Military Review

Russia again ranked second in the ranking of military power

74
According to the conclusion of the experts of the Global Firepower (GFP) portal, which annually publishes the Global Index of Military Power, Russia entered the top three most militarily strong states, giving first place to the United States, reports RIA News.




“The leader’s position has been maintained by the US Armed Forces, followed by the armies of Russia and China. The US Armed Forces are far ahead of the rest of the country in terms of military spending, which was a key factor for the US leadership in last year’s ranking, ”the agency commented on the results.

Analysts noted that “Russia has almost twice as much tanksthan the Americans - 15 398 against 8 848, but fewer units aviation “3 against 547.”

China is also ahead of the United States in the number of combat vehicles, but it is lagging behind Russia in this respect.

Experts note that “the large-scale modernization of the armed forces and the growth of production and purchases of military equipment in the military-industrial complex have become a factor in the strengthening of the Russian army.”

Following China in the ranking is India. Among European countries, Britain ranked highest. The top 10 also hit France, Germany and Turkey.

Analysts explained that their “counting methodology takes into account more 50 factors, including defense expenditures, the capacity of military air and naval forces, the volume of natural resource extraction and the logistic features of countries, including the number of seaports and airports ways. A significant role in the calculations is assigned to human resources.

The nuclear potential of the states was not taken into account in the rating.
Photos used:
www.youtube.com
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vasya_Piterskiy
    Vasya_Piterskiy 15 February 2016 17: 00 New
    14
    Well, that's how to say it! In quantity it may be so, but in terms of quality and combat training - I doubt it very much!
    1. Renat
      Renat 15 February 2016 17: 06 New
      24
      The comparison is certainly superficial, although there is no arguing about the budget. That's just in practice to check oh how I would not want to. Well, if that, then ...
      1. cniza
        cniza 15 February 2016 17: 14 New
        19
        No need to actually check, even if, according to their methodology, they will be the first.
        1. iConst
          iConst 15 February 2016 17: 17 New
          12
          Quote: cniza
          No need to actually check, even if, according to their methodology, they will be the first.
          - I agree.
          Even if zero! smile
          How to warm: no matter what the child is amusing, if only he doesn’t have his own. laughing
          1. Mefodi5124
            Mefodi5124 15 February 2016 17: 52 New
            +1
            if only not with hands
          2. NIKNN
            NIKNN 15 February 2016 19: 13 New
            +5
            that their “calculation methodology takes into account more than 50 factors,

            How about parrots?
            Something kutsaya in the article, the analyst ..., it seems there is a headline, but there is nothing to discuss ... request
            Quote: Renat
            The comparison is certainly superficial, although there is no arguing about the budget. That's just in practice to check oh how I would not want to. Well, if that, then ...
            1. Senior manager
              Senior manager 15 February 2016 20: 06 New
              +2
              Axiom - we are praised, so we must work, revive the Armed forces. And something to put on these crafty ratings, because practice shows that these are, as a rule, the ordered values.
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 15 February 2016 22: 06 New
              +3
              Quote: NIKNN
              Something kutsaya in the article, the analyst ..., it seems there is a headline, but there is nothing to discuss ...
              The site is sick with "hyperbolism" (exaggeration): very often the title of the article does not correspond to its content.
              For example, this article by Kutze analyzes general-purpose forces, not taking into account the basis of the combat power of the state - its strategic nuclear forces! Moreover, there is no accounting and analysis of possible theater of operations and the level of compliance of aircraft with the tasks assigned to them.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 15 February 2016 17: 14 New
        +4
        Quote: Renat
        although you can’t argue about the budget.

        That’s yes, only here are the US Defense Ministry budget expenditures interesting. For example, in 2014, 88,5 billion was allocated only for the operation in Afghanistan, 33 billion for the medical support of the military and their families. We have a total budget of about 50 billion.
        1. Renat
          Renat 15 February 2016 17: 19 New
          +8
          There they have their own cut. No worse, and even cooler than ours.
          1. Kent0001
            Kent0001 15 February 2016 17: 34 New
            +2
            And already this cut lasts quite a long time.
        2. bve56
          bve56 15 February 2016 17: 21 New
          +4
          better see how much is allocated on the F-35! Some sources talk about 1.5 trillion, and you're talking about some little things. True, trillions seem to have been allocated, but made trash. Canada has already withdrawn from F-35 funding. I have no desire to list cons.

          Serge Babkov
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 15 February 2016 17: 28 New
            +1
            Quote: Renat
            There they have their own cut. No worse, and even cooler than ours.

            There are other scales, and some spending, exaggeratedly speaking, on "chewing gum", as it were, is not entirely necessary. request
            Quote: bve56
            how much is allocated to the F-35! Some sources talk about 1.5 trillion, and you're talking about some little things.

            About 20% of the budget goes to the purchase of arms and military equipment and 10-12% to R&D in total. By the way, the biggest expenses, about 40%, are spent on combat training and material and technical support. yes
      4. Tusv
        Tusv 15 February 2016 17: 27 New
        +3
        Quote: Renat
        That's just in practice, I didn’t want to check oh

        NATO games are held regularly, but even without nuclear weapons they lose
        1. Renat
          Renat 15 February 2016 17: 59 New
          +6
          Perhaps I will repeat, but still thanks again to Vissarionovich for leaving the country with nuclear weapons.
          1. Baikal
            Baikal 15 February 2016 18: 43 New
            +1
            Well, who now really lacks the country what
        2. Camel
          Camel 15 February 2016 22: 18 New
          +1
          NATO games are held regularly, but even without nuclear weapons they lose


          And here, by the way, is the question - why are these nuclear weapons not taken into account? In our doctrine, nuclear weapons play a very key role, or maybe "our Western partners" mean a non-nuclear conflict? T.N. "A global disarming strike" will not work, because the territory is very long, and the military doctrine provides for an immediate nuclear strike in the event of an encroachment on Russia's territorial integrity.
      5. Reserve officer
        Reserve officer 15 February 2016 17: 35 New
        +1
        "The American armed forces are far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of military spending, which was a key factor."

        That's it in terms of costs. But only that.
        Military potential, of course, is a serious matter. But military power without the human factor in serious conflicts is something else. Well, I do not believe in the morale of the staff. Especially if the conflict will be in their territory.
        1. Atrix
          Atrix 15 February 2016 18: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Reserve officer
          Especially if the conflict is in their territory

          Believe me, if there is a conflict on their land, they will fight to the last person. The American population is much more patriotic than "ours", let alone to die for freedom and their country from the cradle to be brought up. It is clear that few people want to die in foreign countries, but on their territory they will fight like ours in the Great Patriotic War
          1. Reserve officer
            Reserve officer 15 February 2016 19: 49 New
            +8
            Andrei, what becomes the army and the US population in serious disasters, you can see at least the example of New Orleans. Something of mutual assistance, courage and compassion was not noticeable there. On the contrary - the appearance of a bunch of small gangs, ugly sharing food and water, robbery and murder. As a result - the intervention of the army, the victims, the executions. Moreover, the military did not defend the rule of law, but their own life.
            Patriotism in their Hollywood films.
            And in life, the principle: if in doubt - kill. Anyone. This is not even hidden, but rather advertised.
            And do not compare them with the feat of our people in World War II. The defense of Moscow, the blockade of Leningrad, Stalingrad - this is not about them.
            1. Dewa1s
              Dewa1s 16 February 2016 05: 57 New
              0
              And do not compare them with the feat of our people in World War II. The defense of Moscow, the blockade of Leningrad, Stalingrad - this is not about them.

