独家报道：美国海军正打造无人机舰队以对抗中国，但进展并不顺利
正文翻译
Kahzootoh
No surprise there. They’re using one of the worst acquisition strategies ever devised, where they’re spending piles of money on R&D they don’t own any rights to and then skimping on production to “save” money.
这并不奇怪。他们采用了有史以来最糟糕的采购策略之一：在自己不拥有任何权利的研发项目上投入巨额资金，然后为了“节省”资金而缩减生产规模。
The sensible approach is to hire R&D teams to come up with proposals, with the military being the owner of whatever they sext- and then taking that design to manufacturers to have them produce it; similar to WW2 where you had dozens of different manufacturers making the same product for the military rather than each manufacturer in a given sector making their own unique product.
合理的做法应该是：雇佣研发团队提出方案，军方拥有他们所选方案的所有权，然后将该设计交给制造商进行生产。这类似于二战时期的模式——数十家不同的制造商为军方生产同一种产品，而不是特定领域的每个制造商都生产自己独有的产品。
You aren’t going to compete against China unless the government actually ends up with something more than research papers when it tries to buy ships.
除非美国政府在试图采购舰船时，最终得到的不仅仅是研究报告，否则他们根本无法与中国竞争。
clrbrk
Ya, but I bet their friends are making a shit load of money from the wasteful military contracts!
没错，但我敢打赌，他们的朋友们正从这些浪费的军事合同中赚得盆满钵满！
thewags05
I'm a scientist who works R&D for a defense contractor, mostly DARPA and AFRL stuff. The government owns and has the rights to everything they contract us to develop and pay for. It's not super common, but I have seen them take one companies stuff and have another continue the development.
我是一名在国防承包商从事研发工作的科学家，主要涉及国防高级研究计划局（DARPA）和空军研究实验室（AFRL）的项目。政府拥有并有权使用所有他们委托我们开发并支付费用的成果。虽然不常见，但我见过他们将一家公司的成果交给另一家公司继续开发的情况。
Sometimes the larger ones like Lockheed and Northrop try to get away with shenanigans and claim they internally developed key pieces. In those cases it's not rare the government requires government purpose rights for those pieces if they want continuing contracts. If they get away with the shenanigans, it's because the government contract office didn't play hardball. Or they don't think anyone else could recreate it.
有时像洛克希德·马丁和诺斯罗普·格鲁曼这样的大公司会试图耍花招，声称某些关键部分是他们内部研发的。在这种情况下，如果他们想继续获得合同，政府通常会要求对这些部分拥有政府用途权。如果他们的花招得逞，那要么是因为政府合同办公室没有采取强硬态度，要么是政府认为其他公司无法复制这些成果。
thewags05
Yeah that's also a big reason they're getting away from cost plus contracts as much as they can. That whole thing was a giant boondoggle with plenty of blame for everyone to go around.
是的，这也是他们尽可能摆脱成本加成合同的一个重要原因。那整个机制就是一场巨大的骗局，每个人都难辞其咎。
kymri
cost plus contracts 成本加成合同
cost plus contracts 成本加成合同
At first glance, that sounds reasonable. You build the thing the government wants, and they pay you a predictable profit on each unit (or whatever) and so sudden cost-inflation (such as with tarriffs, as one COMPLETELY RANDOM example) of production doesn't ruin the producer.
乍一看，这似乎合情合理。你按政府的要求制造产品，他们按每单位（或其他标准）给你一笔可预测的利润，这样生产过程中突然出现的成本上涨（比如关税，举一个完全随机的例子）就不会搞垮生产商。
Then you think about it for more than two seconds and you realize how absolutely INSANE the scope for corruption and graft is...
但稍微多想一下，你就会意识到这种模式存在极大的腐败和贪污空间……
GooberMcNutly
Public cost and private profit. We the people pay for everything but get nothing. See medical research. They must have the same business plans.
公共成本，私人利润。我们民众付出了一切，却什么也得不到。看看医学研究就知道了。他们的商业模式肯定是一样的。
ilski
So you are just some guy on the internet who gives better solution just like that.
所以你就只是个在网上随便给出更好解决方案的人而已。
What stops them from doing it the reasonable way? Why are they so stubborn on doing it inefficient way?
是什么阻止了他们采取合理的方式呢？为什么他们固执地采用低效的方法？
Tasmosunt
The same reason structural failures have stubbornly persisted throughout history, the people making the decisions benefit from it being that way.
就像历史上结构性问题始终存在一样，做出决策的人能从中获益，所以事情才会是这个样子。
redvelvetcake42
Late stage capitalism requires palms be not just greased but the entire person be greased. It's corruption on an unprecedented scale. We're reaching a Russian level but with more money. Poorly produced goods being "used" by the military in order to get a fat bonus in somebody's pocket. No care as to its effectiveness.
晚期资本主义不仅要求行贿，甚至要求整个体制都被腐蚀。这是前所未有的腐败规模。我们正朝着俄罗斯的水平发展，只是钱更多而已。军方使用劣质产品，只为让某些人中饱私囊，根本不在乎产品的效能。
morningreis
They’re using one of the worst acquisition strategies ever devised
他们采用了有史以来最糟糕的采购策略之一。
So true and yet such an understatement.
这话太对了，但还是说得太轻了。
Besides the R&D process, the military is allergic to using off-the-shelf solutions that work, in favor of bespoke solutions which need to be invented to fit the concept of operations that the military wants. So then defense contractors (aka Boeing) will say anything to get a contract, but have no capability or intent to deliver on a reasonable cost or schedule. The military gets suckered in by the unfeasibly low costs of a contractor's bid, and then is in a compromising position when they're left with a quagmire of a program. Then the sunk-cost fallacy begins
除了研发过程，军方还不愿意使用现成的有效解决方案，反而倾向于定制化解决方案——这些方案需要为了符合军方的作战概念而专门研发。因此，像波音这样的国防承包商为了拿到合同会说尽好话，但根本没有能力或意愿在合理的成本和时间内交付产品。军方被承包商看似极低的报价所迷惑，然后就陷入了项目的泥潭。接着，沉没成本谬误就开始作祟了。
HapticRecce
Ukrainians seem to have it figured out, maybe pick some up from them...
乌克兰人似乎已经搞明白了，或许可以向他们学学……
Ok-Afternoon-9268
They ARE learning from Ukraine. However the Black Sea is different from the Taiwan strait. The us needs swarms and has a different use case than Ukraine.
他们确实在向乌克兰学习。然而，黑海与台湾（地区）海峡不同。美国需要无人机群，其使用场景与乌克兰不同。
EdOfTheMountain
Cake icon
Yes that should be the “art of the deal”. To get Ukrainian war fighting knowledge to help the US.
这本来就应该是“交易的艺术”——利用乌克兰的作战经验来帮助美国。
Instead Trump does everything he can to help Putin and destroy America to China and Russias delight
然而，特朗普却竭尽所能帮助普京，损害美国的利益，让中国和俄罗斯暗自窃喜。
Freshwater_Spaceman
A nightmare scenario is that the Trumpoids undermine Ukranie to the point that the country is engulfed by Russia.
一个可怕的场景是：特朗普的支持者们削弱乌克兰，以至于这个国家被俄罗斯吞并。
All of that drone technology, the piloting experience, the AI developed to target… all handed over to Russia and China. It’d be like operation paperclip in reverse.
所有的无人机技术、驾驶经验、用于瞄准的人工智能……都会落入俄罗斯和中国手中。这就像是反向的“回形针行动”。
They might even get a Von Braun equivalent in drone warfare, maybe not as an individual but a package, a team of developers, an assembly line and a window into how to counter and beat NATO conventionally.
他们甚至可能得到无人机 warfare 领域的冯·布劳恩式人物，也许不是单个人，而是一个团队——一群开发者、一条生产线，以及洞悉如何对抗和击败北约常规力量的窗口。
myronsnila
But at least we don’t have any more woke named ships. Priorities.
但至少我们不会再有以“觉醒”命名的舰船了。这才是重点。
MerryMisandrist
I would not take anything published in the media when it comes to the military as more than a psyop or disinformation.
涉及军方的媒体报道，我顶多把它们当作心理战或虚假信息，不会当真。
They let you see what they want you to see.
他们让你看到的，都是他们想让你看到的。
“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak"
“兵者，诡道也。能而示之不能，用而示之不用。”
Tyler-Durden-1982
Take a look at most US Navy acquisition programs over the last 30 years and you will see pretty similar things.
看看过去30年美国海军的大多数采购项目，你会发现情况都差不多。
A lot of money is burned up with very little to show for it or they end up with something 20x more costly than originally stated with only 10% of the capability.
大量资金被挥霍，却收效甚微，或者最终得到的东西成本比最初宣称的高出20倍，而效能却只达到10%。
Many like to point fingers at senior civilians in the DoD for this however this is 100% the fault of senior military leaders in the US Navy. They are in command not the civilians.
