Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: russian millitary muscle
ace    12/7/2003 6:30:42 PM
the russian army has fallen in millitary strenght drasticaly since the sovier union broke up, but their army is still quite credible. they have got numbers and technology. the t 96 has proven to be quite a tank. air power wise, the russians currently mainly use mig 29's, su 30's su 35's have introduced su 37's and are developing su 47's and mig 1.42's. all of which ,if you visit some of the web sites, are quite amazing fighters. their main bombers are the tu-160's . they can carry 40,000 kg, at a max speed of 2,200 km/h for a non refuling distance of 12,300 km and are capable of mid air re fulling. All russian misslies now have a firing range of over 60 degrees, which alowes them to lock on and fire way before the plane faces the enomy head on
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
ace    RE:russian millitary muscle   12/7/2003 6:37:17 PM
their naval forces are alos credible
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:russian millitary muscle   12/7/2003 7:25:34 PM
And all of the above mentioned are in very poor shape in the moment. Their air force and navy have literally fallen apart. Their army isn't in much better shape.
Quote    Reply

Ex98C    RE:russian millitary muscle   12/8/2003 1:33:19 PM
and I believe that they have 4(?) operational Blackjack i certainly would not call them their "main" bombers. As for the more recent tanks and fighter aircraft yes some of the designs have been finalized and tested, but how many have been produced? Also, as has been said before, the quality of the personel matters more than the how much traiing has the Russian military had on the new equipment? Keep in mind in the heady days of the cold war troops were trained on older equipment with the new tuuf in storage for the outbreak of conflict.
Quote    Reply

ace    RE:russian millitary muscle   12/8/2003 6:45:48 PM
we cannot say that russia ground forces are very poorly trained. we must remember the spactacular job of their special forces last year during the hostige situation at the theater. yes, some might say that it wasn't that great due to the fact that some sort of gas was used, but think of impossible situation that they faced. i beleive that they did ecsptionaly well. plus, russia is at an ongoing war at chechnia, which does give their forces some combat experience. most ofe their new planes still have a very small number in service, but more are being made.
Quote    Reply

ace    RE:russian millitary muscle   12/10/2003 5:15:53 PM
"and I believe that they have 4(?) operational Blackjack bombers." Russia acctually has 16 operational blackjack bombers.
Quote    Reply

NewGuy    RE:russian millitary muscle   12/11/2003 9:39:35 PM
Actually they do have 16 Tu-160 bombers now that they got the ones back from the Ukraine, but only *four* actually get to fly in training each cycle, so only 4 are in actual "ready-to-fight" mode at any one time. The US currently has 90 B-1, 20+ B-2 and 140+ B-52 heavy bombers deployed and ready for combat. Thats a total of over 250 compared to 16 (or 4 that can be operated at one time presently) for the Russians. Naval-wise, the Russians stack up very poorly to the USN: *****Russian Navy Operational Units List***** Large Carriers = 1 Small Carriers = 0 Cruisers = 4 Destroyers = 22 Frigates = 18 Submarines = 60 *****US Navy Operational Units List**** Large Carriers = 13 Small Carriers = 11 Cruisers = 27 Destroyers = 57 Frigates = 35 Submarines = 74 ----------------------------- NewGuy
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:russian millitary muscle   12/11/2003 10:28:59 PM
So the Kuznetsov is actually operational? Well, I guess that Russia can be proud they have at least one flat top. The number of active subs surprises me, as I thought most of their sub navy is tied up on dock rotting away. And what vessels are in the destroyer category that are functional? Besides the Sovs, Udaloys, that is.
Quote    Reply

ace    RE:russian millitary muscle   12/11/2003 10:29:54 PM
every one knows that america is alot stronger thatn russia. only four tu 160 bombers are in ready to go mode, but if needed the other 12 would can get ready in a short time. most of russias latest planes and tanks have not yet gone into seriuose production, but if they are needed russia will have the technology, all that will be left to do is to put it into seriouse production, just like the case in world war 2
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    NewGuy   12/11/2003 10:31:19 PM
Quick question NewGuy, just how effect was the Kirov design? It was rather unique, so I wonder if it was actually a good design or not. Thanks.
Quote    Reply

Roman    Final Historian   12/12/2003 1:37:38 AM
Kuznetsov is not really fully operational. It does serve as some kind of testing platform designed to ensure that at least some of the lessons of carrier operation from the Soviet Union days are kept from disappearing. The carrier is not going to project power anywhere anytime soon. As to the submarines, you are correct, the vast majority of them are moored and rusting in port and probably completely unoperational and the same goes for most of the surface ships too, though more surface ships than submarines are operational. This means the numerical strength given by New Guy is deceptive, as the there is much less operational equipment. I must say I am sad at the Russian situation. I hope that it improves and Russia is able to field a decent armed forces again. It is clear, however, that Russian superpower days are over forever - even if the economy improves drastically, Russia simply does not have the demographic clout to compete militarily* with the real heavy-weights** in the long term. Still, even though Russia will never again be a superpower, it may be able to have highly potent armed forces in the future again and hopefully this time will come sooner rather than later. *Except in nuclear weapons **USA, China, India and European Union
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT