翻譯的國外網站對NATF項目內容：是美海軍主動放棄NATF_風聞

（一直以來國內都有美國海軍NATF項目是蘇聯解體的原因被美國會砍掉的説法，以前在這方面也討論過，也給過相關的英文説明，包括下面的鏈接文章我也發過和翻譯過，但是很遺憾不知道是一些人沒有看過，還是看過但沒有改變看法。現在重新翻譯，帖到下面供大家參考。）

Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) 1988-1991—美海軍先進戰術飛機（NATF）1988-1991

鏈接：http://www.globalsecurity.org/military///systems//aircraft/natf.htm

Due to Congressional intervention, the US Navy agreed to evaluate a navalized version of the US Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter (now the F/A-22) as a possible replacement for their F-14s. In return, the US Air Force would evaluate a derivative of the ATA as a replacement for their F-111s. 因為國會干預，美國海軍同意評估美國空軍的先進戰術飛機(現在的F/A-22)的海軍化版本來替代海軍的F-14，作為回報，美國空軍同意評估先進戰術攻擊機(ATA即A-12)的衍生來替代空軍的F-111。

In late 1988, a Naval ATF (NATF) program office was set up at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the existing ATF Dem/Val contracts were modified to include studies of potential NATF variants. 在1988年晚些時候，一個海軍先進戰術戰鬥機（NATF）辦公室在賴特-帕特森空軍基地成立，評估已有的先進戰術飛機研製機型的驗證合同,看如何能夠調整合同包含NATF到裏面。

The Major Aircraft Review reduced the peak production rates of both the ATF and NATF. This had the effect of substantially increasing the program cost. In August 1990, Admiral Richard Dunleavy, who was in charge of Navy aircraft requirements, stated that he did not see how the NATF could fit into any affordable plan for naval aviation. In early 1991, before the final contractor for the ATF was even selected, the consideration of the NATF was dropped. This was mainly due to the fact that the Navy realized that a series of upgrades to their existing F-14’s could meet the Navy’s air superiority needs through 2015. （美國國防部的）主戰飛機評估的結果削減了ATF和NATF的峯值產量，這大幅度增加了項目的開支。在1990年8月，負責海軍作戰飛機需求的理查德•鄧利維上將説，他看不出NATF怎麼能讓海軍航空負擔得起。在1991年早期（大概是1991年2月），美國空軍選定最終的ATF供應商前，海軍放棄了NATF項目。主要原因是美海軍認為對現有的F-14進行一系列升級就能夠滿足海軍的空中優勢到2015年。

The F-22N was studied in the Major Aircraft Review as an NATF concept, and canceled in large measure because the projected high gross take-off weight exceed the capacity of current carriers. （美國國防部的）主戰飛機評估也研究了F-22N（F-22海軍型）成為NATF的可能，但後來取消了，很大程度上是因為（F-22N的）最大起飛重量超過了現有航母的能力。

Carrier aircraft fly slower approaches than land-based aircraft and must be able to perform a wave off at low speed. Therefore, a full power 1.5g turn at 0.2M and sea level with all stores and reserve fuel on board may be needed to ensure an adequate maneuver margin. This requirement determines the wing loading for sea-based aircraft [the SSF was exempt from this wave off requirement because it performs vertical landings]. 航母艦載機比陸基飛機具有更低的進近速度，並且希望能夠在更低速度放棄降落重新拉起。所以，要求飛機能夠攜充足的（保留足夠的迴旋能力）降落燃油和必要的載荷情況下，在海平面高度0.2馬赫速度下具有1.5g的轉彎（機）動能力。這個要求決定了艦載機的翼載【未翻譯這句話，不清楚SSF的意思。the SSF was exempt from this wave off requirement because it performs vertical landings 】。

