Military Review

Will Russia be able to withstand the US military machine? ("lainformacion.com", Spain)

189
Will Russia be able to withstand the US military machine? ("lainformacion.com", Spain)Is there a real danger of a military confrontation between Russia and the United States? In the event of armed conflict, which forces will oppose each other? These and other questions of the Spanish edition of Lainformacion were answered by Major General Jesus Argumosa Pyla, Deputy Director of the Center for Military Strategic Studies Athena Group. The Spanish general tried to explain a possible scenario for the development of a large-scale military conflict in connection with the crisis in Ukraine.


At present, the Russian army is undergoing a process of modernization and rearmament, so it is now quite difficult to say what parameters the armed forces will take upon completion of the military reform. The complexes of Topol-M intercontinental missiles at a military parade in Moscow showed the current level of equipment of the Russian army.

Thus, Moscow has once again demonstrated to the West that Russia is a powerful nuclear power. At the same time, according to American military experts, the level of development of the latest technological developments of conventional weapons in Russia lags significantly behind the United States.

Undoubtedly, Topol-M is a revolutionary missile, but it may have problems when they want to intercept it. The Topol-M with insufficient combat capabilities and more than a modest deployment scale cannot in any way become a symmetrical response to a promising multi-US missile defense system, the Spanish general believes.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Russia allocated 2013 a billion dollars to 68,2 in the year 600, while US military spending exceeded XNUMX billions of dollars.

Obviously, the level of military spending of the two countries is incomparable. The United States, as the leading world economic power, can afford defense spending that Russia does not have to “afford”.

To date, there is no doubt that the United States from a geostrategic point of view has armed forces that are superior to the Russian army. First of all, it concerns the possibility of fast moving mobile units over a distance of more than 4 thousands of kilometers. Russia can carry out a similar operation of only a limited military contingent, while the United States has virtually unlimited possibilities, Argumosa believes.

The United States in the near future intends to adopt the latest development of American aircraft designers, the fifth-generation fighter F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (as in the article - ed.), Which by its flight characteristics significantly exceeds the Russian aircraft in service.

To date, the following balance of forces and means in the armed forces of the United States and Russia:

The number of military personnel in the US is 1 million 492 thousand, in Russia - 845 thousand.

Strategic aircraft aviationcapable of carrying on board a nuclear weapon: USA - 154, Russia - 141.

Nuclear submarines: USA - 140, Russia - 110.

Missile systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads: USA - 450, Russia - 356.

Artillery guns: USA - 7429, Russia - 5837.

From the point of view of training, training, the latest technology, efficiency and ability to respond quickly to the emergence of military threats - superiority, of course, is on the American side. At the same time, the Russian military surpass the Americans in readiness for self-sacrifice and the ability to bravely endure military service.

According to the Spanish general, it is now safe to say that nuclear parity has developed between the United States and Russia, so it’s almost impossible to imagine a military conflict between these two states in its pure form. If we take the ratio of the nuclear forces of the so-called "triad" - intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine ballistic missiles (SLBMs) ​​and strategic aviation (heavy bombers) - then it is about the same.

Western countries are concerned about the disposal of Russian nuclear submarines decommissioned with nuclear fuel on board.

The high probability of accidents at such facilities, withdrawn from service, has become the scale of an international threat. For example, in Vladivostok there are dozens of decommissioned nuclear submarines waiting for their turn for recycling.

Thus, it is quite obvious that at present there is no threat of the current confrontation between Russia and the West growing into an armed nuclear conflict. President Vladimir Putin, who has worked in Germany for many years as an officer of the special services, understands this well.

It should be noted that the Russian president has recently gained strength as a world leader, while the West, Obama and Europe are lagging behind, especially after the events in Crimea. The superiority of Russian weapons now lies in the fact that the Kremlin has managed to show the West who is in charge of the house.
Author:
Originator:
http://noticias.lainformacion.com/mundo/la-potencia-militar-de-rusia-no-aguantaria-un-pulso-ante-las-capacidades-de-eeuu_iNDVxyevH7UpIIiOuwCZU5/
189 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. maestro123
    maestro123 15 May 2014 09: 06
    +31
    And still the whole world is in ruin!
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 15 May 2014 09: 09
      +46
      Strategic aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons on board: USA - 154, Russia - 141.

      Nuclear submarines: USA - 140, Russia - 110.

      Look at the numbers and did not read.
      1. GDP
        GDP 15 May 2014 09: 16
        +27
        The data presented by the respected comrade Jesus Argumos Peel is very incomplete, and the numbers are very inaccurate.
        Although if in general we talk about the balance of power between the United States and Russia, then yes, the author is mostly right.
        In terms of the strategic forces of nuclear deterrence, we have approximate parity, with a slight US superiority.
        With respect to conventional weapons, the United States, with the exception of tanks, artillery, and can have some degree of air defense, is a significant, multiple superiority for an hour, and this without taking into account the forces of all NATO ...

        This, however, is quite enough to deliver a nuclear strike to complete destruction and defend the borders from those who survive, and from scavengers who want to profit from our surviving territories.

        A purely defensive strategy ...
        1. Canep
          Canep 15 May 2014 09: 54
          +24
          The United States in the near future intends to adopt the latest development of American aircraft designers, the fifth-generation fighter F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (as in the article - ed.), Which by its flight characteristics significantly exceeds the Russian aircraft in service.
          What interesting is it superior to ?, except for the insane value, nothing comes to mind. Can’t fly, can’t shoot, we see the Chinese radars of the past generation. One general from the mattress said that in terms of maneuverability he was inferior to the MiG-21 and could be shot down by a plane 50 years old.
          Nuclear submarines: USA - 140, Russia - 110.
          Where did Russia get such luxury from? The author probably calculated all the cut out reactor compartments. In general, not an article, but a set of characters.
          1. Altona
            Altona 15 May 2014 10: 07
            +20
            Quote: Canep
            What interesting is it superior to ?, except for the insane value, nothing comes to mind. Can’t fly, can’t shoot, we see the Chinese radars of the past generation. One general from the mattress said that in terms of maneuverability he was inferior to the MiG-21 and could be shot down by a plane 50 years old.

            ____________
            In addition to the paragraph on nuclear parity, everything else in the article is pure nonsense ... We are not lagging behind as tactical weapons, in addition, a robot war is not expected in its pure form ... Americans will not even decide to join us in a combined arms battle, because the quality of the vaunted special operations forces is clearly indicated by the fighting in Iraq and Somalia. Ordinary, slightly organized dehkans and aborigines very successfully confront a very technologically advanced military supermachine and hammer it from Chinese RPGs and Kalashnikovs ... And in general, they even have it written in the Charter - a Russian soldier wearing a beret is a dangerous opponent in any kind of battle, and in captivity, a dangerous saboteur ...
            1. Gambit0
              Gambit0 15 May 2014 10: 53
              +3
              I agree, where would I read the charter?
              1. mark2
                mark2 20 May 2014 20: 31
                0
                As far as I know, all the charters in the Army are kept) You just have to go there! Firstly, you will read the charter of the Russian army, and secondly, as said, if you are captured by the United States, then you will read and do the sabotage business. The main thing is to get.
            2. avia1991
              avia1991 15 May 2014 10: 56
              +2
              Quote: Altona
              they even have it written in the Charter — a Russian soldier wearing a beret is a dangerous opponent in any kind of battle, and a captive is a dangerous saboteur ...

              Are you seriously?! what smile No kidding - just asking. I didn’t read it myself ..
              1. Altona
                Altona 15 May 2014 12: 24
                +3
                Quote: avia1991
                No kidding - just asking. I didn’t read it myself ..

                -----------------------
                I myself have not read it, but I constantly come across a similar quote ... Now I am trying to fill out several doctrines and charters of the US Army and the ILC, I learn a lot of new and interesting ...
                ----------------------
                Question to ICH, can you tell me if this phrase has a place in the charter or is it just another fantasy:
                The captured Russian paratrooper is not considered a prisoner of war - he is shot on the spot (from the US Armed Forces charter).

