Garibaldi,
First off, a bad economy does generate a bad military. Generally, a bad economy iniates a bad morale, as well as worse means for military training and production. You can not deny this.
I do not deny it, but the case of Russia is different, because of the heritage the Soviet Union left behind it. After 15 years, it is still up to the highest standards. But I do agree that because of Russian relatively bad economy, it cannot compete with the US anymore, but it is still the 2nd best in the world. And you can't deny it!
Organized crime has a lot to do with Russian capabilities. I wouldn't expect it to become completly under control, but when it is as rampant as it is in Russia it is clear Rusia doesn't have the capabilities to stop a man smuggling drugs,
Organized crime is not a military issue. But yes, it is a big proble, but it's not up to the military to solve it.
let alone The US with it's allies.
Are you telling me if NATO attacks, Russia is dead? Humm...that reminds of something...how about you?
I can't speak on your submarines, but I will explain that you're Navy will be confined to the Black sea. The submarines themselves will be ineffective, they'll either be blown to bits by our airforce or destroyed if they try to break the Dardenelles.
The Black sea fleet is only one among others. There are other fleets better euiped and bigger. Northern fleet, Pacific fleet, Atlantic fleet.
And how exactly are the subs going to be destroyed by your airforce?
Also, that Aircraft carrier isn't gona "take down" two or three American Aircraft carriers, it's the planes that do the fighting. Besides, you said it yourself, it's only one.
The difference between the Russian carrier Kuznetsov and American carrier for example is that the Kuznetsov is not a "real" carrier. Technically it is a heavy cruiser, which means it has anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, underwater mines, all kinds of defensive systems. It's a fleet on its own. It is also capable of carrying up to about 30 Su-33.
American carriers only have defensive cannons. So basically the Kuznetsov can attack at a great range with it's missiles without even using its fighters. But there is only one...
Also, Su-33 are superior to American, French and British navalised fighters and interseptors. F-18, F-14, Super Etondards, Harriers. Remember when a Russian Su-27 and Su-24 flyby the KittyHawk and took pictures, and the carrier launched an A-6 after 10-15 minutes to "counter" the "threat"?
That was funny.
And with the navalised Su-34 (Su-32FN) entering service next year, forget it, it is going to beat the shit out of any carrier, anywhere, anytime.
On a final note about the navy...don't forget that the Soviet/Russian navies were
defensive navies. This is the main reason why USSR built more subs than carriers because it wasn't planing to attack and it did not had the need to "project power"
I won't speak on your air defence, but I know that your Tanks are not the best in the world and Tanks althogether are obsolete. You're have always been designed for power and defence, while America has faster tanks and because of our renovations are now just as powerful and portective, if not more, in a much more advanced design.
You speak like someone who knows shit about tanks, planes, etc. You're just throwing random shit at me...Can you name me at least one tank with its caracteristics?
I did not say Russian tanks are the best, but they are definatly better than US' tanks (only German Leopard 2A6X are better than T-80UM1/2 which is one of the best tanks Russia has)
And you're Airforce can't do a thing, in terms of quantity or quality. America has very, very good pilots. Not to mention, we have more experience at bombing the hell out of shit.
Russia has better fighters and interseptors than the US' (except the F-22), less but better. And Russian pilots are good enough.
I'll answer to the other dude tomorrow, enough for today.
- By litwin
- By Pants-of-dog
- By ingliz