              At the slightest weakening of the central government, we got cheerful nineties with hordes of bandits and "businessmen" in crimson jackets, who were also not very patriotic. Don't need so much pathos
          2. SSR
            SSR 16 February 2016 00: 19 New
            -1
            Quote: Atrix
            Quote: Reserve officer
            Especially if the conflict is in their territory

            Believe me, if there is a conflict on their land, they will fight to the last person. The American population is much more patriotic than "ours", let alone to die for freedom and their country from the cradle to be brought up. It is clear that few people want to die in foreign countries, but on their territory they will fight like ours in the Great Patriotic War

            Oh oh lx))) from the phone "googling" is not very convenient))) but look for primary sources in the English version - Russia attacked?!)))) Georgia!)))) With comments from American "members of the forum".)))
      6. APASUS
        APASUS 15 February 2016 18: 18 New
        +1
        Quote: Renat
        The comparison is certainly superficial, although you can’t argue about the budget here.

        This is a key phrase, and as soon as the NATO countries allocate additional funds for the purchase of American weapons, Russia will be in danger following China.
        In the meantime, one should wait for serious Western military-political publications of rolling articles about NATO weakness, obsolescence of weapons and the need for new models, but the recipe for solving the problem with Russia in these articles can be solved only in one way - by increasing the defense budget.
      7. karpah
        karpah 15 February 2016 19: 52 New
        +2
        "After all, from Moscow to the British seas, the Russian army is the strongest" :-)
        I envy you guys in a good, human way)))
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 15 February 2016 22: 27 New
          +3
          Quote: karpah
          "After all, from Moscow to the British seas, the Russian army is the strongest."

          Respected! We Russians have a good proverb: "You can't erase words from a song!" Therefore:
          "But from taiga to the British seas
          Red Army the strongest of all. ”This is - first.
          And, secondly, the capital of our country, we always write and magnify with a capital letter! yes
          Consider for the future. hi
        2. SSR
          SSR 16 February 2016 00: 23 New
          +1
          Quote: karpah
          "After all, from Moscow to the British seas, the Russian army is the strongest" :-)
          I envy you guys in a good, human way)))

          Why envy? What is to say the least the hushed up historical fact that Russia in 1812 and 1941 fought back from a united Europe! Yes, and now essentially the same perdimonocle.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Oleg NSK
      Oleg NSK 15 February 2016 17: 07 New
      +3
      50 factors, including defense spending

      ... of course, they "saw" a lot, the F-35 alone is worth something ... so yes ... here they are ahead of the rest ...

      A significant role in the calculations is assigned to human resources.
      ... but with regards to "human resources" ... then there is a problem, they have resources to put it mildly, so-so ... well, they are not ready to die, they go to the army for preferences (citizenship, scholarships, college, etc.) ) ... i.e. to live ... but to die is not permissible
      1. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 15 February 2016 17: 21 New
        +6
        Quote: Oleg NSK
        ... of course, they "saw" a lot, the F-35 alone is worth something ... so, yes ...

        Defense budgets are sawing everything, always and in any country in the world. Unfortunately this is the case. Remember at least the Soviet monster - Minsredmash, a purely defense department. Of course, they didn’t steal money, but there were a lot of misplaced expenses. Yes, and all sorts of nishtyachkov, at the expense of the state, defense industry workers received much more. than citizens working in other sectors of the economy. Should this be considered a drink? How to say..
        According to the material: if you really subtract the sea component from the defense structure of the SSA. then, it seems, the American army will slide into second or third place. But the Yankees and President Obama believe in the Navy! smile
        1. Camel
          Camel 15 February 2016 22: 37 New
          +3
          Remember at least the Soviet monster - Minsredmash, a purely defense department. Of course, they didn’t steal money, but there were a lot of misappropriations