很多人喜欢把这归咎于国防部的高级文职官员，但这完全是美国海军高级军事领导人的错。他们才是掌权者，而不是文职官员。
Vhiet
You say there’s very little to show for it, but I think you’ll find that shareholders for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and The Company Formerly Known As Raytheon would disagree.
你说收效甚微，但我想洛克希德·马丁、诺斯罗普·格鲁曼以及前雷神公司的股东们恐怕不会同意。
And they are people that actually matter.
而这些人才是真正有影响力的人。
busterlowe
This is the actual answer. It’s politicians and corporate interests over military value. The military leadership isn’t choosing the contracts directly.
这才是真正的答案。与军事价值相比，政客和企业利益更受重视。军事领导层并不是直接选择合同的。
twoblades
The U.S. needs to 1) dethrone the clown car running the Whitehouse and DOJ and 2) learn all it can about unmanned warfare from Ukraine.
美国需要：1）推翻白宫和司法部那群蠢货的统治；2）尽可能向乌克兰学习无人作战技术。
JustadudefromHI
Ukraine is using drones because they don't have the capabilities of a tier 1 military. It would be silly to try and copy what Ukraine is doing because they wouldn't be doing it if they received the gear they asked for. There's definitely room for autonomous vehicles in warfare, but peer conflict with China for example won't look remotely like what's happening in Eastern Ukraine
乌克兰使用无人机是因为他们没有一流军队的能力。如果他们得到了想要的装备，就不会这么做了，所以试图照搬乌克兰的做法是愚蠢的。自主装备在战争中肯定有其位置，但与中国这样的对手发生冲突，情况与乌克兰东部的局势完全不同。
DrinkYourWaterBros
The whole smuggling of drone vans into Russia has seriously made me question our preparedness. Do we have the ability to stop that? Or stop a fleet of hundreds of drones flying into LA from a boat in the middle of the ocean?
把无人机 vans 走私到俄罗斯的事情，真的让我开始质疑我们的防备能力。我们有能力阻止这种情况吗？或者阻止数百架无人机从大洋中的一艘船上飞向洛杉矶？
Big yikes from me.
我感到非常不安。
BayouBait
The US isn’t going to beat China on tech, we’ve spent to many years worrying about dudes playing in women’s sports and building a border wall to ever catch up.
美国在技术上赢不了中国，我们花了太多时间纠结于男人参加女子体育运动以及修建边境墙，已经追不上了。
semisoftwerewolf
I knew we were cooked when I saw conservative news anchors using words like "academic" in a derogatory fashion. China values education and realizes that higher education institutions equal power. They prioritize education and value experts, so much so that they send people abroad to learn from them.
当我看到保守派新闻主播用“学术的”这个词来贬低别人时，我就知道我们完了。中国重视教育，意识到高等教育机构等同于力量。他们优先发展教育，重视专家，甚至派人参访学习。
Meanwhile here in the US, we have people trying to take down institutions of higher learning, thinking Earth is 10,000 years old, and that planes are making chemtrails.
与此同时，在美国，有人试图摧毁高等教育机构，认为地球只有1万年的历史，还觉得飞机在喷洒化学物质。
We don't deserve the top spot anymore.
我们不配再占据榜首了。
BigMax
Right. Over there they are demanding top performance from students.
说得对。在那里（中国），他们要求学生表现出顶尖水平。
Here we are fining our best academic institutions billions of dollars for not toeing the MAGA party line, and cancelling huge swaths of research simply because morons can't understand it, and not understanding it makes them uncomfortable.
而在这里，我们却因为最好的学术机构没有遵循“让美国再次伟大”的路线而对其处以数十亿美元的罚款，还因为一些蠢货无法理解某些研究就取消了大量研究项目，仅仅因为他们不理解就感到不安。
Think of how many people will literally DIE just based on mRNA research cancellation alone! All because RFK jr and other idiots don't understand anything, and therefore cancel it.
想想看，仅仅因为小罗伯特·肯尼迪等人的无知而取消mRNA研究，将会有多少人因此丧命！
ResponsibleClock9289
Sure if you ignore all the areas the US is innovating and ahead, then China is actually ahead!
当然，如果你忽视美国在所有创新和领先的领域，那么中国才是领先的！
BayouBait
Which areas is America ahead that they haven’t caught up to?
美国在哪些领域还保持领先，而中国还没有赶上？
ResponsibleClock9289
Materials sciences, AI, quantum computing, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, biotech, cybersecurity, robotics, cloud computing, list goes on and on
材料科学、人工智能、量子计算、航空航天、制药、生物技术、网络安全、机器人技术、云计算，这样的例子不胜枚举。
maChinarium-robot
Did you really include materials science here? The US can't even refine their own rare earths.
你真的把材料科学算进去了吗？美国甚至都不能自己提炼稀土。
ResponsibleClock9289
First of all, not worth the cost == not able to.
首先，不值得付出成本并不等于没有能力。
Second of all, do you even know what materials sciences are?
其次，你知道材料科学是什么吗？
busterlowe
China isn’t concerned with shareholder value when they build their war machines. They build to win.
中国在制造战争机器时并不关心股东价值。他们为了胜利而制造。
balrog687
This is, in fact, the most important strategic advantage China has.
事实上，这是中国拥有的最重要的战略优势。
For every dollar spent on defense, you have the profit cut of every single defense contractor, lobbyist, and congressman.
在每一分投入国防的资金中，都要扣除国防承包商、说客和国会议员的利润。
Plus, the exodus from academia will severely impact the quality of research.
此外，学术界人才的流失将严重影响研究质量。
Plus, every single person in a position of power is an absolut idiot who ignores science.
再加上，每个掌权者都是十足的白痴，无视科学。
What could go wrong?
还有什么可能出错呢？
billFclinton
Didn’t they spend a ton of money on missiles, then found out that they were filled with water instead of fuel during an audit?
他们不是在导弹上花了一大笔钱，后来在审计中发现导弹里装的是水而不是燃料吗？
CapableCollar
No, someone used a term that means to inflate their budget and some articles took it literally. The rockets in question were solid fuel rockets, replacing their fuel with water wouldn't even make sense as a way to hide corruption.
不，有人用了一个表示夸大预算的术语，然后一些文章就从字面上理解了。相关的火箭是固体燃料火箭，用水分代替燃料作为掩盖腐败的方式，这根本说不通。
maChinarium-robot
This is why China watchers need to learn Mandarin.
这就是为什么研究中国的人需要学习普通话。
WowBastardSia
The US also has the comfort of being buffered from everyone else by 2 gigantic bodies of water. China on the other hand is completely surrounded by US military bases that are pointed straight at China's heavily-populated coasts. If that's not incentive to innovate and manufacture as best as possible for survival, I don't know what is.
美国还有一个优势，那就是被两个巨大的水体与其他国家隔开。另一方面，中国完全被美国的军事基地包围，这些基地直指中国人口稠密的沿海地区。如果这都不是为了生存而进行创新和优化制造的动力，那我就不知道什么是了。
fishdishly
I worked on AUVs and can tell you that the shit I currently tinker with is leaps and bounds more capable than what the navy uses now. Bunch of scam ass military industrial mega corps are milking the fuck out of their contracts.
我从事自主水下航行器（AUVs）方面的工作，可以告诉你，我现在摆弄的东西比海军现在使用的要先进得多。一群骗人的军工巨头正在从他们的合同中榨取巨额利润。
EdOfTheMountain
The U.S. has no idea how to mass produce affordable drones. The weapon acquisition system is designed to as a congressional lobbyist dream to make money for giant DOD monopolies
美国根本不知道如何大规模生产价格合理的无人机。武器采购系统的设计就像是国会说客的梦想，目的是为大型国防部垄断企业赚钱。
el0_0le
So anyways, we outsourced that too.
所以，不管怎样，我们也把这个（无人机制造）外包了。
One_Particular247
They deported or banned everyone that could do it.
他们驱逐或禁止了所有有能力做这件事的人。
wisdom_seek3r
You know what they say....if you wanna get rich...get a government contract.
你知道人们怎么说……如果你想发财，就去拿政府合同。
xcz1990
sad truth is China has a plan and its heqding that way while US is just goijg backward giving up ev to go back to gas and coal says alot about current America
可悲的事实是，中国有一个计划，并且正在朝着这个方向前进，而美国却在倒退，放弃电动汽车，回到汽油和煤炭时代，这很能说明当前的美国状况。
The_Wandering_Ones
The problem is America will never be able to close the technological gap if we stop prioritizing education. Dumb people can't make cutting edge shit.
问题是，如果我们不再重视教育，美国将永远无法缩小技术差距。愚蠢的人无法制造尖端产品。
eggnogui
With MAGA essentially waging war on science and knowledge, it does not bode well for the US's long-term viability as the world's strongest military.
由于“让美国再次伟大”运动实质上是在向科学和知识宣战，这对美国作为世界最强军事力量的长期生存能力来说不是好兆头。
WordPeas
You know no one believes that tripe anymore.
你知道没人再相信那些废话了。
Inevitable_Guide_493
The US is doing (X) to take on China. It's not going well. has pretty much been the modus operandi for the last ten years.