                Margelov’s people should not be taken prisoner, but shot on the spot, since the paratrooper is a saboteur in captivity (from the US Armed Forces charter).

                ---------------------
                Quote from the military forum ... Surely in some of the instructions this may be, but these instructions (Army Regulations) +100500 pieces ...
          2. 225chay
            225chay 15 May 2014 10: 48
            +2
            Quote: Canep
            Nuclear submarines: USA - 140, Russia - 110.


            And what is this General Hrensus scaring us with his "pipiska" ??
            1. Rakti-kali
              Rakti-kali 15 May 2014 13: 48
              0
              Quote: 225chay
              And what is this General Hrensus scaring us with his "pipiska" ??

              In fact, this is not his "pipiska" - the Spaniard is measuring other people's "organs", and judging by the numbers, he does it after dinner, having gone over the "little red".
            2. mark2
              mark2 20 May 2014 20: 37
              0
              Looked at Wikipedia. There we have much more than 110 nuclear submarines. There are 200 of them. Well, plus all sorts of traditional ones - tuyeva khucha) It is said that Russia has the largest submarine fleet in the world, which means that it is! and nefig listen to all sorts of Huns, Juarez and Manugilov
          3. ziqzaq
            ziqzaq 15 May 2014 12: 00
            +3
            Quote: Canep
            Where did Russia get such luxury from? The author probably calculated all the cut out reactor compartments. In general, not an article, but a set of characters.

            Yeah, it’s like the article is subjective ... I especially laughed at the thesis about the mobility of the American army, I immediately remembered the video about the landing of Amersky marines in the Crimea .... I didn’t find the link, unfortunately ... But, as I recall, the army was barely able to storm the coastal mud barely pulled on solid ground ....
            1. blizart
              blizart 15 May 2014 12: 19
              +1
              [media = www.youtube.com / watch? v = u4gTxnmXeRk] Here is a link to the video you mentioned
              1. ziqzaq
                ziqzaq 15 May 2014 12: 33
                0
                Quote: blizart
                [media = www.youtube.com / watch? v = u4gTxnmXeRk] Here is a link to the video you mentioned

                Thank....
          4. _my opinion
            _my opinion 15 May 2014 13: 13
            +1
            I agree with you, Sergey, that the F-35 is a so-so plane ... it’s worth remembering that it has one engine and a small compartment for armament. And in my opinion the Su-35 can compete with the F-35 ... and PAK-FA and moreover ...
            By the way, it is incorrect to compare the costs of military expenses - the Americans keep a bunch of foreign bases, AUGs and, in addition, the military production of amers is, first and foremost, a producer’s feeder, because after receiving a state order it can almost inflate the price ...
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 15 May 2014 13: 28
              +5
              as far as I know, then f35 only at the afterburner barely barely picks up supersound ... which is typical for 4 generation cars ... I think our su35 easily competes with him, and the big question is who is to whom ...
              1. mark2
                mark2 20 May 2014 20: 43
                0
                Do not listen to anyone. And from Moscow to the British seas, the Red Army is all the stronger)
            2. Altona
              Altona 15 May 2014 13: 45
              +1
              Quote: _my opinion
              By the way, it is incorrect to compare the costs of military expenses - the Americans keep a bunch of foreign bases, AUGs and, in addition, the military production of amers is, first and foremost, a producer’s feeder, because after receiving a state order it can almost inflate the price ...

              -----------------------
              In my opinion, no one canceled the kickbacks and feeding of congressmen and senators ...
            3. Altona
              Altona 15 May 2014 13: 45
              0
              Quote: _my opinion
              By the way, it is incorrect to compare the costs of military expenses - the Americans keep a bunch of foreign bases, AUGs and, in addition, the military production of amers is, first and foremost, a producer’s feeder, because after receiving a state order it can almost inflate the price ...

              -----------------------
              In my opinion, no one canceled the kickbacks and feeding of congressmen and senators ...
        2. Ased
          Ased 15 May 2014 09: 55
          +4
          Quote: GDP
          This, however, is quite enough to deliver a nuclear strike to complete destruction and defend the borders from those who survive, and from scavengers who want to profit from our surviving territories.


          And "scavengers" are the Arab world. They will win from the squabbles of the superpowers.
          1. shuhartred
            shuhartred 15 May 2014 11: 24
            +6
            Quote: ASed
            And "scavengers" are the Arab world. They will win from the squabbles of the superpowers.

            Only rats and cockroaches will win, and that is unlikely if everyone launches everything that they have.
            1. Al_lexx
              Al_lexx 15 May 2014 12: 22
              +3
              Quote: shuhartred
              Quote: ASed
              And "scavengers" are the Arab world. They will win from the squabbles of the superpowers.

              Only rats and cockroaches will win, and that is unlikely if everyone launches everything that they have.

              Rats are not a fact. Cockroaches are quite possible. Insects are most resistant to radiation, as they mutate / adapt the fastest.
              1. Al_lexx
                Al_lexx 15 May 2014 20: 02
                0
                One of my old friends, in his youth, was an assistant / laboratory assistant in a lab for the study of radioactive radiation in living organisms.
                So here. He irradiated cockroaches at the food level (now I don’t remember what exactly) with something rare earth and very toxic radioactive (worse than uranium and plutonium).
                In the second generation, cockroaches began to be born, completely transparent and with red (ruby) eyes. All of their esophagus was visible, etc. .. They behaved as usual - ate their corpses and whatever they give. Everything is as usual for this species. Neither in the third, nor in the fourth generation, those who continued to live in these conditions did not change. They just changed, pretty quickly, under the conditions in which they were placed.
                None of the warm-blooded ones could change this way and continue to breed.

                Even the spiders have died.

                But interestingly, cockroaches do not tolerate the area where WiFi works. Are leaving.
                And people have distracted thoughts and excessive excitement. Approximately, from the excessive consumption of coffee or tea.
                Fact.
        3. Blondy
          Blondy 15 May 2014 10: 08
          +10
          Of course - the states have an overwhelming quality advantage in aviation, judging by their brochures and forget about rusting stealth and B2. The states also have a heavy-duty laser - they saw a boat for half a minute - they say that they can be used against Somali pirates (if they stand still for half a minute). Well and in another similar superhitek they have an undeniable advantage. Against this background, tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft defense - well, these are such trifles that one could not even talk about. All this determines their main strategic advantage - the know-how of how to cut the existing defense budget.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 15 May 2014 12: 02
            +6
            but why did you get the gentlemen that these figures were written for the Russian reader? m ... I got the impression that all this fuss was written for the internal user of Europe ... in order to instill confidence in them in the military power of the USA and NATO .. as for the numbers, then everything is clear, it is surprisingly different why this general did not mention hoes, shovels and pitchforks in the lists ...
        4. Good_Taxist
          Good_Taxist 15 May 2014 10: 42
          +3
          still experts from Mongolia or Goduras would be invited !!! (they are less biased) People! Why comment on all the nonsense !?
          1. Penzyac
            Penzyac 15 May 2014 13: 23
            0
            Quote: Good_Taxist
            still experts from Mongolia or Goduras would be invited !!! (they are less biased) People! Why comment on all the nonsense !?

            Well, do not tell me, they (Mongolia and Honduras) are more pro-Russian than completely neutral ...
        5. silver_roman
          silver_roman 15 May 2014 10: 43
          +8
          Quote: GDP
          In terms of the strategic forces of nuclear deterrence, we have approximate parity, with a slight US superiority.

          here I do not agree with you.
          firstly, little is known about the true situation of the strategic nuclear forces in the region.
          as a rule, they do not promote only those things that are in their stagnation.
          previous checks have clearly demonstrated and proved this.
          Our delivery vehicles are much more advanced. This is especially true for overcoming modern and promising missile defense.
          If we take the nuclear triad of syshya, then in essence the worst thing is nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons. The air force in the form of 50-60 year-old b-52s are no longer worth it. they will not reach the target for many reasons.
          No wonder the states are going to modernize their strategic nuclear forces and huge funds will be invested.


          Quote: GDP
          With respect to conventional weapons, the United States, with the exception of tanks, artillery, and can have some degree of air defense, is a significant, multiple superiority for an hour, and this without taking into account the forces of all NATO ...


          our and state air defense are generally not comparable in effectiveness. The number of tanks we have is undoubtedly larger, but most of them are in storage and are unlikely to return from there. In addition, our tanks, I believe, are much more versatile. The war, if it begins, will take place near (if not in our) territory. Their MBT simply will not pass on most of our bridges and crossings. By railway, too, will not work forwarding. Remains the sea. And there it’s easy to sink the transporters. Their MBT has a powerful frontal reservation, in other places - cardboard. The days of Prokhorovka had already passed when the tank divisions were marching at each other's foreheads. The modern tank battle will be much more cunning, with the use of attack aircraft, UAVs, infantry with anti-tank systems, etc.

          In general, it is stupid and pointless to analyze the armed forces of any country, and also to draw the conclusion "who has something longer, thicker and harder". All the same, no one on the c has true knowledge of the current situation! there would be this article - the post of the Spanish general himself, I would have slapped him a minus for sure! hi
          1. GDP
            GDP 15 May 2014 11: 38
            +2
            Quote: silver_roman
            Our delivery vehicles are much more advanced. This is especially true for overcoming modern and promising missile defense.

            I don’t argue, but in terms of the number of delivery vehicles (especially in the Navy, tactical aviation) and the number of nuclear weapons in the USA, the superiority is ours, but we have mobile systems and new means of overcoming missile defense + a significantly large territory)
            Therefore, as I said here, the forces are approximately equal.

            our and state air defense are generally not comparable in effectiveness. The number of tanks we have is undoubtedly larger, but most of them are in storage and are unlikely to return from there. In addition, our tanks, I believe, are much more versatile.


            I agree with everything, except for the universality of our tanks, just our tanks, in contrast to the Abrams, are more suitable for battles in vast territories and open spaces.
            It affects our advantage in firing range, mobility, cheapness, active defense.

            But American tanks, on the contrary, are more sharpened for battle in rough terrain and urban conditions - almost twice as much armor thickness, better visibility, greater crew safety, faster control system.
            1. silver_roman
              silver_roman 15 May 2014 12: 56
              +3
              Quote: GDP
              I don’t argue, but in terms of the number of delivery vehicles (especially in the Navy, tactical aviation) and the number of nuclear charges in the United States, superiority


              there is not a big difference. you know how it was during the Cold War: they can destroy the world 25 times, and we are 20 ... then we are weaker, we still have to rivet nuclear weapons))). it is not right. it’s still enough to erase several times the states and their allies from all other inhabitants of the planet Earth)).

              But on the means of delivery, here is an interesting moment. Take the Air Force: according to the number of cruise missiles (I don’t take into account free or corrected flight bombs, because I believe that the aircraft will not reach the drop point - it will be intercepted in advance. Especially of such a monster as B-52, B-2 or B- 1 Lancer) we have an advantage. The newest X-555s operate at 5000 km. There is infa that if you finish, then all 10, but they have a small speed. That's all for a long time.

              Nuclear submarines are difficult here. I personally do not know. Nevertheless, the same Mace, which is still not clear whether it flies or not, is significantly inferior to the Trident in terms of throwing weight.
              Of our nuclear weapons, which the Saxons and their bullets have always been afraid of, these are the Voivode and the Scalpel. At the expense of the latter, they are about to rehabilitate, but have not yet heard. This is me about BZHRK. There are 10-12 blocks of medium power, depending on the presence of tricks. Once the floor of the east coast can be emptied. This is really power.

              By the way, at the expense of mobile complexes: I don’t know how true, I heard that the area of ​​their deployment and movement is too small and often constant. You can track. Hope this is nonsense.


              ON TANKS: the armor of our tanks was always considered in total, in a circular manner. Those. due to the smaller thickness of the forehead, there was more in the stern and on the sides + DZ. The designers proceeded from the assigned tasks: and the task was to reach the English Channel in a couple of days. Those. powerful attack of tank wedges when taking into account the attack from all sides.
              The NATO tanks, like their abrams (slopped from the German Leopard), were designed as more defensive moving points, i.e. they should have met our armada of tanks. from here a powerful frontal reservation and weak sides with aft. Even the losses show: in Syria, naked T-72s hold dozens of RPG splashes each, despite the fact that the RPGs are not 7 there, but much more modern. RPG-29 vampire with tandem part, etc. And they just started to weld the nets from the cumulative.

              TA and firing range is a moot point. There is generally a philosophical question: what is the best separate loading, or is it still unitary ammunition. From here in general a lot of performance characteristics follow. Our ATGMs lie down for 5 km, but according to some information their AP is already insufficiently large. I heard that the roofing felts were Japanese, or the Israelis created a shell with an initial speed of more than 1 km / s. Nothing is needed there at all: it will pass through!
        6. Akvadra
          Akvadra 15 May 2014 11: 01
          +4
          Most likely there is no such general. And if there is, he does not know about the article. Written by an obvious amateur or troll far from analytics and military service in general. Most likely a registered correspondent.
          1. jjj
            jjj 15 May 2014 11: 37
            +2
            Exactly. In RuNet, it is customary for couch experts to compare victories by comparing published specifications. And here before that any, and the general was honored. That's strange
      2. Hans51
        Hans51 15 May 2014 09: 16
        +36
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        The superiority of Russian weapons now lies in the fact that the Kremlin managed to show the West who the boss is in the house.
        1. O_RUS
          O_RUS 15 May 2014 09: 50
          +8
          "Those awful Russians ..."

          Russians, Russians are kind and sympathetic people. Many forgive, and some would not be worth forgiving.
      3. igor_m_p
        igor_m_p 15 May 2014 09: 17
        +14
        The United States in the near future intends to adopt the latest development of American aircraft designers, the fifth-generation fighter F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (as in the article - ed.), Which by its flight characteristics significantly exceeds the Russian aircraft in service.


        Eh ... There is such a bird - lives on willows ... It is called naive ... Well, let them keep hoping on themselves further ...
        1. I do not care
          I do not care 15 May 2014 09: 24
          +23
          My son serves under N Tagil, today they called up, he says they are massively replacing poplars with yars. That's it.
          1. igor_m_p
            igor_m_p 15 May 2014 09: 28
            +1
            Quote: me by
            My son under N Tagil serves,


            N. Tagil-14?
            1. I do not care
              I do not care 15 May 2014 12: 20
              0
              Quote: igor_m_p
              Quote: me by
              My son under N Tagil serves,


              N. Tagil-14?

              n Free
              1. igor_m_p
                igor_m_p 16 May 2014 03: 24
                0
                Same :)
          2. Muadipus
            Muadipus 15 May 2014 10: 26
            +8
            did not fall to the office! stop
            1. igor_m_p
              igor_m_p 15 May 2014 10: 43
              +2
              What is there to shoot? Just such names were given to military towns on purpose, so as not to scorch the office.
              1. jjj
                jjj 15 May 2014 11: 40
                +5
                In Soviet times, we had a street. It stretched from the Far East to the Baltic. By house numbers, knowledgeable people determined the real military town
        2. VOLCHOXURAL
          VOLCHOXURAL 15 May 2014 09: 33
          +11
          Quote: igor_m_p
          The United States in the near future intends to adopt the latest development of American aircraft designers, the fifth-generation fighter F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (as in the article - ed.), Which by its flight characteristics significantly exceeds the Russian aircraft in service.


          Eh ... There is such a bird - lives on willows ... It is called naive ... Well, let them keep hoping on themselves further ...