          As an employee of this same MinSredMasha, I can report that in the USSR they could even ask strictly for the misuse of the budget, not like in the current Rosatom, unfortunately.
          I have been observing a picture of changes since 1990, everything is only getting worse - instead of scientists, girls and boys with a "legal" or "economic" education, or even worse, "political instructors" from the State Company come to manage.
          And these people, instead of "the brilliant management of the company", tell the engineer that the ruler on the table should lie in a certain place, and God forbid, not there. That the books on the shelf should be in a certain sequence ... well, etc. The funny thing is that for not observing these rules, they are actually fined!
          This is not a banal "satisfaction of your curiosity at the expense of the state" of Soviet times, this is a direct act of sabotage! The funny thing is that they think they are actually doing good to the state. You should have heard these figures: - you do not understand anything on the periphery, but WE will introduce a new management system, and everything will be fine! And you are not doing anything there, but we are in Moscow - we will raise the industry. We have old people - doctors and academicians grabbing their heads!
          1. Ami du peuple
            Ami du peuple 15 February 2016 23: 46 New
            +1
            Quote: Camel
            And these people, instead of "the brilliant management of the company", tell the engineer that the ruler on the table should lie in a certain place, and God forbid, not there. That the books on the shelf should be in a certain sequence ... well, etc. The funny thing is that for non-compliance with these rules are really fined!

            Listen, this is some kind of unreal ash. I, of course, understand that in production and in science, now to hell with such "effective young managers" with MBA, EMBA and other business obscenities. But so that it comes to such insanity ..
    4. Samen
      Samen 15 February 2016 17: 10 New
      +2
      Gauges and DRY rating significantly tightened! Well, C300 / 400 ... how could it be without them!
    5. Persistent
      Persistent 15 February 2016 17: 10 New
      0
      Well, that's how to say it! In quantity, it can be

      And on the first striped ones that are not fighters without dry closets ??? fool laughing
      Even against the Syrian army, they are weaklings !!!!
    6. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 15 February 2016 17: 24 New
      0
      Quote: Vasya_Piterskiy
      Well, that's how to say it! In quantity it may be so, but in terms of quality and combat training - I doubt it very much!

      Comparison by what indicators? Where is the table? And it turns out one grandmother said.
    7. RUS96
      RUS96 15 February 2016 17: 42 New
      +3
      Mongolian hockey players beat the Ukrainian team on ice. good
    8. maxim1987
      maxim1987 15 February 2016 17: 49 New
      0
      Following China in the ranking is India. Among European countries, Britain occupied the highest place. The top 10 also hit France, Germany and Turkey
      But what about the great and invincible Urin army? Cant wassat
    9. The comment was deleted.
    10. Finches
      Finches 15 February 2016 18: 01 New
      +3
      Everyone knows that the most powerful army in the world is Ukrainian! laughing

      But to be serious, such ratings are very, very conditional, subjective, compiled by order of the Pentagon and the bosses of the military-industrial complex behind them and have the goal of not reducing military spending in the United States, to be always in the first place, because America is Navel of the Earth .... It didn’t quite work out seriously! laughing
    11. Atrix
      Atrix 15 February 2016 18: 32 New
      -6
      Quote: Vasya_Piterskiy
      but in terms of quality and combat training - I doubt it very much!

      There are reasons for doubt ??? What are the military operations where the US was defeated ???
      Why write hat-slogan slogans for the sake of the pluses?
      1. Siberia 9444
        Siberia 9444 15 February 2016 18: 46 New
        +2
        Name where they did not suffer. hi When Vietnam was poisoned, burned, or Yugoslavia was bombarded with uranium ammunition, killing civilians. Although both cases are not a military operation, this is a war crime.
      2. i80186
        i80186 15 February 2016 19: 54 New
        +3
        Quote: Atrix
        What are the military operations where the US was defeated ???

        Well, the most epic battle in Mogadishu, they simply could not hide it. All color of all kinds of fur seals. And who? Crowded cat.
        1. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 16 February 2016 00: 56 New
          +5
          Have you seen the loss reports of the parties? During the battles of October 3-4, 1993, the loss of the Ranger tactical group, the Rapid Reaction Force and the peacekeeping units amounted to 19 people (18 Americans and 1 Malaysian), about 80 people injured, 1 person captured (pilot “Super 64 Mike Durant, subsequently released), two helicopters and several cars.

          The losses of the Somali side are difficult to determine. There are quite different estimates, for example, the American ambassador to Somalia Robert Oakley believed that up to 2000 Somalis died and were injured in the battle [6], while according to the assessment made by Mohammed Aidid himself, 300 were killed and 800 were wounded [7]. How many civilians were among them is difficult to determine, because, according to Americans, both women and adolescents participated in the battle with weapons in their hands [8].

          Stoned and numerous, rushing in a continuous avalanche and from all sides - this is a nightmare of any elite of the armed forces! I’m not judging by the film, which he dug up on the Internet.
          1. Izotovp
            Izotovp 16 February 2016 01: 26 New
            +2
            I agree with sharp-lad. The situation in Mogadishu needs to be analyzed more carefully. Offhand, several conclusions: excellent individual training, especially rifle training, excellent tactical training at the squad-platoon level, that is, at the sergeant level. All ! Then the problems begin: planning the operation, interaction between units, reaction to changes in the situation as a whole, decisions made and their implementation .... that is, everything above the platoon commander and where the HR officer should command, not a jacket !!! And they wanted to transfer us to such a system and thereby kill the mass training system for highly qualified entry-level officers. Well, at least this genius was removed from the ministry of fasting.
            And as for the stoned militants and the attitude of neglect towards them: ask the guys who were in Chechnya how the pearl of the stoned crowd of militants who put on two bronics ... I think they will tell you how it is not scary.
            1. i80186
              i80186 16 February 2016 13: 17 New
              +1
              Quote: Izotovp
              And as for the stoned militants and the attitude of neglect towards them: ask the guys who were in Chechnya how the pearl of the stoned crowd of militants who put on two bronics ... I think they will tell you how it is not scary.

              Why should I ask? I myself can tell.
              But what does the operation have to do with scary and epic failure?
              1. Izotovp
                Izotovp 16 February 2016 15: 27 New
                0
                It is scary in the literal and figurative sense: to cope with the wave is not easy and the shooter is psychologically prepared, and even young ...
                And this is another factor that was not taken into account when planning the operation. I'm not talking about such support that the turntables from RPGs were planted at a time.
          2. Dewa1s
            Dewa1s 16 February 2016 06: 05 New
            +3
            1:15 with a significant numerical superiority of the enemy.
            So the assault on Amin’s palace is an example of military art, and the fall of the black hawk is shame and shame, yeah.
            Need more caps
          3. i80186
            i80186 16 February 2016 13: 21 New
            0
            Quote: sharp-lad
            How many civilians were among them is difficult to determine, because, according to the Americans, both women and teenagers participated in the battle with weapons in their hands

            That is, professionally trained soldiers, having air cover, failed a pre-planned and carefully prepared operation. No? By the way, after that, the Americans got out of Somalia forever.
            And here is a little more from the same Wikipedia.
            Despite the fact that the 75th paratrooper regiment is part of the constant readiness of the US Special Forces Command, a large number of unfired paratroopers took part in the operation, the average age of which was 19 years. The inexperience of the soldiers and the non-firing of units of the 75th paratrooper regiment in a real battle manifested itself during the assault on the building. The blocking groups of the quarter several times mistakenly fired aimed shots at groups of the 1st Special Forces Regiment, whose fighters appeared during the assault on the street around and on the roof of the captured building. In all likelihood, inexperienced fighters of the 75th paratrooper regiment, being disoriented by a sudden fire contact with a large enemy, were mistaken for assault force militants from a great distance.(C)
            But the losses, well, yes, if you shoot a crowd from a helicopter, you can probably shoot a lot.
            1. Izotovp
              Izotovp 16 February 2016 15: 29 New
              0
              A poorly planned and prepared operation for the reasons that I have indicated and consider decisive.
    12. The comment was deleted.
  2. katalonec2014
    katalonec2014 15 February 2016 17: 00 New
    +1
    The second is the second, but China is stepping on its heels.
    1. Altona
      Altona 15 February 2016 17: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: katalonec2014
      The second is the second, but China is stepping on its heels.