Carrier operations require heavier structures for several reasons: 1) arrested landings require a tail hook and reinforced fuselage, 2) landing gear are designed for 24 ft/s sink rate, and 3) catapult launches require reinforced nose gear and a strengthened fuselage. These weight increments are difficult to quantify because there are no data for aircraft that were designed for both land-based and sea-based operations with exactly the same mission capability. For example, contrary to the expected navalization penalty, the land-based F-4 actually had a higher empty weight than the carrier-based version. But in this case the land-based version used the increased strength and wing area of the carrier aircraft to carry an increased equipment load, which equates to higher mission capability. Similarly, few aircraft have successfully made the transition from land-based to sea-based operations. The carrier version of the British Hawk did perform catapult launches and arrested landings but required substantial structural reinforcement to do so. The navalized Hawk is approximately 11% heavier empty, but it can no longer fly as far as the land-based version. 航母上操作要求（飛機）有更重的結構重量原因有幾個：1）攔阻着陸需要增加尾鈎和更強的機身，2）起落架要滿足24英尺/秒的下降率，3）彈射起飛要求加強前起落架和機身結構強度。這些重量難以準確量化，因為沒有關於飛機設計成同時滿足陸基和海基操作並具有完全同樣的任務能力的相關數據。譬如，與預期相反，陸基F-4實際上比艦載版本空重還要大。不過這種情況下陸基版本增加了結構強度和機翼面積也提升了載荷能力，相應的也具有更高的任務能力。類似的，少有飛機成功的從陸基飛機改成艦載機。英國鷹式教練機艦載版本為了彈射和攔阻着艦做了大量的結構加強工作。艦載鷹式增加了11%的空重，飛行距離也比達不到陸基飛機的距離。

Since historical research did not provide values for fuselage and landing gear weight penalties for carrier operations, an estimate had to be made another way. To this end, the F-14 and F-18 were modelled using ACSYNT’s land-based weight equations. The actual aircraft fuselage and landing gear structure weights were approximately 30% greater than those modelled by ACSYNT. Therefore, 30% fuselage and landing gear weight penalties may be applied to carrier-based aircraft in this study. Informal comments by US Navy personnel agreed that 30% was a reasonable estimate. 因為歷史研究中不能提供有價值的關於艦載機結構和起落架重量增加數據，就用了另外其它方法進行評估。結果，F-14和F-18用於來進行陸基飛機（上艦）增重確定ACSYNT評估重量公式（方程？）。評估方程得出艦載機相比陸基飛機結構和起落架重量大約增加30%。因此，在這項研究中，艦載機的結構重量和起落架重量認為是要增加30%，美海軍基本也同意30%是個合理的估計。

Early in the ATF/NATF development, a Naval variant of the F-22 could have been developed. By the late 1990s, however, to graft a Naval requirement onto an existing F-22 program would be similar to the mistake that the Department made in developing the F-111. In that program, DOD directed the Air Force to add Naval requirements to an existing Air Force EMD concept “with minimal disruption” to the program. As a result, the Naval version of the F-111 was significantly overweight and subsequently canceled in favor of a new start Navy aircraft, the F-14. The appropriate time to join multi-service requirements is early in the program, and the ideal time is while the requirements are being developed in a balanced systems engineering approach. 在ATF/NATF研究的早期，也在考慮發展海軍化F-22（譯者認為就是前面的提到的F-22N）。但在九十年代末，認為把海軍的需求移植到已有的F-22項目上將導致以前國防部在開發F-111時犯的錯。在F-111的項目中，國防部要求美空軍用在進入工程發展階段後用最小的代價把海軍的需求增加進去。但結果是海軍版本的F-111明顯的超重隨後取消了,取而代之的是一個新的開始海軍飛機F-14。最適當增加多種要求的時間其實是項目初期，在項目開始時是平衡多種需求的理想時間。

上述文章説明以下幾點：

1、搞NATF項目並不是美海軍真正需求；

2、是美海軍主動放棄NATF項目，而不是美國會砍掉NATF。美海軍放棄NATF的原因是太貴，通過改進F-14就能在2015年前滿足美海軍的空中作戰要求。

3、美海軍放棄NAFT項目時是1991年早期（目前看到別的論壇上資料是1991年2月），是在美空軍選定洛克希德研製F-22前放棄。美空軍選定F-22是1991年4月。

4、艦載機要求比較特殊，要求低速進近能力和相當的操縱能力，這個不同於空軍的要求。

5、美國還研究過F-22直接上艦，研究的結果認為是最大起飛重量超過現有航母的能力。後面講了評估是怎麼考慮的但講的含糊。總的來説是結構重量和起落架重量要增加30%，一般戰鬥機結構重量佔總重差不多30%左右，換句話説結構重量和起落架增重差不多10%，符合常見説法。

6、最後提到，海軍需求要和空軍需求都要考慮時，最理想的時間是一開始就一起考慮，在項目發展到一定程度再把海軍的需求納入到空軍的需求中，就會犯F-111上的錯誤。這個説法其實也是在認為F-22上艦不理想。