          The costs of the F-35 fighter program are already estimated in trillions of dollars. What did they create?
          The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a fifth-generation family of single and single-engine multi-functional fighters. The series is intended for ground attack, reconnaissance, and providing air cover using stealth technology for both ground forces and the fleet. In total, three models are produced: F-35A with standard take-off and landing, F-35B with shortened take-off and vertical landing, and F-35C - the U.S. Navy deck fighter with vertical take-off and landing, designed for aircraft carriers. This series was the result of a long-term ambitious program of the US military to create universal fighters capable of performing a wide range of tasks. It is believed that this latest fifth generation of fighter jets will provide the United States with total air superiority.
          However, Pierre Spray, the creator of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the fourth-generation mass fighter and one of the leading US aircraft designers, believes that the over-enthusiasm of aircraft designers for creating vertical take-off aircraft can play a trick on them.
          “The F-35C, used in aviation by the US and British Navy, the central section becomes very thick - because it has a turbine that allows you to take off and land vertically. Wings, by contrast, are now made very small. As a result, the fighter becomes uncontrollable, since small wings have to bear the multi-ton load of the main section. This greatly reduces the maneuverability of the aircraft - because the wings create the thrust needed to rotate. No wings - no turning. ”
          In direct aerial combat, such an aircraft will lose to a fighter with a traditional design. According to Spray, the modern F-35C is useless in an air battle: it can even be defeated by the Soviet MIG-50 created back in the 21s, surpassing the F-35C in maneuverability.
          Rzhunimagu !!! This general probably fulfills cookies laughing
          It’s incorrect to speak about comparability of military budgets! T.K. the lion's share of their budget goes not to promising developments but to logistics, the maintenance of numerous military bases around the world, the bulky, clumsy and incredibly expensive military machine in Afghanistan.
          1. Rink
            Rink 15 May 2014 10: 42
            +11
            Looks like the Spanish general has never heard of the Awful adventure of the American destroyer "Donald Duck" ... ugh, "Donald Cook" in the Black Sea? But this is an element of the very vaunted American missile defense system.
            And probably, he still does not know how the leading American aircraft designers assess the combat capabilities of the "super-duper" fighter F35, which is still not able to get out of "childhood sores"? But at least he should have heard something about the results of computer simulation of battles with the participation of our dryers or the results of the same training battles with export versions of our fighters?

            However, all this is nonsense. We do not need weapons, they are just so afraid of us.

      4. from punk
        from punk 15 May 2014 09: 22
        +14
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Look at the numbers and did not read.

        sitting in sunny Spain some general talks about the strength and weakness of Russia. All these statements about the missile defense system in Europe are tired of it. Well, our missiles will not fly through Europe, the flight path is bad. There is a short way through the pole. and the general would not think about which side the advantage would be, but it would be better to think that in the event of such a conflict, if there is a missile defense system in Europe, there will be no Europe itself because of its meagerness. need 100 boats 100 bombers
      5. vsoltan
        vsoltan 15 May 2014 09: 24
        +7
        Yeah, only here their vaunted B-2 are a little behind our Tu-160
        1. gav6757
          gav6757 15 May 2014 09: 48
          +6
          So, after all, the TU-160, we have miscalculated once or twice ... I must tell the truth.
          1. Ural guys
            Ural guys 15 May 2014 11: 58
            +1
            You tell the truth, no one will ever reveal the truth to you. Even if you attach Dzerzhinsky's nickname instead of your nickname Stalin. This is classified information. For the distribution of which 20 years in prison.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      6. Mihail1982
        Mihail1982 15 May 2014 09: 41
        +15
        According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Russia allocated 2013 a billion dollars to 68,2 in the year 600, while US military spending exceeded XNUMX billions of dollars.
        The question is who and what spends these budgets! Our army Serdyukov survived, smile and the US Army will chew and spit it out! It seems to me that the lion's share of the US Army budget goes to the maintenance of this miracle army, including bases outside the territory of the United States, PMCs, and just corruption is also present, there are enough Serdyukovs there, maybe even worse. More modern weapons are not a guarantee of 100% success, one must also take into account the moral and volitional qualities of the soldiers who are holding these weapons in their hands. Just remember how the "valiant" Georgian "army" flew away in 2008, abandoning along the way all the new weapons provided to it by the "well-wisher". So, the article is not objective, not a test!
        1. Canep
          Canep 15 May 2014 10: 00
          0
          Quote: Michael1982
          The question is who and what spends these budgets! Our army survived Serdyukov, smile and even the US army will survive and spit it out!

          They have the whole army of Serdyukovs, such a large-scale cut of the dough can only be explained by this.
      7. dmitrich
        dmitrich 15 May 2014 11: 41
        +1
        One thing the author forgot, pi n has no owl, as one Chechen fighter from the "Vostok" battalion said.
        1. Praetorian
          Praetorian 15 May 2014 14: 39
          0
          didn't forget by the way
    2. Sterlya
      Sterlya 15 May 2014 09: 16
      +12
      Americans used to fight against the Papuans. and here they can put them on the count. okay on a member (would be glad).
      So they all went
      And the author is not competent to disgrace (which is also quite natural for a gay person)
      1. muginov2015
        muginov2015 15 May 2014 09: 26
        +9
        ten times the budget? Well, well, given that the F-35 is 10 times more expensive than the Su-35 ... we’ll think of it shorter ourselves.
    3. voldmis
      voldmis 15 May 2014 09: 27
      +11
      At the same time, according to American military experts, the level of development of the latest technological developments in conventional weapons of Russia is significantly behind the United States.


      What is the use of modern technology if a soldier refuses to operate it due to unreleased sausages? As a result, fortitude, skill and justice prevail. But they still do not understand this ...

      “Topol-M” with insufficient combat capabilities and more than a modest deployment scale can in no way become a symmetrical response to the promising multi-position US missile defense system, the Spanish general believes.


      We were engaged in hat-making. Spanish general evaluates US missile defense and Russian Poplar M. Funny laughing You’d have your own first.

      Obviously, the level of military spending of the two countries is incomparable. The United States, as the leading world economic power, can afford defense spending that Russia does not have to “afford”.


      It’s just that they saw the budget for our sawmills and didn’t dream ...

      According to the Spanish general, at present, it can be stated with confidence that nuclear parity has developed between the United States and Russia, so it is almost impossible to imagine a military conflict between the two states in its purest form.


      Just one sane thought throughout the interview. Only the word "practically" can be removed and left simply "impossible". And why then everything said by the general above ??? Air concussion?
      1. acute
        acute 15 May 2014 10: 29
        +5
        In the third world there will be no winners and losers. We must proceed from this
        1. Ural guys
          Ural guys 15 May 2014 12: 16
          +2
          Andrei, of course you are right in something, but the Third World War was already and this is a universally recognized fact - this is the Cold War.
          Although in a row what difference does it make third or six hundred and tenth ?!
          Another meaning is important, due to the small usurped clan they again want to shift their problems onto the shoulders of the working people. And this fate awaits precisely the Russian people. As for the American, for the most part they are little informed (censorship there doesn’t work badly; the same is Yatub, where videos uploaded by users that do not comply with US principles are deleted within XNUMX hours), are closed and live solely on the interests that the propogandy puts on them CIA car. Although we have such people, for the most part the veil that was artificially created began to subside from the population. The main thing is not to stop achieving the goal. Of course, we all think that they will solve our problems for us, they themselves will leave (for example, housing and communal services, social services, roads and other infrastructure), but this is not so, everyone has a part and this part is a part of the whole. Now, when there will be a full understanding of this, then it will be possible to talk about building a full-fledged civil society.
          If a society is fragmented, various negative phenomena begin to appear in it (fascism is an example), if it shows unity, solidarity, then it can come to a common goal and give birth to a national idea.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Echelon
        Echelon 15 May 2014 11: 29
        0
        “Topol-M” with insufficient combat capabilities and more than a modest deployment scale can in no way become a symmetrical response to the promising multi-position US missile defense system, the Spanish general believes.



        Maybe the Spanish general does not know about such characteristics as the yaw and pitch inherent in the Russian Topol-M. With such parameters, it is impossible to shoot down Topol-M with conventional missile defense systems, they simply will not get into it.
        1. Associate Professor
          Associate Professor 15 May 2014 12: 41
          +1
          Quote: Echelon
          Maybe the Spanish general does not know about such characteristics as the yaw and pitch inherent in the Russian Topol-M. With such parameters, it is impossible to shoot down Topol-M with conventional missile defense systems, they just won’t get into it

          This is true only for the stage when the warheads on Topol-M and Yars are already separated from the last stage. And on the acceleration site, even though Yars accelerates much faster than the missiles of previous generations, missiles can become vulnerable with the development of the US missile defense system, if ground-based radars located near the borders of Russia are used to detect the launch and launch anti-ballistic missiles. Therefore, in addition to solid-fuel rockets, it was decided to create a new liquid rocket capable of delivering a charge to the United States not only through the North Pole, but also through any direction, including the South Pole.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Hamul
      Hamul 15 May 2014 09: 32
      +4
      Another American-Spanish propaganda article. Lol

      The quantity and budget are assessed as always. The "cut" and the quality levels of military equipment are not taken into account. For some reason they forget to say what kind of atomic charges the United States has and in what condition, the level of training of specialists.