在过去十年里，“美国正在做（某件事）以对抗中国，但进展不顺利”这一模式几乎成了常态。
No surprise there. They’re using one of the worst acquisition strategies ever devised, where they’re spending piles of money on R&D they don’t own any rights to and then skimping on production to “save” money.
这并不奇怪。他们采用了有史以来最糟糕的采购策略之一：在自己不拥有任何权利的研发项目上投入巨额资金，然后为了“节省”资金而缩减生产规模。
The sensible approach is to hire R&D teams to come up with proposals, with the military being the owner of whatever they sext- and then taking that design to manufacturers to have them produce it; similar to WW2 where you had dozens of different manufacturers making the same product for the military rather than each manufacturer in a given sector making their own unique product.
合理的做法应该是：雇佣研发团队提出方案，军方拥有他们所选方案的所有权，然后将该设计交给制造商进行生产。这类似于二战时期的模式——数十家不同的制造商为军方生产同一种产品，而不是特定领域的每个制造商都生产自己独有的产品。
You aren’t going to compete against China unless the government actually ends up with something more than research papers when it tries to buy ships.
除非美国政府在试图采购舰船时，最终得到的不仅仅是研究报告，否则他们根本无法与中国竞争。
clrbrk
Ya, but I bet their friends are making a shit load of money from the wasteful military contracts!
没错，但我敢打赌，他们的朋友们正从这些浪费的军事合同中赚得盆满钵满！
thewags05
I'm a scientist who works R&D for a defense contractor, mostly DARPA and AFRL stuff. The government owns and has the rights to everything they contract us to develop and pay for. It's not super common, but I have seen them take one companies stuff and have another continue the development.
我是一名在国防承包商从事研发工作的科学家，主要涉及国防高级研究计划局（DARPA）和空军研究实验室（AFRL）的项目。政府拥有并有权使用所有他们委托我们开发并支付费用的成果。虽然不常见，但我见过他们将一家公司的成果交给另一家公司继续开发的情况。
Sometimes the larger ones like Lockheed and Northrop try to get away with shenanigans and claim they internally developed key pieces. In those cases it's not rare the government requires government purpose rights for those pieces if they want continuing contracts. If they get away with the shenanigans, it's because the government contract office didn't play hardball. Or they don't think anyone else could recreate it.
有时像洛克希德·马丁和诺斯罗普·格鲁曼这样的大公司会试图耍花招，声称某些关键部分是他们内部研发的。在这种情况下，如果他们想继续获得合同，政府通常会要求对这些部分拥有政府用途权。如果他们的花招得逞，那要么是因为政府合同办公室没有采取强硬态度，要么是政府认为其他公司无法复制这些成果。
thewags05
Yeah that's also a big reason they're getting away from cost plus contracts as much as they can. That whole thing was a giant boondoggle with plenty of blame for everyone to go around.
是的，这也是他们尽可能摆脱成本加成合同的一个重要原因。那整个机制就是一场巨大的骗局，每个人都难辞其咎。
kymri
cost plus contracts 成本加成合同
cost plus contracts 成本加成合同
At first glance, that sounds reasonable. You build the thing the government wants, and they pay you a predictable profit on each unit (or whatever) and so sudden cost-inflation (such as with tarriffs, as one COMPLETELY RANDOM example) of production doesn't ruin the producer.
乍一看，这似乎合情合理。你按政府的要求制造产品，他们按每单位（或其他标准）给你一笔可预测的利润，这样生产过程中突然出现的成本上涨（比如关税，举一个完全随机的例子）就不会搞垮生产商。
Then you think about it for more than two seconds and you realize how absolutely INSANE the scope for corruption and graft is...
但稍微多想一下，你就会意识到这种模式存在极大的腐败和贪污空间……
GooberMcNutly
Public cost and private profit. We the people pay for everything but get nothing. See medical research. They must have the same business plans.
公共成本，私人利润。我们民众付出了一切，却什么也得不到。看看医学研究就知道了。他们的商业模式肯定是一样的。
ilski
So you are just some guy on the internet who gives better solution just like that.
所以你就只是个在网上随便给出更好解决方案的人而已。
What stops them from doing it the reasonable way? Why are they so stubborn on doing it inefficient way?
是什么阻止了他们采取合理的方式呢？为什么他们固执地采用低效的方法？
Tasmosunt
The same reason structural failures have stubbornly persisted throughout history, the people making the decisions benefit from it being that way.
就像历史上结构性问题始终存在一样，做出决策的人能从中获益，所以事情才会是这个样子。
redvelvetcake42
Late stage capitalism requires palms be not just greased but the entire person be greased. It's corruption on an unprecedented scale. We're reaching a Russian level but with more money. Poorly produced goods being "used" by the military in order to get a fat bonus in somebody's pocket. No care as to its effectiveness.
晚期资本主义不仅要求行贿，甚至要求整个体制都被腐蚀。这是前所未有的腐败规模。我们正朝着俄罗斯的水平发展，只是钱更多而已。军方使用劣质产品，只为让某些人中饱私囊，根本不在乎产品的效能。
morningreis
They’re using one of the worst acquisition strategies ever devised
他们采用了有史以来最糟糕的采购策略之一。
So true and yet such an understatement.
这话太对了，但还是说得太轻了。
Besides the R&D process, the military is allergic to using off-the-shelf solutions that work, in favor of bespoke solutions which need to be invented to fit the concept of operations that the military wants. So then defense contractors (aka Boeing) will say anything to get a contract, but have no capability or intent to deliver on a reasonable cost or schedule. The military gets suckered in by the unfeasibly low costs of a contractor's bid, and then is in a compromising position when they're left with a quagmire of a program. Then the sunk-cost fallacy begins
除了研发过程，军方还不愿意使用现成的有效解决方案，反而倾向于定制化解决方案——这些方案需要为了符合军方的作战概念而专门研发。因此，像波音这样的国防承包商为了拿到合同会说尽好话，但根本没有能力或意愿在合理的成本和时间内交付产品。军方被承包商看似极低的报价所迷惑，然后就陷入了项目的泥潭。接着，沉没成本谬误就开始作祟了。
HapticRecce
Ukrainians seem to have it figured out, maybe pick some up from them...
乌克兰人似乎已经搞明白了，或许可以向他们学学……
Ok-Afternoon-9268
They ARE learning from Ukraine. However the Black Sea is different from the Taiwan strait. The us needs swarms and has a different use case than Ukraine.
他们确实在向乌克兰学习。然而，黑海与台湾（地区）海峡不同。美国需要无人机群，其使用场景与乌克兰不同。
EdOfTheMountain
Cake icon
Yes that should be the “art of the deal”. To get Ukrainian war fighting knowledge to help the US.
这本来就应该是“交易的艺术”——利用乌克兰的作战经验来帮助美国。
Instead Trump does everything he can to help Putin and destroy America to China and Russias delight
然而，特朗普却竭尽所能帮助普京，损害美国的利益，让中国和俄罗斯暗自窃喜。
Freshwater_Spaceman
A nightmare scenario is that the Trumpoids undermine Ukranie to the point that the country is engulfed by Russia.
一个可怕的场景是：特朗普的支持者们削弱乌克兰，以至于这个国家被俄罗斯吞并。
All of that drone technology, the piloting experience, the AI developed to target… all handed over to Russia and China. It’d be like operation paperclip in reverse.
所有的无人机技术、驾驶经验、用于瞄准的人工智能……都会落入俄罗斯和中国手中。这就像是反向的“回形针行动”。
They might even get a Von Braun equivalent in drone warfare, maybe not as an individual but a package, a team of developers, an assembly line and a window into how to counter and beat NATO conventionally.
他们甚至可能得到无人机 warfare 领域的冯·布劳恩式人物，也许不是单个人，而是一个团队——一群开发者、一条生产线，以及洞悉如何对抗和击败北约常规力量的窗口。
myronsnila
But at least we don’t have any more woke named ships. Priorities.
但至少我们不会再有以“觉醒”命名的舰船了。这才是重点。
MerryMisandrist
I would not take anything published in the media when it comes to the military as more than a psyop or disinformation.
涉及军方的媒体报道，我顶多把它们当作心理战或虚假信息，不会当真。
They let you see what they want you to see.
他们让你看到的，都是他们想让你看到的。
“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak"
“兵者，诡道也。能而示之不能，用而示之不用。”
Tyler-Durden-1982
Take a look at most US Navy acquisition programs over the last 30 years and you will see pretty similar things.
看看过去30年美国海军的大多数采购项目，你会发现情况都差不多。
A lot of money is burned up with very little to show for it or they end up with something 20x more costly than originally stated with only 10% of the capability.
大量资金被挥霍，却收效甚微，或者最终得到的东西成本比最初宣称的高出20倍，而效能却只达到10%。
Many like to point fingers at senior civilians in the DoD for this however this is 100% the fault of senior military leaders in the US Navy. They are in command not the civilians.
很多人喜欢把这归咎于国防部的高级文职官员，但这完全是美国海军高级军事领导人的错。他们才是掌权者，而不是文职官员。
Vhiet
You say there’s very little to show for it, but I think you’ll find that shareholders for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and The Company Formerly Known As Raytheon would disagree.
