Name: 無人機戰爭陷阱 (The Drone Warfare Trap)
Uploaded: 2025-08-07T08:20:44.000Z
Duration: 8 min 32 s

Hey everybody, Peter Zion coming at you from the Norfolk Airport now, I'm just kidding.

大家好，彼得-錫安正在諾福克機場向你們走來，我開玩笑的。

It's Ryan McBeth, I can't do that Peter Zion voice for hours on end.

我是萊恩-麥克貝斯，我不能一連幾個小時都用彼得-錫安的聲音。

Hey, I'm shooting a YouTube video, is it okay if I sit here?

嘿，我正在拍攝 YouTube 視頻，坐在這裡可以嗎？

These two girls, they're going to join me for the YouTube video.

這兩個女孩將和我一起觀看 YouTube 視頻。

You guys are going to learn so much about drones today, it's going to be great.

你們今天會學到很多關於無人機的知識，一定會很精彩。

I want to talk about this recent Army ATP and a video that showed a $15,000 drone flying and this danger that we're kind of treading into when it comes to how we use drones and what Ukraine is currently doing with drones.

我想談談最近的陸軍 ATP 和一段視頻，視頻顯示一架價值 1.5 萬美元的無人機正在飛行，以及我們在如何使用無人機和烏克蘭目前正在使用無人機方面所面臨的危險。

So first off, there was a lot of talk about this new Army ATP that showed tanks firing at a drone using their main guns.

首先，有很多人都在談論陸軍的新 ATP，它展示了坦克使用主炮向無人機開火的場景。

And the Chieftain had a very good video, and you'll be able to find that below when I publish this, where he basically said, this is nothing new.

酋長報》有一段非常精彩的視頻，當我發表這篇文章時，你可以在下面找到，他基本上說，這不是什麼新鮮事。

This has been in the manual for 25 years.

The Army has known about UAVs for 25 years.

陸軍瞭解無人機已有 25 年之久。

Step one, if when you encounter an unmanned aerial vehicle is hide, you know, if you can't do that, then you might try to shoot it down and it's really no different than being under regular air attack, conventional air attack by an aircraft.

第一步，當你遇到無人飛行器時，你要躲起來，你知道，如果你不能做到這一點，那麼你可能會試圖擊落它，這實際上與受到常規空襲、常規飛機空襲沒有什麼區別。

So that particular manual is essentially an update to an original strategy that was developed 25 years ago.

是以，該手冊基本上是對 25 年前制定的原始戰略的更新。

When you think about the threat really hasn't changed all that much, it is the amount of threat and it is the persistence of the threat in the sense that instead of having a manned operator inside an aircraft, you have a drone operator inside a drone who can kind of hang out there for an hour, right?

當你思考威脅是否真的發生了很大的變化時，你會發現威脅的程度和威脅的持續性都發生了很大的變化，從這個意義上說，無人機裡的操作員可以在那裡呆上一個小時，而不是在飛機裡呆上一個人，對嗎？

And it's very difficult to attack, very difficult to shoot down.

But number two, there was another video of a guy who, the Department of Defense introduced this $25,000 drone that could drop drone munitions and people laughed and said, oh, the Department of Defense is out of touch, Ukraine can make these drones for $600 each.

但第二，還有一段視頻，是國防部推出了一款價值2.5萬美元的無人機，可以投擲無人機彈藥，人們笑著說，國防部太落伍了，烏克蘭可以製造這種無人機，每架只要600美元。

I think the biggest problem that we're encountering is looking at Ukraine and believing that the next war is going to look like the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

我認為，我們遇到的最大問題是，看著烏克蘭，以為下一場戰爭會像烏克蘭和俄羅斯之間的衝突一樣。

And I can tell you this, the only reason we're seeing lots and lots of drones being used in Ukraine is that the United States and NATO just did not give Ukraine enough artillery ammunition.

