗斯一样，不到真刀真枪的实战时刻，你们永远不知道这些纸上谈兵的数据和理论究竟意味着什么。

mithu_raj
Issue is carriers aren’t that useful in a war against Russia give the proximity of any potential conflict. No need for a mobile airfield when you have dozens of airfields dotted around europe plenty close enough for strikes. Europe as a whole do need more frigates and destroyers to counter Russia’s missile cruisers and plentiful submarines which are the major threat at the moment

问题在于，对俄罗斯的战争中，航母并不那么有用，因为潜在冲突双方的距离太近了。欧洲遍地都是靠近前线的空军基地，根本不需要一座移动机场。
整个欧洲确实需要更多护卫舰和驱逐舰来对抗俄罗斯的导弹巡洋舰和数量众多的潜艇，这才是目前的主要威胁。

xXNightDriverXx
Luckily that's exactly where we are headed at the moment.
The Royal Navy are getting the Type 26s and Type 31s, the Italian Navy is building the FREMM EVOs, Turkey is building up, Germany is building up, and many other nations are also building up or buying new ships, like Poland having ordered some British Type 31s for themselves and Greece also getting some Italian Fremms.

幸运的是，这正是我们目前正在做的。
英国皇家海军正在获得 26 型与 31 型护卫舰；意大利海军正在建造 FREMM EVO护卫舰；土耳其在扩军；德国在扩军；其他许多国家也在扩建或购买新舰艇，例如波兰订购了英国的 31 型，希腊也要引进意大利的 Fremm护卫舰。

fatbunyip
Offensively yes, but carrier groups are very handy defensively - for example in the north sea area, or Mediterranean to counter long range Russian bombers. 
Additionally, in the case of a war, Russia will likely be using proxies to destabilize Europe (eg fanning conflicts in Africa and the mid east to create refugee waves) so they'd be handy in countering those forces. 
Not to mention the frigates I'm the carrier groups can provide some long range strike capabilities via cruise missiles that will necessitate Russia spreading out it's air defences. 
But yeah, the singular big advantage Russia has is it's incredible strategic depth. 

进攻上你说得对，但航母群在防御上非常有用——例如在北海或地中海，用来对抗俄罗斯的远程轰炸机。
此外，战争中俄罗斯很可能通过代理人来破坏欧洲稳定（例如在非洲、中东煽动冲突制造难民潮），航母战斗群对这些力量非常有用。
更别提航母群中的护卫舰还能提供巡航导弹的远程打击能力，被迫让俄罗斯分散其防空体系。
不过确实，俄罗斯最大的优势是它惊人的战略纵深。

cavershamox
We are far better off dispersing those planes to airfields that can cover the same areas so we don’t risk losing everything to one hypersonic anti ship missile

我们把这些飞机分散部署到能够覆盖相同区域的空军基地要更好，这样就不会冒着因一枚高超音速反舰导弹而损失全部战力的风险。

doarks11
My understanding is that the RN only has one full carrier air wing.
Russian naval doctrine was never really based on carrier operations.

根据我的理解，英国皇家海军目前仅配备了一个完整的航母舰载机联队。
而俄罗斯的海军作战理论历来就不以航母作战为核心。

Flash_Haos
The only Russia carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is under repair since 2017 and it looks like she’ll never get out of it. There were fires, corruption, they accidentally sank it during the repair… Now Russian officials are telling it’s going to be decommissioned, but the Navy cannot admit it.
Non-submarine part of the Russian fleet is a joke indeed. Probable submarines too, but they are too secret.

俄罗斯唯一的航母“库兹涅佐夫”号自 2017 年起就一直在维修，看起来永远也出不来了。期间发生火灾、腐败问题，甚至在维修时还把船台给弄沉了……
现在俄罗斯官员说它要退役，但海军根本不敢承认。
俄罗斯水面舰队确实是个笑话。潜艇部分可能也是，但它们太机密了。

LimitofInterest
Russia is further handicapped because their forces are spread too thin, assuming they can get them all out to sea.
You're talking about a country that has to cover the Western Pacific, Baltic, Arctic, Black Sea, Atlantic, all while trying to project in Caribbean (America's backyard) and Mediterranean (they lost their Naval base in Syria and Bosphorus Strait is closed to Russian military).
Their largest Submarine base in Murmansk is right beside NATO. The Baltic is Lake NATO. Vladivostok is the only ice-free port in the Pacific (really the only thing out there), and its monitored by allied nations. Does the Black Sea fleet exist anymore?
When their navy is deployed to one operating theater, they can't support one another in a timely fashion. Which is why having Allies and treating them with respect is important.

俄罗斯还受到进一步的限制，因为它们的兵力被摊得太开——前提是它们还能把这些力量都顺利派到海上。
你说的是一个必须同时顾及西太平洋、波罗的海、北极、黑海、大西洋——还试图在加勒比海（美国的后院）和地中海（他们在叙利亚的海军基地已经丢了，而且博斯普鲁斯海峡对俄军关闭）投射力量的国家。
它们在摩尔曼斯克的最大潜艇基地就贴着北约。波罗的海是“北约内湖”。海参崴是太平洋唯一不冻港（其实那边也只有它），而且被盟国全天监控。黑海舰队现在还算存在吗？
当他们的海军被部署到某个作战区域时，无法及时互相支援。
这也就是为什么拥有盟友、并且用尊重的态度对待盟友如此重要。

MGC91
I'd much rather F-35s than Rafale.

我宁愿要 F-35，也不要“阵风”。

ForTheGloryOfAmn
Well, at least the Rafale M is enhanced with corrosion protection for operating at sea. Look at the photo again, the top left two F-35s don’t seem to handle it well.
Hopefully the others have additional protective coatings or their airfrxs won’t be very stealthy much longer.

至少"阵风M"舰载机经过了海上作业的防腐蚀强化。再看照片：左上角那两架F-35的涂层状况就不太乐观。
但愿其他战机都做了额外防护处理，否则它们的机身隐身性能恐怕维持不了多久。

RoyalCultural
You're not wrong but I worry that the age of carrier supremacy might be coming to end. Fire enough low cost drones at the situation and they start to seem a bit like a sitting duck. We're not there yet but I think drones are only doing to get more and more capable and there will be an inflection point.

你说得没错，但我担心“航母称王”的时代可能快结束了。往一个目标上倾倒足够多的低成本无人机，它们就会有点像活靶子。
我们还没到那一步，但无人机的性能只会越来越强，总会出现那个转折点。

tree_boom
You can't fire enough low cost drones at the situation, because the characteristics that make a drone capable of finding a carrier and defeating it's defences make it a high cost drone.
Drones are not new, we just used to call them missiles.

你不可能往航母上倾倒足够多的“低成本”无人机，因为能找到航母并突破防御的无人机，本质上就是高成本的。
无人机不是啥新鲜东西，我们以前只是把它们叫“导弹”。

gbhgs
The drones you use to find the carriers don't need to be the same ones as the drones used to attack or harass them. You don't even need a credible method of sinking the carrier, you just need an effective, low cost method of impeding air ops. i.e. A cheap drone swarm hovering/making runs over the flight deck.
Then the CG either wastes a bunch of expensive munitions shooting them down or gets forced further out to sea, reducing it's ability to strike inland.

你用来找航母的无人机不需要和用来攻击或骚扰航母的无人机是同一种。你甚至不需要一个真正能击沉航母的方法，你只需要一种有效、低成本的方法阻碍其空中行动。也就是说，一群廉价无人机在飞行甲板上空盘旋/俯冲。
然后驱逐舰舰要么浪费一堆昂贵弹药把它们打下来，要么被迫更往外海退，从而降低其对内陆发动打击的能力。

CurrentRecord1
Why would you use drones to find a carrier when you have satellites that would already be constantly monitoring where the carriers are?

既然有卫星已经在持续监控航母的位置，为什么还要用无人机去找航母？

gbghgs
Orbits can be tracked, satellites destroyed. It's important to have layered detection methods, hence why literally everyone still develops and deploys maritime patrol aircraft, which do have an anti-surface role even if they're mostly focused on anti-submarine ops.
A drone in the same role could likely gain significant range/endurance by eliminating the crew and all their stations. Probably be incredibly expensive and very much not disposable though, which is just enough reason to seperate cheap attack craft from more expensive recon craft.

轨道目标可被追踪，卫星也能被摧毁。因此构建分层探测体系至关重要——这正是各国至今仍在研发部署海上巡逻机的根本原因：即便其主要任务是反潜，仍兼具对海打击能力。
若由无人机承担同等任务，通过取消驾驶舱及生命维持系统，有望显著提升航程与续航力。不过这类无人机造价必然极其昂贵且不可消耗，这正好解释了为何需要将廉价攻击平台与昂贵侦察平台进行功能分离。

Timic1
We don't have 250 stealth aircraft....
Deliveries are still underway...UK has c40

我们并没有 250 架隐形战机……
交付还在进行中……英国大概只有 40 架。

fuurism
And? Outside of Russia’s sub fleet, no one was suggesting that Russia has much of a navy.

然后呢？除了俄罗斯的潜艇舰队之外，没有人认为俄罗斯有多少像样的海军。

Feove79
Submarines could pose a threat to these ships.

潜艇可能会对这些舰船构成威胁。

cavershamox
I mean Russia is connected to the rest of Europe by land and easily within air strike range of the UK - I’m not sure how much of a flex carrier groups really are

我是说，俄罗斯和欧洲其他地方是陆地相连的，而且很容易处在英国的空袭范围内——我不确定航母战斗群到底有多大威慑力。

InternationalSet6003
I’m pretty amateur at naval strategy but I think fixed wing aircraft carriers are very vulnerable in a Europe v Russia fight. They were pretty vulnerable to air power and submarines last time they were used in a near peer fight weren’t they? They’re mostly useful for when you want to bully a third world country across the ocean from you, it’s been a long time since the French or British have needed that ability.

我在海军战略上相当业余，但我觉得搭载固定翼飞机的航母在欧洲对俄罗斯的冲突中非常脆弱。上一次它们在接近同等对手的战斗中使用时，不就很容易受到对方空中力量和潜艇的威胁吗？它们主要在你想要去远洋欺负第三世界国家时才有用。法国或英国已经很久不需要那种能力了。

Cultourist
How does this help us if Russia is challenging us in e.g. the Baltics? This money is better spent elsewhere, e.g. in air defence in Ukraine.

如果俄罗斯在比如波罗的海挑战我们，航母对我们有什么帮助？这些钱更应该花在别处，比如乌克兰的防空系统。

MGC91
Credit to UK Carrier Strike Group
This is the largest embarkation of 5th gen aircraft on any aircraft carrier in the world.

向英国航母打击群致敬。
这是有史以来任何航母上第五代战机搭载量最大的一次。

Heretakemybearslap
Shows how much the Navy/Marines trust the F-35C/B

这显示出海军和海军陆战队对 F-35C/B 的信任有多高。

SchlopFlopper
They have to share space with the Super Hornet on carriers.

它们还得在航母上与f18超级大黄蜂共享空间。

RT-LAMP
I mean the US has more than 1 aircraft that can fill it's carriers and it kinda wants to spread the F-35s around. Right now there's actually USMC F-35Bs flying off of Japanese aircraft carriers as part of their preparations for Japan's own F-35B carrier operations.

我的意思是，美国有不止一种飞机能填满它的航母，而且美国确实想把 F-35 分散部署。现在实际上有美国海军陆战队的 F-35B 在日本航母上起降，作为日本自己未来 F-35B 航母作战准备的一部分。

Canard_De_Bagdad
Good. Europe should have more carrier groups

很好。欧洲应该拥有更多航母战斗群。

Corvid187
Given our main security threat is Russia, and the problem they pose is a rather pressing one, I'm not sure that'd be the best use of our rearmament efforts, at least in the short term.
Carriers are great for projecting power Way the Hell Over There™, but realistically only Britain and France have a serious capability requirement for that kind of deployment, and even then it's largely on national, not European terms.
For everyone else they're something of a luxury capability at a time when our essential forces are, to varying extents, in need of redevelopment.

考虑到我们的主要安全威胁是俄罗斯，而且他们带来的问题相当紧迫，我不确定这在至少短期内会是我们重新军备的最佳方向。
航母很擅长把力量投射到“非常非常远™”的地方，但现实是只有英国和法国确实有这种部署需求，而且主要是基于国家层面，而不是欧洲集体层面。
对其他国家而言，在我们核心力量不同程度都需要重建的当下，它们算是一种奢侈能力。

NaiveManufacturer375
indeed. we'll need to create a total naval blockade - i am sure this wonderful ship will be a great part of it.

确实。我们将需要对俄罗斯建立一个全面的海上封锁——我相信这艘出色的舰船会成为其中的重要部分。

N-Yayoi
For Britain, the ocean represents life, and everything depends on it. Although the empire has now disappeared, it still needs a massive force. For other European countries, it's better to first think about solving the conscxtion problem.

对英国来说，大海意味着生命，一切都依赖它。即使现在帝国已经消失，它仍需要一支庞大的海军力量。
对其他欧洲国家来说，更应该先考虑解决征兵问题。

Corvid187
Exactly. They're an expensive commitment that's only worth it if there's a specific need for the niche they provide

没错。航母是一种昂贵的投入，只有当你真的需要它们所提供的那个特殊能力时这钱才花的值。

AtlanticPortal
Actually having a powerful navy capable of stopping the eventual disrupting of commerce via sea by Russian subs is a lot important.
Not that having an army is not important since there is no natural barrier between Moscow and Bruxelles. The main defense during the centuries of Russia was to put enough space between them and the invading armies (especially of Napoleon and Hitler).

真正关键的是拥有一支强大的海军，能阻止俄罗斯潜艇扰乱海上贸易。
当然，陆军也很重要，因为莫斯科和布鲁塞尔之间没有天然屏障。俄罗斯历史上的主要防御方式一直是让入侵军队与他们之间的距离够长（尤其是在拿破仑和希特勒时期）。

NaiveManufacturer375
nice. that is something for our russian enemies to think about. their navy won't last long against europe.

很好。这会让我们的俄罗斯敌人好好想一想。他们的海军在欧洲面前撑不了多久。

Alundra828
What a beautiful sight to behold.
Hopefully with it, the UK can work with Europe to coordinate and protect our interests. And slap down a certain aircraft-carrierless bear.

多美的景象啊。
希望有了它，英国能与欧洲合作协调，保护我们的共同利益。还能好好教训一下某只没有航母的熊。