你说收效甚微，但我想洛克希德·马丁、诺斯罗普·格鲁曼以及前雷神公司的股东们恐怕不会同意。
And they are people that actually matter.
而这些人才是真正有影响力的人。
busterlowe
This is the actual answer. It’s politicians and corporate interests over military value. The military leadership isn’t choosing the contracts directly.
这才是真正的答案。与军事价值相比，政客和企业利益更受重视。军事领导层并不是直接选择合同的。
twoblades
The U.S. needs to 1) dethrone the clown car running the Whitehouse and DOJ and 2) learn all it can about unmanned warfare from Ukraine.
美国需要：1）推翻白宫和司法部那群蠢货的统治；2）尽可能向乌克兰学习无人作战技术。
JustadudefromHI
Ukraine is using drones because they don't have the capabilities of a tier 1 military. It would be silly to try and copy what Ukraine is doing because they wouldn't be doing it if they received the gear they asked for. There's definitely room for autonomous vehicles in warfare, but peer conflict with China for example won't look remotely like what's happening in Eastern Ukraine
乌克兰使用无人机是因为他们没有一流军队的能力。如果他们得到了想要的装备，就不会这么做了，所以试图照搬乌克兰的做法是愚蠢的。自主装备在战争中肯定有其位置，但与中国这样的对手发生冲突，情况与乌克兰东部的局势完全不同。
DrinkYourWaterBros
The whole smuggling of drone vans into Russia has seriously made me question our preparedness. Do we have the ability to stop that? Or stop a fleet of hundreds of drones flying into LA from a boat in the middle of the ocean?
把无人机 vans 走私到俄罗斯的事情，真的让我开始质疑我们的防备能力。我们有能力阻止这种情况吗？或者阻止数百架无人机从大洋中的一艘船上飞向洛杉矶？
Big yikes from me.
我感到非常不安。
BayouBait
The US isn’t going to beat China on tech, we’ve spent to many years worrying about dudes playing in women’s sports and building a border wall to ever catch up.
美国在技术上赢不了中国，我们花了太多时间纠结于男人参加女子体育运动以及修建边境墙，已经追不上了。
semisoftwerewolf
I knew we were cooked when I saw conservative news anchors using words like "academic" in a derogatory fashion. China values education and realizes that higher education institutions equal power. They prioritize education and value experts, so much so that they send people abroad to learn from them.
当我看到保守派新闻主播用“学术的”这个词来贬低别人时，我就知道我们完了。中国重视教育，意识到高等教育机构等同于力量。他们优先发展教育，重视专家，甚至派人参访学习。
Meanwhile here in the US, we have people trying to take down institutions of higher learning, thinking Earth is 10,000 years old, and that planes are making chemtrails.
与此同时，在美国，有人试图摧毁高等教育机构，认为地球只有1万年的历史，还觉得飞机在喷洒化学物质。
We don't deserve the top spot anymore.
我们不配再占据榜首了。
BigMax
Right. Over there they are demanding top performance from students.
说得对。在那里（中国），他们要求学生表现出顶尖水平。
Here we are fining our best academic institutions billions of dollars for not toeing the MAGA party line, and cancelling huge swaths of research simply because morons can't understand it, and not understanding it makes them uncomfortable.
而在这里，我们却因为最好的学术机构没有遵循“让美国再次伟大”的路线而对其处以数十亿美元的罚款，还因为一些蠢货无法理解某些研究就取消了大量研究项目，仅仅因为他们不理解就感到不安。
Think of how many people will literally DIE just based on mRNA research cancellation alone! All because RFK jr and other idiots don't understand anything, and therefore cancel it.
想想看，仅仅因为小罗伯特·肯尼迪等人的无知而取消mRNA研究，将会有多少人因此丧命！
ResponsibleClock9289
Sure if you ignore all the areas the US is innovating and ahead, then China is actually ahead!
当然，如果你忽视美国在所有创新和领先的领域，那么中国才是领先的！
BayouBait
Which areas is America ahead that they haven’t caught up to?
美国在哪些领域还保持领先，而中国还没有赶上？
ResponsibleClock9289
Materials sciences, AI, quantum computing, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, biotech, cybersecurity, robotics, cloud computing, list goes on and on
材料科学、人工智能、量子计算、航空航天、制药、生物技术、网络安全、机器人技术、云计算，这样的例子不胜枚举。
maChinarium-robot
Did you really include materials science here? The US can't even refine their own rare earths.
你真的把材料科学算进去了吗？美国甚至都不能自己提炼稀土。
ResponsibleClock9289
First of all, not worth the cost == not able to.
首先，不值得付出成本并不等于没有能力。
Second of all, do you even know what materials sciences are?
其次，你知道材料科学是什么吗？
busterlowe
China isn’t concerned with shareholder value when they build their war machines. They build to win.
中国在制造战争机器时并不关心股东价值。他们为了胜利而制造。
balrog687
This is, in fact, the most important strategic advantage China has.
事实上，这是中国拥有的最重要的战略优势。
For every dollar spent on defense, you have the profit cut of every single defense contractor, lobbyist, and congressman.
在每一分投入国防的资金中，都要扣除国防承包商、说客和国会议员的利润。
Plus, the exodus from academia will severely impact the quality of research.
此外，学术界人才的流失将严重影响研究质量。
Plus, every single person in a position of power is an absolut idiot who ignores science.
再加上，每个掌权者都是十足的白痴，无视科学。
What could go wrong?
还有什么可能出错呢？
billFclinton
Didn’t they spend a ton of money on missiles, then found out that they were filled with water instead of fuel during an audit?
他们不是在导弹上花了一大笔钱，后来在审计中发现导弹里装的是水而不是燃料吗？
CapableCollar
No, someone used a term that means to inflate their budget and some articles took it literally. The rockets in question were solid fuel rockets, replacing their fuel with water wouldn't even make sense as a way to hide corruption.
不，有人用了一个表示夸大预算的术语，然后一些文章就从字面上理解了。相关的火箭是固体燃料火箭，用水分代替燃料作为掩盖腐败的方式，这根本说不通。
maChinarium-robot
This is why China watchers need to learn Mandarin.
这就是为什么研究中国的人需要学习普通话。
WowBastardSia
The US also has the comfort of being buffered from everyone else by 2 gigantic bodies of water. China on the other hand is completely surrounded by US military bases that are pointed straight at China's heavily-populated coasts. If that's not incentive to innovate and manufacture as best as possible for survival, I don't know what is.
美国还有一个优势，那就是被两个巨大的水体与其他国家隔开。另一方面，中国完全被美国的军事基地包围，这些基地直指中国人口稠密的沿海地区。如果这都不是为了生存而进行创新和优化制造的动力，那我就不知道什么是了。
fishdishly
I worked on AUVs and can tell you that the shit I currently tinker with is leaps and bounds more capable than what the navy uses now. Bunch of scam ass military industrial mega corps are milking the fuck out of their contracts.
我从事自主水下航行器（AUVs）方面的工作，可以告诉你，我现在摆弄的东西比海军现在使用的要先进得多。一群骗人的军工巨头正在从他们的合同中榨取巨额利润。
EdOfTheMountain
The U.S. has no idea how to mass produce affordable drones. The weapon acquisition system is designed to as a congressional lobbyist dream to make money for giant DOD monopolies
美国根本不知道如何大规模生产价格合理的无人机。武器采购系统的设计就像是国会说客的梦想，目的是为大型国防部垄断企业赚钱。
el0_0le
So anyways, we outsourced that too.
所以，不管怎样，我们也把这个（无人机制造）外包了。
One_Particular247
They deported or banned everyone that could do it.
他们驱逐或禁止了所有有能力做这件事的人。
wisdom_seek3r
You know what they say....if you wanna get rich...get a government contract.
你知道人们怎么说……如果你想发财，就去拿政府合同。
xcz1990
sad truth is China has a plan and its heqding that way while US is just goijg backward giving up ev to go back to gas and coal says alot about current America
可悲的事实是，中国有一个计划，并且正在朝着这个方向前进，而美国却在倒退，放弃电动汽车，回到汽油和煤炭时代，这很能说明当前的美国状况。
The_Wandering_Ones
The problem is America will never be able to close the technological gap if we stop prioritizing education. Dumb people can't make cutting edge shit.
问题是，如果我们不再重视教育，美国将永远无法缩小技术差距。愚蠢的人无法制造尖端产品。
eggnogui
With MAGA essentially waging war on science and knowledge, it does not bode well for the US's long-term viability as the world's strongest military.
由于“让美国再次伟大”运动实质上是在向科学和知识宣战，这对美国作为世界最强军事力量的长期生存能力来说不是好兆头。
WordPeas
You know no one believes that tripe anymore.
你知道没人再相信那些废话了。
Inevitable_Guide_493
The US is doing (X) to take on China. It's not going well. has pretty much been the modus operandi for the last ten years.