我可以告訴你，我們之所以看到烏克蘭使用大量無人機，唯一的原因就是美國和北約沒有給烏克蘭提供足夠的火炮彈藥。

And some of that was because we didn't have a lot of Ukraine or a lot of artillery ammunition to give to Ukraine.

其中一些原因是，我們沒有大量的烏克蘭或大量的炮彈給烏克蘭。

They started building these drones, they put explosives on the drones and they start blowing up Russians in onesies and twosies.

他們開始製造這些無人機，在無人機上安裝炸藥，然後開始炸死穿連體衣和兩件套衣服的俄羅斯人。

You win a war by killing by the bushel, right?

戰爭的勝利靠的是大開殺戒，對嗎？

You need to destroy as many of the adversary as possible.

And if you're blowing people up in onesies and twosies, that might help you hold the line, but it's not going to help you advance.

如果你只穿著一件或兩件衣服就把人炸死，這也許能幫你守住防線，但卻無助於你前進。

Now the difference between the way the United States would fight against a country like Russia, especially with our current doctrine of doing all the main operations, is that not only are we coming at you from every area at once, we're also using air power extensively.

現在，美國與俄羅斯這樣的國家作戰的方式不同了，特別是在我們目前的理論下，我們不僅從各個地區同時向你發起進攻，而且還廣泛使用空中力量。

We're taking out your logistics and supplies.

我們要把你們的後勤和物資運走。

That's very useful, but we're interdicting your supplies 50 kilometers away with aircraft.

這很有用，但我們在 50 公里外用飛機攔截你們的補給。

We gain total air superiority and you can launch those drones, but you're going to be launching those drones hungry, right?

我們獲得了完全的空中優勢，你們可以發射無人機，但你們發射無人機時會餓肚子，對嗎？

And you're not going to be able to get the fuel to charge the generator, to charge the battery on the drones.

你也無法獲得燃料來為發電機充電，為無人機的電池充電。

So maybe you got 36 hours before you start looking for food.

所以，在你開始尋找食物之前，也許你有 36 個小時。

這成為你的主要關注點，對嗎？

So one of my fears is that the U.S. is concentrating on these small cheap drones and these small cheap drone drop munitions at the expense of joint all-domain operations.

是以，我擔心的一個問題是，美國正專注於這些小型廉價無人機和這些小型廉價無人機投擲彈藥，而忽略了全域聯合作戰。

Drones can be a feature of joint all-domain operations, but they certainly might not be the centerpiece like we're seeing in Ukraine and Russia.

無人機可以成為全域聯合行動的一個特點，但肯定不會像我們在烏克蘭和俄羅斯看到的那樣成為核心。

And the reason we're seeing them as a centerpiece is that neither Russia nor Ukraine can gain actual air superiority over Ukraine.

我們之所以將它們視為核心，是因為俄羅斯和烏克蘭都無法在烏克蘭上空獲得實際的空中優勢。

Third thing I wanted to talk about was a video that Peter Zayan made recently where he kind of compared drones to the Mongols and how, like, if you have drones, you can be like the Mongol horde and hit wherever you want.

我想談的第三件事是彼得-扎揚（Peter Zayan）最近做的一個視頻，他把無人機比作蒙古人，說如果你有無人機，你就可以像蒙古部落一樣，想打哪兒就打哪兒。

And one of my big fears is that we might also be falling into the drone trap the same way that some people fell into the hypersonic trap.

我最擔心的一點是，我們可能會掉進無人機陷阱，就像有些人掉進高超音速陷阱一樣。

Hypersonic missiles are very, very useful.

They're very useful, but at the end of the day, you're still getting a 1,000-pound warhead and slamming it into a ship, right?

它們非常有用，但歸根結底，你還是要拿一個重達1000磅的彈頭撞向一艘船，對吧？

And you could have done that far cheaper with a conventional warhead.

而使用常規彈頭的成本要低得多。

It would have taken longer to get there, it might have been easier to shoot down.

