字神帝國英語天地

今日主題：Military uniforms-- Out of sight 軍裝--真正隱形

康康精選GRE&GMAT會考的主題，堅持每天精讀一定會進步的哦!!

MP3音檔 (按右鍵可下載聽)：喜歡的同學，幫忙推或按讚哦~~
http://xia2.kekenet.com/Sound/2016/…/ecow0121_3822783VqA.mp3　

只有音檔怎夠，聽不懂地方，不用怕，康康幫你準備好中英文稿了：

中英文稿：
Military uniforms-- Out of sight
軍裝--真正隱形

Expense and stupidity too big to camouflage
迷彩服也不再能偽裝目標巨大的支出和愚蠢

“I WEAR camo so I can feel safe,” says Sean, a member of the navy reserve. He cannot quite fathom why his combat uniform is different from that of other American servicemen in the field, depending on whether they are members of the army, the air force or the marines. And soon it may be different no longer; for after years of ludicrously expensive design rivalry, the defence appropriation for 2014 prohibits the services from designing new uniforms, unless they will be used by all members of the armed forces.
海軍預備役成員肖恩說：“迷彩讓我覺得安全。”他始終不能理解，為何根據軍種的不同，作戰的陸軍、空軍和海軍的作戰服樣式不同。但這種現狀即將改變，在數年荒唐可笑、花費巨大的設計競賽之後，2014年國防撥款嚴禁軍隊設計新制服，除非該種制服能夠用於全軍。

Remarkably, the Department of Defence has no single department dedicated to researching, developing and procuring the best uniforms for all troops. This caused no problems before 2002, when nearly every serviceman had a choice between a greenish camouflage uniform or a “coffee stain” desert pattern. But over the past 12 years the services have each created their own style of camouflage. The effect has been both costly, and occasionally embarrassing.
但請注意，國防部並無專門部門負責研發和生產適用於全軍的服裝。在2002年之前，這不是問題，因此那時每個軍人只有兩種選擇---綠色迷彩服或者咖色沙漠迷彩。但十二年過去了，各個軍隊都設計了自己的迷彩服。這不僅帶來了浪費，有時還意味著尷尬。

The marines led the way in 2002 with a versatile and effective new combat uniform, which also served to boost corps morale because the marine insignia was embedded in the design. This inspired a cascade of one-upsmanship among the other services. The air force, for instance, spent several years and more than $3m designing a new “tiger-stripe” uniform that proved unsuitable for combat—the camouflage was ineffective, the trousers were uncomfortable and the fabric was too heavy, leading to “heat build-up”. The navy spent a lot less money developing the “aquaflage” uniform; but that is a silly blue ensemble that works best where sailors may least wish to blend, in the water.
海軍陸戰隊在2002年率先發佈了一款全能高效的新型作戰服，該款服飾的設計包含了海軍陸戰隊的隊徽，因此對鼓舞士氣也有奇效。這在全軍掀起了一股爭先浪 潮。比如，空軍部隊耗時數年，斥資逾300萬美元，設計了一種新型“虎紋”制服，但這種制服卻不適合作戰---它的保護色無用，褲裝不舒適，布料太厚不利 散熱。海軍用較少的花費，設計了所謂的“水藍”軍服（aquaflage），這套愚蠢的藍色制服看上去只有在水中—海軍最不願意隱藏的地方—隱藏效果最 好。

The worst offender has been the army. The service spent years and about $3.2m developing its own “universal” camouflage. This pattern was designed to work anywhere, but proved useless nearly everywhere. Soon after it was introduced in 2005, soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan began complaining that the pattern turned them into targets. Troops from Syria and China were clearly better equipped. Reports suggest that a high-ranking military official had chosen the pattern without consulting the data from years of studies. The army is said to have spent at least $5 billion on uniforms and equipment printed in this camouflage, which is still in use. In an emergency measure, the army kitted out soldiers in Afghanistan in a new pattern starting in 2010, spending more than $38.8m on replacement gear in fiscal 2010 and 2011.
最糟糕的設計來自陸軍。陸軍花費數年和約320萬美元設計了一種所謂的“通用”迷彩。按照設計，它本該適用所有地形，但最終發現，它幾乎在所有地形都派不 上用場。2005年，在該種迷彩推出後不久，伊拉克和阿富汗的美國士兵就開始抱怨，說這種制服使他們成了活靶子。連敘利亞和中國的軍隊都明顯比美軍軍備精 良。調查顯示，一位元位居高位的軍官在沒有參考多年調查資料的情況下就選定了這種設計。據稱，陸軍至少砸了50億美元在該種制服和迷彩上印的設備上。目 前，這種迷彩仍在使用中。2010年，作為應急措施之一，陸軍為駐伊拉克的士兵換上了新型樣式的服裝，據稱這個過程花費了2010、2011年的財政中的 388萬美元。

Part of the problem, explains Timothy O'Neill, a retired lieutenant-colonel and camouflage expert, is that officers can be a bit too preoccupied with a uniform's “CDI [chicks dig it] factor”. This vanity, together with bungled trials, missteps and a lack of co-operation, put the cost of developing these uniforms at more than $12m, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2012. This does not include the extra costs—which the GAO estimates in the tens of millions of dollars—of managing the stock and supply of so many different combat uniforms. Nor does it include the high costs of replacing ineffective camouflage in the field. The armed forces spent around $300m on camouflage uniforms in 2011 alone.
退休上校、迷彩專家蒂莫西•奧尼爾指出，問題一部分出在軍官們過於關注軍裝華而不實的效果。根據美國政府問責局（GAO）2012年的一份報告，這種虛榮 心，加上被搞砸的實驗，失誤和欠缺合作，使得開發這些制服的費用超過了1200萬美元。這還不涵蓋其他額外費用（根據政府問責局估計，單單這一塊費用就數 以百萬），包括管理這些種類繁多的作戰服的儲存和供應。更不要提替換在戰場上效果不佳的迷彩服的費用了。僅僅在2011年一年，全軍花費在迷彩服上的費用 就高達3億美元。

Stunned by these price tags, Congress in 2010 directed the Department of Defence to raise standards and cut costs. But little has been done. Many soldiers see the wisdom of returning to a shared uniform. But not the marines, who will stick to their pattern “like a hobo on a ham sandwich”, in the words of General James Amos, commandant of the marine corps.
被這些價格標籤嚇到，國會在2011年令國防部提高標準，降低成本。但應對措施不多。許多士兵看到了重新開始共用同款軍服的好處。但海軍陸戰隊不這麼想，海軍陸戰隊總司令、上校詹姆斯•阿莫斯說，海軍陸戰隊隊員對他們自己的設計就像“流浪漢對火腿三明治”。

It is unclear what all this means for the army, which has been spending millions of dollars testing different patterns for a new camouflage since 2010. It recently started tests for possible new uniforms, which will continue until the end of September. Replacing the service's flawed camouflage and equipment could cost another $4 billion over five years, according to the GAO. “Research and development in government is always a long and painstaking process,“ says Mr O'Neill. “But if it were easy, then the government would waste even more money, and faster.”
這一切對全軍意味著什麼，現在還不清楚。自2010年以來，全軍在一種新型迷彩的測試上已經花費了上百萬資金。最近，它又對一種疑似新軍裝展開了新一輪測 試，測試將一直持續到九月底。政府問責局稱，在未來五年，替換軍隊中存在缺陷的迷彩和裝備將花費400萬美元。奧尼爾說：“政府的研發過程總是路漫漫其修 遠兮，但如果這個過程過於簡單，那麼政府會浪費更多的資金，更加草率。