在过去十年里，“美国正在做（某件事）以对抗中国，但进展不顺利”这一模式几乎成了常态。
评论翻译
Kahzootoh
No surprise there. They’re using one of the worst acquisition strategies ever devised, where they’re spending piles of money on R&D they don’t own any rights to and then skimping on production to “save” money.
这并不奇怪。他们采用了有史以来最糟糕的采购策略之一：在自己不拥有任何权利的研发项目上投入巨额资金，然后为了“节省”资金而缩减生产规模。
The sensible approach is to hire R&D teams to come up with proposals, with the military being the owner of whatever they sext- and then taking that design to manufacturers to have them produce it; similar to WW2 where you had dozens of different manufacturers making the same product for the military rather than each manufacturer in a given sector making their own unique product.
合理的做法应该是：雇佣研发团队提出方案，军方拥有他们所选方案的所有权，然后将该设计交给制造商进行生产。这类似于二战时期的模式——数十家不同的制造商为军方生产同一种产品，而不是特定领域的每个制造商都生产自己独有的产品。
You aren’t going to compete against China unless the government actually ends up with something more than research papers when it tries to buy ships.
除非美国政府在试图采购舰船时，最终得到的不仅仅是研究报告，否则他们根本无法与中国竞争。
clrbrk
Ya, but I bet their friends are making a shit load of money from the wasteful military contracts!
没错，但我敢打赌，他们的朋友们正从这些浪费的军事合同中赚得盆满钵满！
thewags05
I'm a scientist who works R&D for a defense contractor, mostly DARPA and AFRL stuff. The government owns and has the rights to everything they contract us to develop and pay for. It's not super common, but I have seen them take one companies stuff and have another continue the development.
我是一名在国防承包商从事研发工作的科学家，主要涉及国防高级研究计划局（DARPA）和空军研究实验室（AFRL）的项目。政府拥有并有权使用所有他们委托我们开发并支付费用的成果。虽然不常见，但我见过他们将一家公司的成果交给另一家公司继续开发的情况。
Sometimes the larger ones like Lockheed and Northrop try to get away with shenanigans and claim they internally developed key pieces. In those cases it's not rare the government requires government purpose rights for those pieces if they want continuing contracts. If they get away with the shenanigans, it's because the government contract office didn't play hardball. Or they don't think anyone else could recreate it.
有时像洛克希德·马丁和诺斯罗普·格鲁曼这样的大公司会试图耍花招，声称某些关键部分是他们内部研发的。在这种情况下，如果他们想继续获得合同，政府通常会要求对这些部分拥有政府用途权。如果他们的花招得逞，那要么是因为政府合同办公室没有采取强硬态度，要么是政府认为其他公司无法复制这些成果。
thewags05
Yeah that's also a big reason they're getting away from cost plus contracts as much as they can. That whole thing was a giant boondoggle with plenty of blame for everyone to go around.
是的，这也是他们尽可能摆脱成本加成合同的一个重要原因。那整个机制就是一场巨大的骗局，每个人都难辞其咎。
kymri
cost plus contracts 成本加成合同
cost plus contracts 成本加成合同
At first glance, that sounds reasonable. You build the thing the government wants, and they pay you a predictable profit on each unit (or whatever) and so sudden cost-inflation (such as with tarriffs, as one COMPLETELY RANDOM example) of production doesn't ruin the producer.
乍一看，这似乎合情合理。你按政府的要求制造产品，他们按每单位（或其他标准）给你一笔可预测的利润，这样生产过程中突然出现的成本上涨（比如关税，举一个完全随机的例子）就不会搞垮生产商。
Then you think about it for more than two seconds and you realize how absolutely INSANE the scope for corruption and graft is...
但稍微多想一下，你就会意识到这种模式存在极大的腐败和贪污空间……
GooberMcNutly
Public cost and private profit. We the people pay for everything but get nothing. See medical research. They must have the same business plans.
公共成本，私人利润。我们民众付出了一切，却什么也得不到。看看医学研究就知道了。他们的商业模式肯定是一样的。
ilski
So you are just some guy on the internet who gives better solution just like that.
所以你就只是个在网上随便给出更好解决方案的人而已。
What stops them from doing it the reasonable way? Why are they so stubborn on doing it inefficient way?
是什么阻止了他们采取合理的方式呢？为什么他们固执地采用低效的方法？
Tasmosunt
The same reason structural failures have stubbornly persisted throughout history, the people making the decisions benefit from it being that way.
就像历史上结构性问题始终存在一样，做出决策的人能从中获益，所以事情才会是这个样子。
redvelvetcake42
Late stage capitalism requires palms be not just greased but the entire person be greased. It's corruption on an unprecedented scale. We're reaching a Russian level but with more money. Poorly produced goods being "used" by the military in order to get a fat bonus in somebody's pocket. No care as to its effectiveness.
晚期资本主义不仅要求行贿，甚至要求整个体制都被腐蚀。这是前所未有的腐败规模。我们正朝着俄罗斯的水平发展，只是钱更多而已。军方使用劣质产品，只为让某些人中饱私囊，根本不在乎产品的效能。
morningreis
They’re using one of the worst acquisition strategies ever devised
他们采用了有史以来最糟糕的采购策略之一。
So true and yet such an understatement.
这话太对了，但还是说得太轻了。
Besides the R&D process, the military is allergic to using off-the-shelf solutions that work, in favor of bespoke solutions which need to be invented to fit the concept of operations that the military wants. So then defense contractors (aka Boeing) will say anything to get a contract, but have no capability or intent to deliver on a reasonable cost or schedule. The military gets suckered in by the unfeasibly low costs of a contractor's bid, and then is in a compromising position when they're left with a quagmire of a program. Then the sunk-cost fallacy begins
除了研发过程，军方还不愿意使用现成的有效解决方案，反而倾向于定制化解决方案——这些方案需要为了符合军方的作战概念而专门研发。因此，像波音这样的国防承包商为了拿到合同会说尽好话，但根本没有能力或意愿在合理的成本和时间内交付产品。军方被承包商看似极低的报价所迷惑，然后就陷入了项目的泥潭。接着，沉没成本谬误就开始作祟了。
HapticRecce
Ukrainians seem to have it figured out, maybe pick some up from them...
乌克兰人似乎已经搞明白了，或许可以向他们学学……
Ok-Afternoon-9268
They ARE learning from Ukraine. However the Black Sea is different from the Taiwan strait. The us needs swarms and has a different use case than Ukraine.
他们确实在向乌克兰学习。然而，黑海与台湾（地区）海峡不同。美国需要无人机群，其使用场景与乌克兰不同。
EdOfTheMountain
Cake icon
Yes that should be the “art of the deal”. To get Ukrainian war fighting knowledge to help the US.
这本来就应该是“交易的艺术”——利用乌克兰的作战经验来帮助美国。
Instead Trump does everything he can to help Putin and destroy America to China and Russias delight
然而，特朗普却竭尽所能帮助普京，损害美国的利益，让中国和俄罗斯暗自窃喜。
Freshwater_Spaceman
A nightmare scenario is that the Trumpoids undermine Ukranie to the point that the country is engulfed by Russia.
一个可怕的场景是：特朗普的支持者们削弱乌克兰，以至于这个国家被俄罗斯吞并。
All of that drone technology, the piloting experience, the AI developed to target… all handed over to Russia and China. It’d be like operation paperclip in reverse.
所有的无人机技术、驾驶经验、用于瞄准的人工智能……都会落入俄罗斯和中国手中。这就像是反向的“回形针行动”。
They might even get a Von Braun equivalent in drone warfare, maybe not as an individual but a package, a team of developers, an assembly line and a window into how to counter and beat NATO conventionally.
他们甚至可能得到无人机 warfare 领域的冯·布劳恩式人物，也许不是单个人，而是一个团队——一群开发者、一条生产线，以及洞悉如何对抗和击败北约常规力量的窗口。
myronsnila
But at least we don’t have any more woke named ships. Priorities.
但至少我们不会再有以“觉醒”命名的舰船了。这才是重点。
MerryMisandrist
I would not take anything published in the media when it comes to the military as more than a psyop or disinformation.
涉及军方的媒体报道，我顶多把它们当作心理战或虚假信息，不会当真。
They let you see what they want you to see.
他们让你看到的，都是他们想让你看到的。
“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak"
“兵者，诡道也。能而示之不能，用而示之不用。”
Tyler-Durden-1982
Take a look at most US Navy acquisition programs over the last 30 years and you will see pretty similar things.
看看过去30年美国海军的大多数采购项目，你会发现情况都差不多。
A lot of money is burned up with very little to show for it or they end up with something 20x more costly than originally stated with only 10% of the capability.
大量资金被挥霍，却收效甚微，或者最终得到的东西成本比最初宣称的高出20倍，而效能却只达到10%。
Many like to point fingers at senior civilians in the DoD for this however this is 100% the fault of senior military leaders in the US Navy. They are in command not the civilians.
很多人喜欢把这归咎于国防部的高级文职官员，但这完全是美国海军高级军事领导人的错。他们才是掌权者，而不是文职官员。
Vhiet
You say there’s very little to show for it, but I think you’ll find that shareholders for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and The Company Formerly Known As Raytheon would disagree.