      There are a huge number of nuances - which just do not allow us to compare the balance of power.

      ... The main question is - and who will attack anyone? We are far from attacking the United States, but they are far from us .... or can aircraft carriers fly on the ground already?
      absolutely one thing - the first in line will be GEYROPA ... about which she is constantly being forgotten.
      The first blow will be inflicted on missile defense units .... well, then who will survive thereafter. Chegoito, the Czechs did not want a missile defense system - they are fools
      1. Sterlya
        Sterlya 15 May 2014 09: 56
        +2
        Quote: Hamul
        The first blow will be inflicted on missile defense units .... well, then who will survive thereafter. Chegoito, the Czechs did not want a missile defense system - they are fools

        I also thought about it. Czechs turned out to be the smartest in geyrop. Well, I personally like Greece and Serbia to my liking
      2. igor_m_p
        igor_m_p 15 May 2014 10: 33
        +3
        Quote: Hamul
        For some reason they forget to say about what atomic charges the United States has and in what state, the level of training of specialists.

        And they also forget that the most modern ICBM in the United States is MX, ancient like the guano of a mammoth, and the basis of strategic forces is the ICBM "Minuteman", ancient like a guano to a dinosaur. They also forget that even the less ancient Soviet "Voevoda" "Satan" will open any modern missile defense system like a bear to a can of condensed milk. And they also forget that since the collapse of the USSR, the states have not conducted a single test of their ICBMs, and Russia conducts several times a year.
        1. sabakina
          sabakina 15 May 2014 12: 38
          +2
          Just take off my hat to you !!!
          If another video were filmed about the real state of nuclear weapons in the United States (I do not know how), your beauty would be!
    5. 1812 1945
      1812 1945 15 May 2014 10: 30
      +2
      Quote: maestro123
      And still the whole world is in ruin!

      That's it! The confrontation of nuclear forces is unrealistic. It seems that the Spanish general, considering "guns - machine guns" and dollars - is engaged in self-hypnosis for the fulfillment of desires and simulates hostilities in a brothel for homosexuals. I hope that the conclusion of an agreement between Russia and China on closer military and technical cooperation will discourage this army and its headquarters from playing as soldiers.
    6. shuhartred
      shuhartred 15 May 2014 11: 21
      0
      Quote: maestro123
      And still the whole world is in ruin!

      But then.
    7. from punk
      from punk 15 May 2014 12: 06
      +2
      Quote: maestro123
      And still the whole world is in ruin!

      Shamanov’s response to the sanctions — is it violet to me? —and don’t go to America? —the supreme commander will issue an order, I’ll go soldier
    8. Skipper2050
      Skipper2050 15 May 2014 13: 16
      +1
      “In terms of training, education, the latest technology, efficiency and ability to quickly respond to the emergence of military threats - the superiority is undoubtedly on the American side. service. "
      Yes, it will outweigh everything ... Afghanistan, Chechnya. Young conscripts, they did such things there that American mercenaries never dreamed of. A comrade told me in the 1st Chechen (he was older), a soldier on a walkie-talkie, cries but causes fire on himself ... The guy died, but then many spirits died.
      We have all the men who are where, but everyone knows how to hold a machine gun in their hands. And if God forbid Russia rises, but with modern weapons, then it will sweep away all. We will transfer the whole country to military rails as in 41-45. Do not expect anything good from Russia then.
  2. papont64
    papont64 15 May 2014 09: 06
    +1
    And what about the rest of NATO, because with fear and rats they attack a cat.
    1. aktanir
      aktanir 15 May 2014 09: 26
      +2
      it is a pity, of course, that we do not have 110 nuclear submarines ....
      and the whole world under your feet ...
  3. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 15 May 2014 09: 07
    +13
    "At the same time, the Russian military is superior to the Americans in the readiness for self-sacrifice and the ability to endure the hardships of military service."

    General Evidence. smile
  4. Prometey
    Prometey 15 May 2014 09: 10
    +4
    As usual, nothing new is open. Another article for complacency (I'm talking about Europeans).
  5. Roman1970
    Roman1970 15 May 2014 09: 11
    +3
    At the same time, Russian servicemen are superior to Americans in their readiness for self-sacrifice and the ability to endure the hardships of military service.

    It is even spelled out in the charter ... But in general, ours are stronger in spirit, it is more important than excellence in technology ... I respect the Chinese with respect, there is patriotic upbringing there ...
  6. mpa945
    mpa945 15 May 2014 09: 12
    +1
    Sober enough.
    But if we imagine the possibility of "turning off" the space constellation, then all half-trillion annual costs will have to be written off as "irrecoverable" losses. Well, almost everything. hi
  7. a52333
    a52333 15 May 2014 09: 14
    +3
    Lord, who is interested in the opinion of the Spanish anaral? Does he really hto? Anaral without military experience. Let him keep his opinion to himself.
  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 09: 14
    +7
    Nuclear submarines: USA - 140, Russia - 110.

    Analysts, they are such analysts ...
    I would not be disgraced
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 15 May 2014 09: 21
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Analysts, they are such analysts ...
      I would not be disgraced

      Ehhh, we would have 110 submarines. what
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 15 May 2014 09: 38
        +2
        Quote: Vladimirets
        Ehhh, we would have 110 submarines

        There is only one plus, they think that we have them. You should not dissuade them, let them continue to bully their own people.
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 15 May 2014 09: 48
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          There is only one plus, they think that we have them

          Not particularly comforting for us, plus some. Though... what
      2. annodomene
        annodomene 15 May 2014 09: 55
        +3
        Only not the nuclear submarines, but pla. A nuclear submarine is an EMERGENCY submarine
        1. volcano
          volcano 15 May 2014 12: 18
          0
          Exactly
          apparently the names, for example, the 12th nuclear submarine squadron, need to be decoded
          12 squadron of emergency boats. :)
    2. Little Muck
      Little Muck 15 May 2014 09: 37
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Analysts, they are such analysts ...

      So after all, he definitely came from a derivative ANALik, here are the numbers from there.
      In the West they are all "rear-wheel drive" and their life is full of "Conchita". laughing
  9. Stiletto
    Stiletto 15 May 2014 09: 15
    +5
    I agree with the Spanish general only on one thing: "Topol-M" is, of course, good, and a couple of thousand new analogues of "Satan" are added to it - even better for democracy!
  10. Wedmak
    Wedmak 15 May 2014 09: 16
    0
    A surprisingly balanced article, although not without boasting. But for some reason, the author says more about nuclear weapons. Its use is a kayuk for the entire planet. But in conventional and high-precision weapons far from parity between the United States and Russia.
  11. Vlad Gore
    Vlad Gore 15 May 2014 09: 16
    +9
    Russians usually started all wars in the minority. Then they marched through Berlin and Paris. And then "approximate equality." So it can immediately land in Washington "parade" troops. laughing
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Stanislas
      Stanislas 15 May 2014 09: 53
      +10
      We’ll prepare partners first.
      1. ssergn
        ssergn 15 May 2014 12: 37
        +1
        There is such an axiom - Russian wars do not start, they end them!
    3. avia1991
      avia1991 15 May 2014 11: 08
      +5
      Quote: Vlad Gore
      So it can immediately land in Washington "parade" troops.