到那裡需要更長的時間，可能更容易擊落。

But with a hypersonic missile, you're still taking a 1,000-pound warhead and crashing it into a ship.

但是，對於高超音速飛彈來說，你仍然需要用一個重達 1000 磅的彈頭去撞擊一艘船。

And you might need multiple warheads to do this.

你可能需要多個彈頭才能做到這一點。

So let's say a hypersonic missile costs $35 million.

假設一枚高超音速飛彈的造價為 3500 萬美元。

Could you build 35 conventional cruise missiles for the cost of one hypersonic, right?

你能用一枚高超音速飛彈的成本製造 35 枚常規巡航導彈嗎？

So that's always been the cost equation, right?

Do you want a better item or do you want a cheaper item and you get more of it?

您是想要更好的商品，還是想要更便宜的商品和更多的商品？

One of the reasons I have been concerned about hypersonics is that what are we going to shoot them at, right?

我一直擔心高超音速技術的原因之一是，我們拿什麼來射它們，對嗎？

If you have 11 aircraft carriers like the United States has, those become a really good target for hypersonic weapons, fantastic target.

如果你像美國一樣擁有 11 艘航空母艦，這些航空母艦就會成為高超音速武器的絕佳目標。

But if you're like China and you only have three aircraft carriers and they're not particularly good, are you going to waste a $35 million hypersonic missile on that carrier?

但如果你像中國一樣，只有三艘航母，而且都不是特別好，你會在航母上浪費一枚價值 3500 萬美元的高超音速飛彈嗎？

As sooner or later, you kind of run out of targets and you've built all these missiles that essentially have no targets to go after, right?

因為遲早有一天，你會失去目標，而你製造的這些飛彈基本上沒有目標可尋，對嗎？

So I think when it comes to drones, Peter Zion, his heart is in the right place when it comes to the idea that, oh, one day wars aren't going to be fought with people, they're all going to be fought with drones, and the drones are going to be flying around and doing their own thing, and they're going to be like the Mongol horde, you know, just hitting cities and so on.

所以我認為，說到無人機，彼得-錫安的想法是對的，他認為有一天戰爭將不再是人與人之間的戰爭，而是無人機與無人機之間的戰爭，無人機將四處飛行，做自己的事情，它們將像蒙古部落一樣，你知道的，只是打擊城市等等。

And I don't necessarily see that because drones eventually have to recharge, they have to be built by people, and you can do that, but we're going to be bombing the crap out of your factories and your logistics and your supply lines using joint all-domain operations.

我不一定會看到這一點，因為無人機最終必須充電，必須由人來製造，你可以做到這一點，但我們將利用全域聯合行動，轟炸你們的工廠、物流和補給線。

So I think the whole focus on drones, drone warfare being similar to the kind of drone warfare that we're seeing in Ukraine, I think that is a very dangerous trap.

是以，我認為對無人機的整體關注，無人機戰爭類似於我們在烏克蘭看到的那種無人機戰爭，我認為這是一個非常危險的陷阱。

Yeah, they weren't interested in drone warfare.

是的，他們對無人機戰爭不感興趣。

Bunker Branding is all sorts of cool gear.

Bunker Branding 是各種很酷的裝備。

Intel-like, Aerosol, Live Lap Launch for Destroyer, Trident, HIMARS, and Patriot.

用於驅逐艦、三叉戟、HIMARS 和愛國者的類似英特爾、氣溶膠、實彈發射。

Drone Suite Drone, Department of the Boat People, Landmine, and even the Tow Missile.

無人機套件無人機、船民部、地雷，甚至拖曳飛彈。

Girls from Watertown aren't cool, so wear your Bunker Branding gear.

來自沃特敦的女孩並不酷，所以穿上你的 Bunker Branding 裝備吧。

字幕列表影片播放

無人機戰爭陷阱 (The Drone Warfare Trap)

essentially

absolutely

concentrate

brand