你说收效甚微，但我想洛克希德·马丁、诺斯罗普·格鲁曼以及前雷神公司的股东们恐怕不会同意。
And they are people that actually matter.
而这些人才是真正有影响力的人。
busterlowe
This is the actual answer. It’s politicians and corporate interests over military value. The military leadership isn’t choosing the contracts directly.
这才是真正的答案。与军事价值相比，政客和企业利益更受重视。军事领导层并不是直接选择合同的。
twoblades
The U.S. needs to 1) dethrone the clown car running the Whitehouse and DOJ and 2) learn all it can about unmanned warfare from Ukraine.
美国需要：1）推翻白宫和司法部那群蠢货的统治；2）尽可能向乌克兰学习无人作战技术。
JustadudefromHI
Ukraine is using drones because they don't have the capabilities of a tier 1 military. It would be silly to try and copy what Ukraine is doing because they wouldn't be doing it if they received the gear they asked for. There's definitely room for autonomous vehicles in warfare, but peer conflict with China for example won't look remotely like what's happening in Eastern Ukraine
乌克兰使用无人机是因为他们没有一流军队的能力。如果他们得到了想要的装备，就不会这么做了，所以试图照搬乌克兰的做法是愚蠢的。自主装备在战争中肯定有其位置，但与中国这样的对手发生冲突，情况与乌克兰东部的局势完全不同。
DrinkYourWaterBros
The whole smuggling of drone vans into Russia has seriously made me question our preparedness. Do we have the ability to stop that? Or stop a fleet of hundreds of drones flying into LA from a boat in the middle of the ocean?
把无人机 vans 走私到俄罗斯的事情，真的让我开始质疑我们的防备能力。我们有能力阻止这种情况吗？或者阻止数百架无人机从大洋中的一艘船上飞向洛杉矶？
Big yikes from me.
我感到非常不安。
BayouBait
The US isn’t going to beat China on tech, we’ve spent to many years worrying about dudes playing in women’s sports and building a border wall to ever catch up.
美国在技术上赢不了中国，我们花了太多时间纠结于男人参加女子体育运动以及修建边境墙，已经追不上了。
semisoftwerewolf
I knew we were cooked when I saw conservative news anchors using words like "academic" in a derogatory fashion. China values education and realizes that higher education institutions equal power. They prioritize education and value experts, so much so that they send people abroad to learn from them.
当我看到保守派新闻主播用“学术的”这个词来贬低别人时，我就知道我们完了。中国重视教育，意识到高等教育机构等同于力量。他们优先发展教育，重视专家，甚至派人参访学习。
Meanwhile here in the US, we have people trying to take down institutions of higher learning, thinking Earth is 10,000 years old, and that planes are making chemtrails.
与此同时，在美国，有人试图摧毁高等教育机构，认为地球只有1万年的历史，还觉得飞机在喷洒化学物质。
We don't deserve the top spot anymore.
我们不配再占据榜首了。
BigMax
Right. Over there they are demanding top performance from students.
说得对。在那里（中国），他们要求学生表现出顶尖水平。
Here we are fining our best academic institutions billions of dollars for not toeing the MAGA party line, and cancelling huge swaths of research simply because morons can't understand it, and not understanding it makes them uncomfortable.
而在这里，我们却因为最好的学术机构没有遵循“让美国再次伟大”的路线而对其处以数十亿美元的罚款，还因为一些蠢货无法理解某些研究就取消了大量研究项目，仅仅因为他们不理解就感到不安。
Think of how many people will literally DIE just based on mRNA research cancellation alone! All because RFK jr and other idiots don't understand anything, and therefore cancel it.
想想看，仅仅因为小罗伯特·肯尼迪等人的无知而取消mRNA研究，将会有多少人因此丧命！
ResponsibleClock9289
Sure if you ignore all the areas the US is innovating and ahead, then China is actually ahead!
当然，如果你忽视美国在所有创新和领先的领域，那么中国才是领先的！
BayouBait
Which areas is America ahead that they haven’t caught up to?
美国在哪些领域还保持领先，而中国还没有赶上？
ResponsibleClock9289
Materials sciences, AI, quantum computing, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, biotech, cybersecurity, robotics, cloud computing, list goes on and on
材料科学、人工智能、量子计算、航空航天、制药、生物技术、网络安全、机器人技术、云计算，这样的例子不胜枚举。
maChinarium-robot
Did you really include materials science here? The US can't even refine their own rare earths.
你真的把材料科学算进去了吗？美国甚至都不能自己提炼稀土。
ResponsibleClock9289
First of all, not worth the cost == not able to.
首先，不值得付出成本并不等于没有能力。
Second of all, do you even know what materials sciences are?
其次，你知道材料科学是什么吗？
busterlowe
China isn’t concerned with shareholder value when they build their war machines. They build to win.
中国在制造战争机器时并不关心股东价值。他们为了胜利而制造。
balrog687
This is, in fact, the most important strategic advantage China has.
事实上，这是中国拥有的最重要的战略优势。
For every dollar spent on defense, you have the profit cut of every single defense contractor, lobbyist, and congressman.
在每一分投入国防的资金中，都要扣除国防承包商、说客和国会议员的利润。
Plus, the exodus from academia will severely impact the quality of research.
此外，学术界人才的流失将严重影响研究质量。
Plus, every single person in a position of power is an absolut idiot who ignores science.
再加上，每个掌权者都是十足的白痴，无视科学。
What could go wrong?
还有什么可能出错呢？
billFclinton
Didn’t they spend a ton of money on missiles, then found out that they were filled with water instead of fuel during an audit?
他们不是在导弹上花了一大笔钱，后来在审计中发现导弹里装的是水而不是燃料吗？
CapableCollar
No, someone used a term that means to inflate their budget and some articles took it literally. The rockets in question were solid fuel rockets, replacing their fuel with water wouldn't even make sense as a way to hide corruption.
不，有人用了一个表示夸大预算的术语，然后一些文章就从字面上理解了。相关的火箭是固体燃料火箭，用水分代替燃料作为掩盖腐败的方式，这根本说不通。
maChinarium-robot
This is why China watchers need to learn Mandarin.
这就是为什么研究中国的人需要学习普通话。
WowBastardSia
The US also has the comfort of being buffered from everyone else by 2 gigantic bodies of water. China on the other hand is completely surrounded by US military bases that are pointed straight at China's heavily-populated coasts. If that's not incentive to innovate and manufacture as best as possible for survival, I don't know what is.
美国还有一个优势，那就是被两个巨大的水体与其他国家隔开。另一方面，中国完全被美国的军事基地包围，这些基地直指中国人口稠密的沿海地区。如果这都不是为了生存而进行创新和优化制造的动力，那我就不知道什么是了。
fishdishly
I worked on AUVs and can tell you that the shit I currently tinker with is leaps and bounds more capable than what the navy uses now. Bunch of scam ass military industrial mega corps are milking the fuck out of their contracts.
我从事自主水下航行器（AUVs）方面的工作，可以告诉你，我现在摆弄的东西比海军现在使用的要先进得多。一群骗人的军工巨头正在从他们的合同中榨取巨额利润。
EdOfTheMountain
The U.S. has no idea how to mass produce affordable drones. The weapon acquisition system is designed to as a congressional lobbyist dream to make money for giant DOD monopolies
美国根本不知道如何大规模生产价格合理的无人机。武器采购系统的设计就像是国会说客的梦想，目的是为大型国防部垄断企业赚钱。
el0_0le
So anyways, we outsourced that too.
所以，不管怎样，我们也把这个（无人机制造）外包了。
One_Particular247
They deported or banned everyone that could do it.
他们驱逐或禁止了所有有能力做这件事的人。
wisdom_seek3r
You know what they say....if you wanna get rich...get a government contract.
你知道人们怎么说……如果你想发财，就去拿政府合同。
xcz1990
sad truth is China has a plan and its heqding that way while US is just goijg backward giving up ev to go back to gas and coal says alot about current America
可悲的事实是，中国有一个计划，并且正在朝着这个方向前进，而美国却在倒退，放弃电动汽车，回到汽油和煤炭时代，这很能说明当前的美国状况。
The_Wandering_Ones
The problem is America will never be able to close the technological gap if we stop prioritizing education. Dumb people can't make cutting edge shit.
问题是，如果我们不再重视教育，美国将永远无法缩小技术差距。愚蠢的人无法制造尖端产品。
eggnogui
With MAGA essentially waging war on science and knowledge, it does not bode well for the US's long-term viability as the world's strongest military.
由于“让美国再次伟大”运动实质上是在向科学和知识宣战，这对美国作为世界最强军事力量的长期生存能力来说不是好兆头。
WordPeas
You know no one believes that tripe anymore.
你知道没人再相信那些废话了。
Inevitable_Guide_493
The US is doing (X) to take on China. It's not going well. has pretty much been the modus operandi for the last ten years.