      The States have already forerun your idea: they have blocked General Shamanov’s entry into the United States crying .. True, Shamanov himself, when asked by a reporter "that is, you are not planning to go to the States?" replied: "Well why .. IF THE PRESIDENT AND THE DEFENSE MINISTER SEND - I WILL GO!" good
  12. mig31
    mig31 15 May 2014 09: 16
    +6
    In modern warfare, a quantitative advantage is inappropriate, if there is a nuclear country of a suicide, (I do not think that the Americans are), then the world is unlikely to save ... Russia, it is the country that the Almighty sent as a peacemaker ....
  13. Giant thought
    Giant thought 15 May 2014 09: 18
    +2
    Our weapon is the most important thing - our fighting spirit, which the mattresses do not have at all. Therefore, with such an advantage of their weapons over us, they don’t even think about fighting with us, they are afraid that Obama will choke on his tie.
    1. Sandor Rado
      Sandor Rado 15 May 2014 10: 06
      .
      And who is going to fight with the Russian Federation? tTM people live, enjoy life and civilization, and you all defend against someone. The USSR was crushed by an arms race, the Russian Federation is next in line, I’m a warrior too)))))
      1. strannik595
        strannik595 15 May 2014 10: 31
        +6
        tTM people live, enjoy life and civilization, and you all defend against someone. The USSR was crushed by an arms race, the Russian Federation is next in line, I’m a warrior too)))))
        ... if they had half the country destroyed and filled up 28 million people, they would also look at the world differently and would enjoy less at someone else’s expense, unleashing conflicts around the world ........ they were geographically lucky to live behind a large anti-tank moat, otherwise they would have crowed .... Russia is forced to keep gunpowder dry and a polished gun, there were too many people at all times before the commissar’s body laughing ....... nothing, God is not Eroshka, sees a little, soon a quiet paragraph will come to their enjoyment
      2. Stanislas
        Stanislas 15 May 2014 11: 10
        +4
        Quote: Sandor Rado
        The USSR was crushed by an arms race, while Russia is next in line
        Not this way. First, the USSR gave the Euro-fascists an ass, now it’s the turn of the Russian Federation.
      3. Tartary
        Tartary 15 May 2014 11: 58
        +2
        Quote: Sandor Rado
        The USSR was crushed by an arms race, the Russian Federation is next in line, I’m a warrior too)))

        Gorbachevskaya’s ugly face was crushed by the USSR, and not just by races ...
        This is what the Anglo-Saxons tell their peoples about the "Great Victories", but we don't need it ... We know.
      4. ssergn
        ssergn 15 May 2014 12: 39
        +2
        Especially in Detroit laughing

        And you still tell the Negroes, Latinos, Chinese and others who lives on benefits. Dip as you enjoy.
      5. Ural guys
        Ural guys 15 May 2014 12: 45
        +1
        What have you done for the state and its security?
        Although it is possible you live in a different reality!
      6. The comment was deleted.
      7. Barsik
        Barsik 15 May 2014 16: 11
        +1
        And who is going to fight with the Russian Federation? tTM people live, enjoy life and civilization, and you all defend against someone. The USSR was crushed by an arms race, the Russian Federation is next in line, I’m a warrior too)))))

        Also my analyst is your mother ... And next in line is your point wassat go develop so that it does not crack immediately laughing
  14. Gagarin
    Gagarin 15 May 2014 09: 22
    +4
    An article with taut tsiferki, revered as a soup diluted with water choked.
    1. Little Muck
      Little Muck 15 May 2014 09: 41
      +1
      Quote: Gagarin
      I read how I drank soup diluted with water.

      By the way, now wash your hands without soap, and even tea will have to drink without sugar. laughing hi
      And so it turns out: drink water, eat water, you will never be full.
    2. Ural guys
      Ural guys 15 May 2014 11: 54
      0
      Here, the numbers are not as important as their technical equipment. As recent events in Ukraine have shown, war can be fought with a small number, bringing the enemy uncountable losses in manpower and equipment.
    3. Ural guys
      Ural guys 15 May 2014 11: 54
      0
      Here, the numbers are not as important as their technical equipment. As recent events in Ukraine have shown, war can be fought with a small number, bringing the enemy uncountable losses in manpower and equipment.
  15. user
    user 15 May 2014 09: 22
    +12
    I beg you, do not retype such crap anymore.
    Before he goes to war with Russia, he should look at the map. America does not have common land borders with us; the border through the Bering Strait does not count. Since the Russian Federation is not going to fight in the United States (and not too tough - for now), we are talking either about a war in Russia or about a war without military contact i.e. a war like in Ukraine, private military companies with self-defense forces (well, we will not consider such a war). It turns out that we will wage war on the territory of the Russian Federation (it does not matter with NATO or the United States). In this case, the transport shoulder will amount to many thousands of kilometers, and the Russian Federation is not Libya or Iraq without combat support (in such a volume it is beyond the reach of anyone), although the United States certainly has some chances with NATO, well, they are purely theoretical. The whole point is in tactical nuclear weapons and the readiness (which was officially voiced) of its preventive use, which is why for some reason this article did not get and was not considered.
  16. kodxnumx
    kodxnumx 15 May 2014 09: 23
    +4
    In terms of numbers, we are comparable to the triad! But in terms of morally strong-willed, we bring an order of magnitude, so here AM.E.R.A.M. without thieves!
    1. NIVH
      NIVH 15 May 2014 09: 47
      +35
      Ponte does not reflect the real state of things.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. KAPITANUS
    KAPITANUS 15 May 2014 09: 25
    +7
    Numbers, graphs do not say anything. The Russians are not amenable to mathematical analysis, it is pointless to predict their actions - EVERYTHING WILL HAPPEN AT ALL NOT SO, it is better to just give up.
  19. Humpty
    Humpty 15 May 2014 09: 26
    +15
    There is one more weighty argument against which Western "analysis" breaks down. This is the Russian "So what !?"
    1. Little Muck
      Little Muck 15 May 2014 09: 43
      +2
      Quote: Humpty
      There is one more weighty argument against which Western "analysis" breaks down. This is the Russian "So what !?"

      Maybe after all do we ...? laughing
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 15 May 2014 10: 16
        +3
        Quote: Little Muck
        Maybe we can still ...?

        There are special secret drugs for this ...
      2. avia1991
        avia1991 15 May 2014 11: 14
        +3
        Quote: Little Muck
        Quote: Humpty
        There is one more weighty argument against which Western "analysis" breaks down. This is the Russian "So what !?"

        Maybe after all do we ...? laughing

        Well, if we add to this the famous Russian "A US. RAT!" - it becomes clear that the Americans against us will ALWAYS remain in a deep black OPE wassat laughing
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 15 May 2014 11: 52
      +3
      Quote: Humpty
      There is one more weighty argument against which Western "analysis" breaks down. This is the Russian "So what !?"
      yes
  20. Palych9999
    Palych9999 15 May 2014 09: 27
    0
    An article at the level of an essay by an 8th grade student, like "How I spent my summer", according to the information content and accuracy of the figures given.
    Found something to reprint, "combat" Spanish general ...
  21. Good cat
    Good cat 15 May 2014 09: 27
    +2
    Did not like the article. The numbers are very approximate, they all mixed up the number of boats and the danger of an environmental disaster. Apparently the general was invented by the journalists.
    "In terms of training, education, the latest technology, efficiency and ability to quickly respond to the emergence of military threats - the superiority is undoubtedly on the American side." Compilation article from various Internet publications. Nonsense, in short.
  22. Hariva
    Hariva 15 May 2014 09: 28
    +4
    The author generally misinterpreted everything! He did not even mention sapper blades! Probably the existence of this terrible Russian weapon, Western analysts are forbidden to mention censorship.
    1. Reserve officer
      Reserve officer 15 May 2014 12: 06
      +4
      And forgot to mention the construction battalion. Animals. They are not even given machine guns.
      But in general, for such articles you should always put an epigraph - Bismarck's numerous sayings about the treachery and unpredictability of Russia.
  23. Ruswolf
    Ruswolf 15 May 2014 09: 28
    +3
    Yes! They have big problems with numbers!
    If I'm not mistaken, the United States
    - The fleet includes 14 SSBNs of the Ohio type
    - 3 PLA type Seawolf
    - 44 submarine type Los Angeles
    - 7 latest Virginia type submarines
    But considering that most boats are already outdated, they plan that by 2030 all boats of the Los Angeles type will be withdrawn from the Navy, and the number of multipurpose submarines will decrease to 30 units. The focus will be on Virginia type boats
  24. Averias
    Averias 15 May 2014 09: 29
    +5
    A quote from the article: "The United States intends to adopt the latest development of American aircraft designers, the fifth generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, in the near future."
    I did not read further. We also forgot to mention laser bullets and railguns.
    But the private statement of the American admiral, about the AUG in the realities of modern combat clashes with a developed power (hypothetically) was silent. And he said something like the following: "AUG are good where there are no anti-ship missiles, coastal complexes and missile boats. Also, AUG is useless where minefields with a variable geometry of charges are used (rapid concentration of mines at a given point). That is, AUG is good. where you need to scare the "Papuans", shake their imagination with size and apparent power.
  25. brisk
    brisk 15 May 2014 09: 29
    +4
    Damn, why did General Jesus praise the American F-35, but didn’t even say a word about the Russian T-50? am
    1. Sirius-2
      Sirius-2 15 May 2014 09: 44
      +2
      This general is in military service. According to his duty, he cannot praise a conditional opponent, but praise an ally. This must be taken into account. And if there is a T-50, then it is better to pretend that this plane is not there - the western inhabitant will swallow the information without checking.
      And then to be precise, the T-50 is now undergoing state tests, and they will end no earlier than 2016.
    2. sem-yak
      sem-yak 15 May 2014 09: 49
      +1
      Well, apparently no one reported to him! Which proves a low degree of his knowledge of the armament of Russia! Yes, and good! As one comedian says - Then! Surprise will be!
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 15 May 2014 10: 08
        0
        Quote: sem-yak
        Which proves a low degree of his knowledge of the armament of Russia!