      --------------------
      China is in no hurry to fight anywhere. Apparently waiting for the corpses of enemies sailing on the Yellow River. The army at the parade looks menacing, the buttonholes and cockades glisten, but they still haven’t taken it anywhere further than the Tiananmen. All warlike remarks are pronounced by Renmin Ribao ...
  3. cniza
    cniza 15 February 2016 17: 00 New
    +7
    Well, if yes in terms of costs, but if in terms of efficiency?
  4. oldseaman1957
    oldseaman1957 15 February 2016 17: 00 New
    +1
    but fewer aviation units - 3 against 547
    - Well, against their "surplus", Russia has great air defense, and then you look, and we will catch up in quantity. And in terms of quality, I feel they have already surpassed!
    1. Tusv
      Tusv 15 February 2016 17: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: oldseaman1957
      Well, against their "surplus", Russia has excellent air defense, and then you look, and we will catch up in quantity. And in terms of quality, I feel they have already surpassed!

      Air defense as a system.
      Regarding 3 versus 547. Americans do not fly as much. Also rust in warehouses of long-term storage.
      The advantage is somewhere about five times the entire NATO in the pepelats, air defense levels with terrible losses for us, but with terrifying losses for them
  5. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 15 February 2016 17: 02 New
    +6
    In the USA, the number of tanks is equal to the height of Everest? And by the way, the army of ukroins are still out of competition, they are even afraid to add them to the list! wassat
    1. Nord2015
      Nord2015 15 February 2016 17: 07 New
      +5
      Quote: Great-grandfather of Zeus
      and the Ukrainian army is still out of competition, they’re even afraid to add them to the list!

      Just afraid to scare the world. APU out of competition.
  6. Kosta153
    Kosta153 15 February 2016 17: 06 New
    +1
    Announce the whole list, please! Seriously, maybe a reference who knows where not three, but at least 50.
    1. thinker
      thinker 15 February 2016 17: 12 New
      +1
      You are welcome. All 126 places.
      http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
  7. RUSOIVAN
    RUSOIVAN 15 February 2016 17: 06 New
    0
    when is the first?
  8. Evgeny Khokhlov
    Evgeny Khokhlov 15 February 2016 17: 07 New
    +7
    Oh, when we will already take 2nd place in terms of living ....
  9. vglazunov
    vglazunov 15 February 2016 17: 12 New
    +3
    In the military spirit, Russia comes first, as we defend the world and our homeland.
    The US aggressor and provocateur attacks quickly, and will run quickly from the battlefield.
    1. Lyton
      Lyton 16 February 2016 04: 32 New
      0
      Quote: vglazunov
      In the military spirit, Russia comes first, as we defend the world and our homeland.
      The US aggressor and provocateur attacks quickly, and will run quickly from the battlefield.

      I would like to believe about the military spirit, but for the sake of sporting interest, go to the core, there is such an automobile site, there is a topic about excise tax on fuel, recently discussed, you can not imagine how many buggers were blowing bubbles and snot on this matter, one even agreed before that the Motherland is where the priest is warm, just like in the movie "Brother-2". There were only a few people who said that you just need to work more and earn money, they were sculpted a bunch of drawbacks, especially one trick from Novosibirsk cried, how they say that the poor man does not live well and it was a working day, office plankton was all at work, that's how go to war? It's just a shame for our such commentators.
  10. Winter cherry
    Winter cherry 15 February 2016 17: 12 New
    +1
    Tanks are needed for the offensive. This implies the creation of ancillary facilities. Are we not going to attack in Europe?
  11. Bacha
    Bacha 15 February 2016 17: 13 New
    +5
    It is strange why the second, Ukrainians destroyed almost our entire army in New Russia? )))
    1. Fat
      Fat 15 February 2016 18: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: Bacha
      It is strange why the second, Ukrainians destroyed almost our entire army in New Russia? )))