在过去十年里，“美国正在做（某件事）以对抗中国，但进展不顺利”这一模式几乎成了常态。
No surprise there. They’re using one of the worst acquisition strategies ever devised, where they’re spending piles of money on R&D they don’t own any rights to and then skimping on production to “save” money.
这并不奇怪。他们采用了有史以来最糟糕的采购策略之一：在自己不拥有任何权利的研发项目上投入巨额资金，然后为了“节省”资金而缩减生产规模。
The sensible approach is to hire R&D teams to come up with proposals, with the military being the owner of whatever they sext- and then taking that design to manufacturers to have them produce it; similar to WW2 where you had dozens of different manufacturers making the same product for the military rather than each manufacturer in a given sector making their own unique product.
合理的做法应该是：雇佣研发团队提出方案，军方拥有他们所选方案的所有权，然后将该设计交给制造商进行生产。这类似于二战时期的模式——数十家不同的制造商为军方生产同一种产品，而不是特定领域的每个制造商都生产自己独有的产品。
You aren’t going to compete against China unless the government actually ends up with something more than research papers when it tries to buy ships.
除非美国政府在试图采购舰船时，最终得到的不仅仅是研究报告，否则他们根本无法与中国竞争。
clrbrk
Ya, but I bet their friends are making a shit load of money from the wasteful military contracts!
没错，但我敢打赌，他们的朋友们正从这些浪费的军事合同中赚得盆满钵满！
thewags05
I'm a scientist who works R&D for a defense contractor, mostly DARPA and AFRL stuff. The government owns and has the rights to everything they contract us to develop and pay for. It's not super common, but I have seen them take one companies stuff and have another continue the development.
我是一名在国防承包商从事研发工作的科学家，主要涉及国防高级研究计划局（DARPA）和空军研究实验室（AFRL）的项目。政府拥有并有权使用所有他们委托我们开发并支付费用的成果。虽然不常见，但我见过他们将一家公司的成果交给另一家公司继续开发的情况。
Sometimes the larger ones like Lockheed and Northrop try to get away with shenanigans and claim they internally developed key pieces. In those cases it's not rare the government requires government purpose rights for those pieces if they want continuing contracts. If they get away with the shenanigans, it's because the government contract office didn't play hardball. Or they don't think anyone else could recreate it.
有时像洛克希德·马丁和诺斯罗普·格鲁曼这样的大公司会试图耍花招，声称某些关键部分是他们内部研发的。在这种情况下，如果他们想继续获得合同，政府通常会要求对这些部分拥有政府用途权。如果他们的花招得逞，那要么是因为政府合同办公室没有采取强硬态度，要么是政府认为其他公司无法复制这些成果。
thewags05
Yeah that's also a big reason they're getting away from cost plus contracts as much as they can. That whole thing was a giant boondoggle with plenty of blame for everyone to go around.
是的，这也是他们尽可能摆脱成本加成合同的一个重要原因。那整个机制就是一场巨大的骗局，每个人都难辞其咎。
kymri
cost plus contracts 成本加成合同
cost plus contracts 成本加成合同
At first glance, that sounds reasonable. You build the thing the government wants, and they pay you a predictable profit on each unit (or whatever) and so sudden cost-inflation (such as with tarriffs, as one COMPLETELY RANDOM example) of production doesn't ruin the producer.
乍一看，这似乎合情合理。你按政府的要求制造产品，他们按每单位（或其他标准）给你一笔可预测的利润，这样生产过程中突然出现的成本上涨（比如关税，举一个完全随机的例子）就不会搞垮生产商。
Then you think about it for more than two seconds and you realize how absolutely INSANE the scope for corruption and graft is...
但稍微多想一下，你就会意识到这种模式存在极大的腐败和贪污空间……
GooberMcNutly
Public cost and private profit. We the people pay for everything but get nothing. See medical research. They must have the same business plans.
公共成本，私人利润。我们民众付出了一切，却什么也得不到。看看医学研究就知道了。他们的商业模式肯定是一样的。
ilski
So you are just some guy on the internet who gives better solution just like that.
所以你就只是个在网上随便给出更好解决方案的人而已。
What stops them from doing it the reasonable way? Why are they so stubborn on doing it inefficient way?
是什么阻止了他们采取合理的方式呢？为什么他们固执地采用低效的方法？
Tasmosunt
The same reason structural failures have stubbornly persisted throughout history, the people making the decisions benefit from it being that way.
就像历史上结构性问题始终存在一样，做出决策的人能从中获益，所以事情才会是这个样子。
redvelvetcake42
Late stage capitalism requires palms be not just greased but the entire person be greased. It's corruption on an unprecedented scale. We're reaching a Russian level but with more money. Poorly produced goods being "used" by the military in order to get a fat bonus in somebody's pocket. No care as to its effectiveness.
晚期资本主义不仅要求行贿，甚至要求整个体制都被腐蚀。这是前所未有的腐败规模。我们正朝着俄罗斯的水平发展，只是钱更多而已。军方使用劣质产品，只为让某些人中饱私囊，根本不在乎产品的效能。
morningreis
They’re using one of the worst acquisition strategies ever devised
他们采用了有史以来最糟糕的采购策略之一。
So true and yet such an understatement.
这话太对了，但还是说得太轻了。
Besides the R&D process, the military is allergic to using off-the-shelf solutions that work, in favor of bespoke solutions which need to be invented to fit the concept of operations that the military wants. So then defense contractors (aka Boeing) will say anything to get a contract, but have no capability or intent to deliver on a reasonable cost or schedule. The military gets suckered in by the unfeasibly low costs of a contractor's bid, and then is in a compromising position when they're left with a quagmire of a program. Then the sunk-cost fallacy begins
除了研发过程，军方还不愿意使用现成的有效解决方案，反而倾向于定制化解决方案——这些方案需要为了符合军方的作战概念而专门研发。因此，像波音这样的国防承包商为了拿到合同会说尽好话，但根本没有能力或意愿在合理的成本和时间内交付产品。军方被承包商看似极低的报价所迷惑，然后就陷入了项目的泥潭。接着，沉没成本谬误就开始作祟了。
HapticRecce
Ukrainians seem to have it figured out, maybe pick some up from them...
乌克兰人似乎已经搞明白了，或许可以向他们学学……
Ok-Afternoon-9268
They ARE learning from Ukraine. However the Black Sea is different from the Taiwan strait. The us needs swarms and has a different use case than Ukraine.
他们确实在向乌克兰学习。然而，黑海与台湾（地区）海峡不同。美国需要无人机群，其使用场景与乌克兰不同。
EdOfTheMountain
Cake icon
Yes that should be the “art of the deal”. To get Ukrainian war fighting knowledge to help the US.
这本来就应该是“交易的艺术”——利用乌克兰的作战经验来帮助美国。
Instead Trump does everything he can to help Putin and destroy America to China and Russias delight
然而，特朗普却竭尽所能帮助普京，损害美国的利益，让中国和俄罗斯暗自窃喜。
Freshwater_Spaceman
A nightmare scenario is that the Trumpoids undermine Ukranie to the point that the country is engulfed by Russia.
一个可怕的场景是：特朗普的支持者们削弱乌克兰，以至于这个国家被俄罗斯吞并。
All of that drone technology, the piloting experience, the AI developed to target… all handed over to Russia and China. It’d be like operation paperclip in reverse.
所有的无人机技术、驾驶经验、用于瞄准的人工智能……都会落入俄罗斯和中国手中。这就像是反向的“回形针行动”。
They might even get a Von Braun equivalent in drone warfare, maybe not as an individual but a package, a team of developers, an assembly line and a window into how to counter and beat NATO conventionally.
他们甚至可能得到无人机 warfare 领域的冯·布劳恩式人物，也许不是单个人，而是一个团队——一群开发者、一条生产线，以及洞悉如何对抗和击败北约常规力量的窗口。
myronsnila
But at least we don’t have any more woke named ships. Priorities.
但至少我们不会再有以“觉醒”命名的舰船了。这才是重点。
MerryMisandrist
I would not take anything published in the media when it comes to the military as more than a psyop or disinformation.
涉及军方的媒体报道，我顶多把它们当作心理战或虚假信息，不会当真。
They let you see what they want you to see.
他们让你看到的，都是他们想让你看到的。
“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak"
“兵者，诡道也。能而示之不能，用而示之不用。”
Tyler-Durden-1982
Take a look at most US Navy acquisition programs over the last 30 years and you will see pretty similar things.
看看过去30年美国海军的大多数采购项目，你会发现情况都差不多。
A lot of money is burned up with very little to show for it or they end up with something 20x more costly than originally stated with only 10% of the capability.
大量资金被挥霍，却收效甚微，或者最终得到的东西成本比最初宣称的高出20倍，而效能却只达到10%。
Many like to point fingers at senior civilians in the DoD for this however this is 100% the fault of senior military leaders in the US Navy. They are in command not the civilians.
很多人喜欢把这归咎于国防部的高级文职官员，但这完全是美国海军高级军事领导人的错。他们才是掌权者，而不是文职官员。
Vhiet
You say there’s very little to show for it, but I think you’ll find that shareholders for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and The Company Formerly Known As Raytheon would disagree.