        The T-50 is not yet in production and is not in service.
    3. kodxnumx
      kodxnumx 15 May 2014 09: 50
      0
      Because he is from the side of the NATO alliance, the T-50 will still show itself in action!
    4. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 15 May 2014 10: 04
      0
      Quote: svelto
      but didn’t even say a word about the Russian T-50?

      But he never heard of him. What general, such infa in the article.
    5. Marconi41
      Marconi41 15 May 2014 12: 03
      +1
      Quote: svelto
      svelto Today, 09:29
      Damn, why did General Jesus praise the American F-35, but didn’t even say a word about the Russian T-50?

      That's when the T-50 becomes the SU-50, then you can talk about it. In the meantime, only tests are underway.
  26. jovanni
    jovanni 15 May 2014 09: 32
    +1
    Votruba's accountant ... He counted! The ratio of the amount of toilet paper per fighter forgot to take into account.
  27. San_aa
    San_aa 15 May 2014 09: 33
    +3
    Everyone "scratches" the American economy, but their national debt is only growing. Life by no means will ultimately lead to the transformation of America into Detroit ruins. And the Russians have always found a way out of any situation. It's just that we get together for a long time, but then we quickly go to the goal.
  28. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 15 May 2014 09: 35
    0
    Amerikosy have long fought themselves only with the Papuans, and then after a month of air strikes! Now they are trying to set the Ukrainian army on Russia and are furious that they will not climb, they hurried, the veterans of the USSR Armed Forces are still alive!
  29. zollstab
    zollstab 15 May 2014 09: 35
    +2
    We have the SPIRIT of a warrior brought up over the centuries and that’s it!
    1. Barsik
      Barsik 15 May 2014 16: 07
      +1
      We have the SPIRIT of a warrior brought up over the centuries and that’s it!

      Let me disagree - it is laid down in us at the genetic level soldier
  30. cup
    cup 15 May 2014 09: 35
    0
    there will be no winners in the next world war. everyone will lose. more missiles less. the difference is not great. it’s better not to use them.
  31. serjant4
    serjant4 15 May 2014 09: 36
    0
    In the 41st we were also few ... The history of the Americans does not teach anything.
    1. kodxnumx
      kodxnumx 15 May 2014 09: 58
      +1
      I have little faith in the data, you have to be a complete idiot to tell everything about everything to everyone, how much and why and where we are and in what quantity!
      1. Goodmen
        Goodmen 15 May 2014 12: 38
        0
        Quote: kod3001
        I have little faith in the data, you have to be a complete idiot to tell everything about everything to everyone, how much and why and where we are and in what quantity!


        Understand. But...
        What kind of idiot do you need to upgrade the security system of a nuclear submarine base (including the perimeter) for pi.ndosovsky money, coordinating with them TK and the project? ))))))))) This was in the Far East, under the non-proliferation treaty.
        I’m already used to not being surprised at anything in our country. And I admit that our enemies are well aware of what, where and how.
        But I also have little faith in such left-wing data from left-wing generals.
    2. Ural guys
      Ural guys 15 May 2014 12: 41
      +1
      As for American tanks and other equipment, it still needs to be transferred to the borders, the same is manpower. Yes, they plan only in Estonia and Latvia with a focus on up to one million soldiers, but these are only plans, this does not reflect the actual situation. Remember the recent scandal in the Lithuanian city, where the Americans put it mildly on hooliganism.
      Even if we assume that they really will begin to move such reserves to our borders, then peacefully and calmly, the troops will not look at this either, and therefore a contiguous answer is possible, not only on the western front, but on the eastern. This just explains the strengthening of the eastern regions of Russia.
      As for atomic weapons, their use will obviously not be in this war, because The West is interested in resources, after using a nuclear strike it will simply not be realistic to use these resources (the territory will be completely contaminated with radioactive contamination), therefore they have only one way out of the information war and supposedly some advances in military equipment that are not capable of harming and threatening interests RF Terrorist attacks can also be carried out using Islamic militants, but as the experience of the Chechen company has shown, this eventually all comes to naught, and therefore Russia has learned to effectively counter this threat.
      Yes, and about the numbers would not be particularly deceived. The data is clearly directed towards disorganization and confusion. Because only according to my calculations, according to the information of this information resource, completely different numbers.
      In addition, one must also take into account the state of all this equipment, technological equipment, morale of personnel, etc.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Saburov
      Saburov 15 May 2014 13: 22
      +1
      This is a complete bullshit according to the data, you yourself calculate the number of tanks, planes and artillery in Europe, the maximum that they can collect is about 3-3.5 thousand tanks throughout Europe, 2.5 thousand aircraft, maximum 10 thousand artillery, etc. e, but do not forget that it was smooth on paper, the actual number of combat units is about half that, both with us and with them. Yes, and the modern type of battle eliminates the use of large military units and their concentration in one place - this is a guaranteed missile strike at the place of concentration, maximum 2-2.5 thousand people per connection.
  32. Prometey
    Prometey 15 May 2014 09: 37
    +3
    Quote: svelto
    Damn, why did General Jesus praise the American F-35, but didn’t even say a word about the Russian T-50?

    Because he didn’t even hear about him
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 15 May 2014 13: 07
      0
      Afraid to ask Jesus what he heard about the Khibiny? Or the Himalayas?
  33. vsoltan
    vsoltan 15 May 2014 09: 38
    +2
    I believe that the global military conflict between the Russian Federation and the USA is absolutely ruled out. Analysts there, too, are not fools, they understand the consequences .... they bend down only the very weak ones ... and the horny American taxpayer never! he will never go to the aggravation of the conditions of his trembling for the sake of some obscure goals!
  34. serega.fedotov
    serega.fedotov 15 May 2014 09: 39
    +3
    Will Russia be able to confront the United States, the wrong question! It will be correct: After the conflict between the United States and Russia, who will have more FITNESS for living territory?
  35. bulvas
    bulvas 15 May 2014 09: 42
    +5
    Defense and attack are two different things; moreover, the US military budget is significantly spent on the maintenance of numerous bases and operations abroad, while in Russia it is almost entirely used for defense.

    The most important thing is whether the Americans have enough transport to transport coffins to their states and how long the US administration will last after the arrival of the first batch of such cargo.


    The Spanish general, it would be better to think what future awaits the resorts of Costa Bravo and Costa Del Sol.

    The Americans will not go there.