      Well that's why the second, and not the first place laughing Ukrainian military power did not enter the top because it also suffered significant losses ...
  12. serg2108
    serg2108 15 February 2016 17: 16 New
    +2
    again another rubbish ... there probably they generally take into account all 50 factors --- garbage all this is most important is nuclear weapons ..
    and I want to ask one single question when any of the listed countries will be hit on Russian territory .. are we going to fight on their terms or something ... and strategists! in full nafig all of them immediately gouging am
  13. potalevl
    potalevl 15 February 2016 17: 18 New
    +5
    These "analysts" did not take into account the most important factor - Suvorovsky: "Fight not by numbers, but by skill." Something like this.
  14. afrikanez
    afrikanez 15 February 2016 17: 25 New
    +2
    The most interesting thing is that the states do not have specific and powerful enemies, but, as they say, have the most powerful army. What for? Either because of their cowardice, or out of ignorance. Imagine enemies and "immediately begin to be afraid of them" lol
  15. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 15 February 2016 17: 28 New
    +1
    Yes, we are ready to take at least the last place in the American rating, only on condition that we are obeyed and not beckled ..
  16. DMB_95
    DMB_95 15 February 2016 17: 36 New
    +2
    And why does this rating not take into account nuclear weapons? Our doctrine provides for its application if the usual strength is not enough. AND EVERYTHING ...
  17. vetor
    vetor 15 February 2016 17: 37 New
    0
    Global Firepower GFP ravings are carried. Well, the US is okay, but why is Russia second? After all, according to Ukrainian Civil Aviation Administration, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation defeats the troops of the Russian Federation, which means they are stronger. Accordingly, we have hundreds of five less tanks in the Donbass, all destroyed and in general, all of the RPGs from Almaty RPG cyborgs burned.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. VVM
    VVM 15 February 2016 17: 47 New
    0
    That is, all the same, in the first place, how much money will you spend?
  20. MaxGerb
    MaxGerb 15 February 2016 17: 51 New
    0
    with the turnover that we are gaining - a couple more years and go to the first position.
  21. izya top
    izya top 15 February 2016 17: 53 New
    +2
    Where did the bulletproof vest of Europe be pushed? What place?
  22. Hooks
    Hooks 15 February 2016 18: 03 New
    0
    Yo-mine! flaw again - 2nd place! Because of all the "Kasyanovs" ... Russians of all countries arm yourself (unite)!
  23. Flat5160
    Flat5160 15 February 2016 18: 04 New
    0
    As usual, these calculations, first of all, take into account only those moments that do not directly affect the objective result. Here, for example, during a flight of airplanes to inflict airstrikes on ISIS in Syria, the FRG could not take several planes into the air, and when they were counted, they were probably counted. And so it is everywhere. And in terms of costs, take at least F35. and so on everywhere.
  24. Hooks
    Hooks 15 February 2016 18: 10 New
    -1
    "Russia has almost twice as many tanks as the Americans ..." - they still didn't count ballistic cakes and tactical eclairs.)
  25. Idiot
    Idiot 15 February 2016 18: 28 New
    +1
    When comparing the effectiveness of the Air Force, in my opinion, the following factors should be taken into account: the number of combat-ready vehicles, the number of airfields on a theater of defense, the number of air defense and electronic warfare systems. To consider army funding a key criterion is the height of idiocy. Then the level of corruption should be taken into account ...
  26. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 15 February 2016 20: 19 New
    0
    The rating, of course, is subjective and biased, but here the strongest army in Europe laughing - Ukrainian - takes 25th place; like last year; in 2014 was 21.

    The strongest European army ahead of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Poland.
  27. TARAS BULBA
    TARAS BULBA 15 February 2016 22: 06 New
    0
    Normal is "hebe" on a fighter;) exoskeletons are already in action. Then we are the first!
  28. mamont5
    mamont5 16 February 2016 07: 36 New
    0
    "The US Armed Forces are far ahead of other countries in terms of military spending, which was a key factor for the US leadership in last year's ranking," - the agency comments on the results.

    A rather strange type of definition of leadership - "the largest military spending." And where this money is spent is not taken into account. Rather, it looks like complacency, like "we are the coolest - we have more money."