你说收效甚微，但我想洛克希德·马丁、诺斯罗普·格鲁曼以及前雷神公司的股东们恐怕不会同意。
And they are people that actually matter.
而这些人才是真正有影响力的人。
busterlowe
This is the actual answer. It’s politicians and corporate interests over military value. The military leadership isn’t choosing the contracts directly.
这才是真正的答案。与军事价值相比，政客和企业利益更受重视。军事领导层并不是直接选择合同的。
twoblades
The U.S. needs to 1) dethrone the clown car running the Whitehouse and DOJ and 2) learn all it can about unmanned warfare from Ukraine.
美国需要：1）推翻白宫和司法部那群蠢货的统治；2）尽可能向乌克兰学习无人作战技术。
JustadudefromHI
Ukraine is using drones because they don't have the capabilities of a tier 1 military. It would be silly to try and copy what Ukraine is doing because they wouldn't be doing it if they received the gear they asked for. There's definitely room for autonomous vehicles in warfare, but peer conflict with China for example won't look remotely like what's happening in Eastern Ukraine
乌克兰使用无人机是因为他们没有一流军队的能力。如果他们得到了想要的装备，就不会这么做了，所以试图照搬乌克兰的做法是愚蠢的。自主装备在战争中肯定有其位置，但与中国这样的对手发生冲突，情况与乌克兰东部的局势完全不同。
DrinkYourWaterBros
The whole smuggling of drone vans into Russia has seriously made me question our preparedness. Do we have the ability to stop that? Or stop a fleet of hundreds of drones flying into LA from a boat in the middle of the ocean?
把无人机 vans 走私到俄罗斯的事情，真的让我开始质疑我们的防备能力。我们有能力阻止这种情况吗？或者阻止数百架无人机从大洋中的一艘船上飞向洛杉矶？
Big yikes from me.
我感到非常不安。
BayouBait
The US isn’t going to beat China on tech, we’ve spent to many years worrying about dudes playing in women’s sports and building a border wall to ever catch up.
美国在技术上赢不了中国，我们花了太多时间纠结于男人参加女子体育运动以及修建边境墙，已经追不上了。
semisoftwerewolf
I knew we were cooked when I saw conservative news anchors using words like "academic" in a derogatory fashion. China values education and realizes that higher education institutions equal power. They prioritize education and value experts, so much so that they send people abroad to learn from them.
当我看到保守派新闻主播用“学术的”这个词来贬低别人时，我就知道我们完了。中国重视教育，意识到高等教育机构等同于力量。他们优先发展教育，重视专家，甚至派人参访学习。
Meanwhile here in the US, we have people trying to take down institutions of higher learning, thinking Earth is 10,000 years old, and that planes are making chemtrails.
与此同时，在美国，有人试图摧毁高等教育机构，认为地球只有1万年的历史，还觉得飞机在喷洒化学物质。
We don't deserve the top spot anymore.
我们不配再占据榜首了。
BigMax
Right. Over there they are demanding top performance from students.
说得对。在那里（中国），他们要求学生表现出顶尖水平。
Here we are fining our best academic institutions billions of dollars for not toeing the MAGA party line, and cancelling huge swaths of research simply because morons can't understand it, and not understanding it makes them uncomfortable.
而在这里，我们却因为最好的学术机构没有遵循“让美国再次伟大”的路线而对其处以数十亿美元的罚款，还因为一些蠢货无法理解某些研究就取消了大量研究项目，仅仅因为他们不理解就感到不安。
Think of how many people will literally DIE just based on mRNA research cancellation alone! All because RFK jr and other idiots don't understand anything, and therefore cancel it.
想想看，仅仅因为小罗伯特·肯尼迪等人的无知而取消mRNA研究，将会有多少人因此丧命！
ResponsibleClock9289
Sure if you ignore all the areas the US is innovating and ahead, then China is actually ahead!
当然，如果你忽视美国在所有创新和领先的领域，那么中国才是领先的！
BayouBait
Which areas is America ahead that they haven’t caught up to?
美国在哪些领域还保持领先，而中国还没有赶上？
ResponsibleClock9289
Materials sciences, AI, quantum computing, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, biotech, cybersecurity, robotics, cloud computing, list goes on and on
材料科学、人工智能、量子计算、航空航天、制药、生物技术、网络安全、机器人技术、云计算，这样的例子不胜枚举。
maChinarium-robot
Did you really include materials science here? The US can't even refine their own rare earths.
你真的把材料科学算进去了吗？美国甚至都不能自己提炼稀土。
ResponsibleClock9289
First of all, not worth the cost == not able to.
首先，不值得付出成本并不等于没有能力。
Second of all, do you even know what materials sciences are?
其次，你知道材料科学是什么吗？
busterlowe
China isn’t concerned with shareholder value when they build their war machines. They build to win.
中国在制造战争机器时并不关心股东价值。他们为了胜利而制造。
balrog687
This is, in fact, the most important strategic advantage China has.
事实上，这是中国拥有的最重要的战略优势。
For every dollar spent on defense, you have the profit cut of every single defense contractor, lobbyist, and congressman.
在每一分投入国防的资金中，都要扣除国防承包商、说客和国会议员的利润。
Plus, the exodus from academia will severely impact the quality of research.
此外，学术界人才的流失将严重影响研究质量。
Plus, every single person in a position of power is an absolut idiot who ignores science.
再加上，每个掌权者都是十足的白痴，无视科学。
What could go wrong?
还有什么可能出错呢？
billFclinton
Didn’t they spend a ton of money on missiles, then found out that they were filled with water instead of fuel during an audit?
他们不是在导弹上花了一大笔钱，后来在审计中发现导弹里装的是水而不是燃料吗？
CapableCollar
No, someone used a term that means to inflate their budget and some articles took it literally. The rockets in question were solid fuel rockets, replacing their fuel with water wouldn't even make sense as a way to hide corruption.
不，有人用了一个表示夸大预算的术语，然后一些文章就从字面上理解了。相关的火箭是固体燃料火箭，用水分代替燃料作为掩盖腐败的方式，这根本说不通。
maChinarium-robot
This is why China watchers need to learn Mandarin.
这就是为什么研究中国的人需要学习普通话。
WowBastardSia
The US also has the comfort of being buffered from everyone else by 2 gigantic bodies of water. China on the other hand is completely surrounded by US military bases that are pointed straight at China's heavily-populated coasts. If that's not incentive to innovate and manufacture as best as possible for survival, I don't know what is.
美国还有一个优势，那就是被两个巨大的水体与其他国家隔开。另一方面，中国完全被美国的军事基地包围，这些基地直指中国人口稠密的沿海地区。如果这都不是为了生存而进行创新和优化制造的动力，那我就不知道什么是了。
fishdishly
I worked on AUVs and can tell you that the shit I currently tinker with is leaps and bounds more capable than what the navy uses now. Bunch of scam ass military industrial mega corps are milking the fuck out of their contracts.
我从事自主水下航行器（AUVs）方面的工作，可以告诉你，我现在摆弄的东西比海军现在使用的要先进得多。一群骗人的军工巨头正在从他们的合同中榨取巨额利润。
EdOfTheMountain
The U.S. has no idea how to mass produce affordable drones. The weapon acquisition system is designed to as a congressional lobbyist dream to make money for giant DOD monopolies
美国根本不知道如何大规模生产价格合理的无人机。武器采购系统的设计就像是国会说客的梦想，目的是为大型国防部垄断企业赚钱。
el0_0le
So anyways, we outsourced that too.
所以，不管怎样，我们也把这个（无人机制造）外包了。
One_Particular247
They deported or banned everyone that could do it.
他们驱逐或禁止了所有有能力做这件事的人。
wisdom_seek3r
You know what they say....if you wanna get rich...get a government contract.
你知道人们怎么说……如果你想发财，就去拿政府合同。
xcz1990
sad truth is China has a plan and its heqding that way while US is just goijg backward giving up ev to go back to gas and coal says alot about current America
可悲的事实是，中国有一个计划，并且正在朝着这个方向前进，而美国却在倒退，放弃电动汽车，回到汽油和煤炭时代，这很能说明当前的美国状况。
The_Wandering_Ones
The problem is America will never be able to close the technological gap if we stop prioritizing education. Dumb people can't make cutting edge shit.
问题是，如果我们不再重视教育，美国将永远无法缩小技术差距。愚蠢的人无法制造尖端产品。
eggnogui
With MAGA essentially waging war on science and knowledge, it does not bode well for the US's long-term viability as the world's strongest military.
由于“让美国再次伟大”运动实质上是在向科学和知识宣战，这对美国作为世界最强军事力量的长期生存能力来说不是好兆头。
WordPeas
You know no one believes that tripe anymore.
你知道没人再相信那些废话了。
Inevitable_Guide_493
The US is doing (X) to take on China. It's not going well. has pretty much been the modus operandi for the last ten years.
在过去十年里，“美国正在做（某件事）以对抗中国，但进展不顺利”这一模式几乎成了常态。
很赞 7
收藏