    1. kodxnumx
      kodxnumx 15 May 2014 10: 04
      +1
      And most importantly, prices in America are incomparably higher than in Russia, so these figures do not say anything!
    2. andj61
      andj61 15 May 2014 11: 42
      0
      Quote: bulvas
      The most important thing is whether the Americans have enough transport to transport coffins to their states and how long the US administration will last after the arrival of the first batch of such cargo.


      This question will be the most basic for them.
    3. Ural guys
      Ural guys 15 May 2014 12: 58
      +1
      "The Spanish general, would have better thought about the future of the Costa Bravo and Costa Del Sol resorts."
      Neither Americans nor Russians, who are the main source of replenishment of the budget of Europe, are going to go there, but why not, because formally they declared us enemies, as a result the tourist season will be disrupted. As a result, millions of people employed in this business will find themselves without a wage with the prospect of completely losing their jobs. Moreover, the Master of Cards and Visa impose restrictions against Russian banks, which means that an ordinary tourist will not be able to pay them abroad. Plus, an active confrontation against the backdrop of Ukrainian events, according to the messages of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, citizens of the Russian Federation are strongly not recommended to visit those countries with which the United States has an agreement on cooperation to extradite foreign citizens upon their request.
      Although if someone wants to spend the next 20 or 30 years in the American zone and American grubs, this is the choice of the citizen himself and he is responsible for his actions.
      As for their tourists, they are also unlikely to visit real resorts, since they can not afford the citizens of these countries.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  36. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 15 May 2014 09: 44
    +2
    Of course, you can’t compare the military budget, Russia does not have an activated cheat code for endless money, that's how much it needs to be printed, so if you take this opportunity from the Americans, then you can’t compare the cheater player and the player who plays honestly if you get what you get.
  37. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 15 May 2014 09: 44
    +2
    Quote: svelto
    Damn, why did General Jesus praise the American F-35, but didn’t even say a word about the Russian T-50? am



    But he doesn’t know about him, an analysis at the level of OBS on the market, many tried to understand what Russia is, but not everyone is given it. As the classic said: You cannot understand Russia with your mind, you can’t measure it with a common arshin. He’s also Russian in Africa character.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 15 May 2014 10: 13
      0
      Quote: A1L9E4K9S
      He is a Russian character and in Africa a Russian character.

      Look and relax!
  38. 14evgen
    14evgen 15 May 2014 09: 46
    +1
    The superiority of Russian weapons now lies in the fact that the Kremlin managed to show the West who the boss is in the house.

    Here is the most important thing in this article!
  39. Bakht
    Bakht 15 May 2014 09: 52
    0
    The general was freaking out. Does he compare nuclear capability? So no one in real life tested it. And no one worked out the possibility of interception either. Here you can say everything that wanders into a wild head. Comparison of cruise missile carriers can and does make sense. But without a nuclear component. Under attack are directions from the sea-ocean. Here, too, there can be no comparisons and assumptions. This is all a talking room. Are states able to quickly deploy troops? Where? To the territory of Russia or China? Maybe to Europe? But the Iskanders keep the whole of Europe at gunpoint. With the acquisition of Crimea and the entire southern flank of Europe.

    When using conventional weapons, no one guarantees that Russia will not join NATO in the Netherlands itself. And when using nuclear, Europe will not survive the third world.
    1. andj61
      andj61 15 May 2014 11: 45
      0
      Quote: Bakht
      But the Iskanders keep the whole of Europe at gunpoint.

      The maximum range of Iskander is 500 km. It will not be enough. Here is the placement of the Tu-22M3 in the Crimea - Putin's heaviest blow on the EuroPRO system
  40. ken
    ken 15 May 2014 09: 54
    +2
    General statements so-so. How he compares is incomprehensible. Or he thinks that in such a mess two countries will fight - again, it is not clear. As I think, if the mess begins, then the world will be divided into two parts: for us or against us. Everything will be decided by geopolitics. In general, if God forbid, it begins - we will win anyway !!!!!!!
  41. nvv
    nvv 15 May 2014 10: 02
    +2
    Of course, you can doubt the reliability of this information, but......
    1. raven75
      raven75 15 May 2014 12: 11
      -1
      Not. I definitely do not believe in the degradation of the US nuclear industry. Any spies of the U.S. Why, why, and THIS. So that the old enemy so easily gave up his (debugged, powerful) position. I’m not Stanislavsky, but I’ll say, I DO NOT BELIEVE !!!
  42. sem-yak
    sem-yak 15 May 2014 10: 02
    +5
    Well, the assessment of their fleet We have successfully completed the Su-24! Result - 27 members of the crew wrote a rapport "of their own free will"! This despite the fact that the Su-24 did not carry weapons!
    And if so?
    1. Free Island
      Free Island 15 May 2014 15: 15
      0
      Quote: sem-yak
      Result - 27 crew members
      disgraced and ceased to be members))))))))))))
  43. Capacitor
    Capacitor 15 May 2014 10: 02
    +1
    I started reading, I realized that about nothing) Spain is certainly famous for its "mighty generals and analysts")
  44. gav6757
    gav6757 15 May 2014 10: 03
    +5
    Read it! I thought!
    I remembered the war in Iraq.
    Americans are not warriors! These are not Germans and not Israelis, they are not even Chinese, they are simply n e dos !!!
    It is impossible to fight without "Coca-Cola" and toilet paper, unless artillery and aviation have processed the enemy's positions beforehand, even the scouts will not stick their nose there. They can kill!
    In general, you can write anything you want, but the Americans are not warriors, but according to this, the article is FUFLO !!!
    1. Ural guys
      Ural guys 15 May 2014 13: 04
      0
      Well, well done, that I understood.
    2. Ural guys
      Ural guys 15 May 2014 13: 04
      0
      Well, well done, that I understood.
  45. Cormorants
    Cormorants 15 May 2014 10: 04
    +2
    Firstly, the nature of the armed forces of the United States of Russia is different, we have a more defensive nature, they have an attacker. Secondly, our training of tankers, pilots and other specialists is higher and better. Thirdly, our motivation is different, and this is fundamental on the battlefield. And judging by the fact that they have more computer technologies in the army and this is an indicator of success is not worth it. All their strength is a propaganda-based bluff.
  46. sem-yak
    sem-yak 15 May 2014 10: 06
    +10
    Well, the assessment of their fleet We have successfully completed the Su-24! Result - 27 members of the crew wrote a rapport "of their own free will"! This despite the fact that the Su-24 did not carry weapons!
    And if so?
    1. raven75
      raven75 15 May 2014 11: 56
      +2
      This is the whole assortment that "drying" can carry on the pylons? Not bad, even very good. So he can send someone to the fucking mother. Or bury it in the ground ...
    2. Ural guys
      Ural guys 15 May 2014 13: 07
      0
      Now tank biathlon has begun, in turn, it is time to conduct air and sea. I think then the Amers will have something to think about.
      The most important thing is to remind them of this every day, to remind that we are here, we are close ...
      1. Free Island
        Free Island 15 May 2014 15: 18
        0
        air has already been invented. They called him "Darts ..."
    3. The comment was deleted.
  47. Moore
    Moore 15 May 2014 10: 07
    +1
    Spain with its generals - yes, this is authority. Who has beaten the Spaniards in the last 300 years? In my opinion, only Italians.
    1. andj61
      andj61 15 May 2014 11: 47
      0
      Quote: Moore
      Spain with its generals - yes, this is authority. Who has beaten the Spaniards in the last 300 years? In my opinion, only Italians.

      There was still a civil war in Spain, where Italians also participated. True, together with the Germans and other Spaniards.
  48. silver_roman
    silver_roman 15 May 2014 10: 09
    +4
    once again convincing of the absurdity of NATO and their generals. how stupid and funny analysis. if they really take such an approach to assessing a likely adversary and based on the obtained data make plans for an attack, then I greatly sympathize with them!
    although most likely these are just empty words for the stupid Western media and their ordinary people!
  49. The comment was deleted.
  50. Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 15 May 2014 10: 11
    +3
    The general did not freeze the garbage, he just said what was ordered to be told to the press.