By Hui Yong and Zhai Mingfei
据外媒报道，美空军和陆军两大军种近期在远程打击问题上争论不休，甚至就部队定位问题“互怼”。美空军认为，陆军发展远程精确火力是昂贵、重复和愚蠢的，应优先发展“空基远程打击力量”，并呼吁对陆军“烟囱式”远程打击项目进行纠偏。美陆军并不认同上述说法，美陆军协会执行副主席罗伯特•布朗称，空军试图栽赃陆军令其感到失望，很难理解空军某些高级军官的认知与实际如此脱节。
Foreign media reports that the US air force and army are trading barbs recently on distance strike capability development and the position of each service. The air force deems it costly, repetitive, and stupid for the army to develop distance precision fire strike capability and demands it to put priority on its air-based distance strike forces. The army, however, disagrees with that. Robert Brown, executive vice president of the Association of the United States Army, said he was disappointed at the air force for trying to pin the blame on the army and couldn’t understand how some senior air force officers could be so disconnected from reality. 究竟是何原因让美两大军种“互撕”？
What makes the two US military services lock horns?
顶层设计缺方向。美军向来注重发展远程打击力量，以求维系在全球的军事存在，巩固霸权地位。早在2010年，美国防部便在《四年防务评估报告》中提出“下一代远程打击系统”概念，试图推动美军“全球打击”和“快速到达”能力全面升级。然而，受美军高层频繁人事变动等因素影响，上述战略在落实过程中往往存在思路不清、重点不明等问题。
They have no direction for top-level design. The US military always attaches great importance to developing the distance strike capabilities to maintain its global military presence and hegemony. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) issued by the US Department of Defence (DOD) proposed to develop a “next-generation distance strike system” in the attempt to comprehensively upgrade the US military’s “global assault” and “fast arrival” capabilities. However, the frequent personnel changes at the top level of the Pentagon and many other factors have rendered the implementation of that proposal anything but smooth, troubled with unclear directions and priorities.
2020年，美军参谋长联席会议副主席约翰•海顿在谈及远程打击能力问题时强调，需使攻击手段多样化，并提出陆军、海军、空军和海军陆战队均应提升这方面的能力。这种含糊其辞的说法为美军各大军种所诟病。美国米切尔航空航天研究所执行董事道格拉斯•伯基称，考虑到各军种可选方案的价格完全不同，这一提议可能对美军打击能力带来潜在风险。
Speaking of distance strike capability in 2020, John Hyten, vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, underlined the importance of diversifying the means of attacks and urged the army, navy, air force and marines to all enhance their capabilities in that aspect. His ambiguity was slammed by all services. Doug Birkey, executive director of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said the proposal may expose the military’s assault capabilities to potential risks as the options for different services vary greatly in price.
作战理念不兼容。美军作战理论有着明显的演绎性，容易导致各军种互异甚至“互克”的解读与实践。近年来，美陆军大力发展“多域作战”理论，远程精确火力是关键项目之一，也是该军种六大现代化优先事项之首。美陆军认为，随着海、空军“反介入/区域拒止”优势渐失，陆军远程精确火力可为美军未来联合全域作战提供更多选择，同时注重保持相对独立性。
Their combat concepts are incompatible. The notably deductive combat theories of the US military can easily be interpreted and acted on by different services in completely different or even contradictory ways. In recent years, the army has strongly promoted the “multi-domain combat” theory, in which distance precision fire strike is a key part and top of the army’s six modernization priorities. As the navy and air force lose their advantage in Anti-Access/Area-Denial, the army thinks its development of distance precision fire strike capabilities can provide more possibilities for future combined all-domain combats while ensuring relative independence.
美空军虽然赞同“多域作战”理念，但对陆军发展远程精确火力并不认同。一方面，美空军认为自身已具备全时全域的快速远程打击能力，并在近几次战争实践中得到验证，认为陆军重复建设实属浪费资源；另一方面，其也对陆军前沿部署远程打击装备和独立实施远程火力打击的作战能力持悲观态度。
The air force agrees to the “multi-domain combat” concept but dislikes the idea of the army developing distance precision fire strike capabilities. On the one hand, the air force believes it is capable of launching all-time, all-domain fast distance assaults, which has been verified in recent battles and the army’s development of the same capabilities is simply a waste of resources. On the other hand, the air force is pessimistic about the army’s forward deployment of distance strike equipment and its ability of launching distance fire strikes independently.
利益藩篱难突破。美军“军种至上”的本位主义由来已久，迥异的军种文化和价值观导致各军种间经常因抢战功、争地位等冲突不断。近年来，美国国防预算逐年增加，但面对各军种“吞金兽”式的经费需求，依然显得捉襟见肘。面对这种局面，各军种间经常上演花样百出的夺金大赛。例如，美海军曾试图换装重型舰载机，便打着升级F-18战斗机的名义，移花接木申请到巨额经费，以研发F-18E/F“超级大黄蜂”战斗机。
Their conflicts of interests are hard to resolve. Service parochialism has been a long-standing problem in the US military. With different cultures and values, the services often contend for merits on the battleground and position in the military system. Although the US is increasing its defense budget every year, that’s still not enough to meet the services’ astronomical demand, driving them to compete intensely for a fat check. For instance, the navy once planned to commission heavy ship-borne helicopters, so it applied for an immense sum of money in the name of upgrading F-18 fighters to develop the F -18E/F Super Hornet.
由此可见，此次美陆军和空军就远程打击这一“烧钱”的高技术项目“互撕”的背后，是各军种维护自身优势地位、抢夺经费“蛋糕”的一己私心。
While the army and air force are battling over the money-burning high-tech project of distance strike capabilities, what’s behind is their selfish purpose of maintaining the position of strength and securing as big a share of the defense budget as possible.
