i was told that russia has no weapons system that is close to any american system,for example the russian su-27,su-35 jetfighters the t-80 and t-90 tanks,the akula,typhoon,borey,delta and oscar class submarines. the yakhont and moskit anti shipping missiles the russian air defense s-400 triumph and many more are at least 30 years behind usa in technology wise.seems like usa can cake wake easily in conventional war
2006-12-18 11:34:38 · 11 answers · asked by unclesams_army76 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
"30 years behind the USA" is an exaggeration ... American weapons are superior, no doubt, but the degree of superiority is questionable: the most heavily armed tank in the world is the Russian T-series (T-64, T-72, T-80). Also, the Russians developed the largest torpedoes known to man, some carrying a payload as large as the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima by the US. Russian success is also found in the Mig series. Even if the Russians are not on the same level as the United States, it's clear that their army is far from weak. Russia possesses a nuclear stockpile of 16,000 warheads (the largest in the world).
2006-12-18 11:50:55 · answer #1 · answered by X16 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer is yes, their weapon systems are typically not as advanced as ours, but on purpose.
The Russian military doctrine has always emphasized quantity over quality. To simplify, you can put all of the coolest and most advanced gadgets on your tank, or you can build two for the same price. Americans took the former approach, the Russians the latter.
This is best illustrated that according to the 1989 Encyclopedia Britannica (right before the end of the Cold War), the Soviets had 32,000 tanks in their arsenal and the Americans only had 8,000. Was their massive army of tanks nearly as advanced as those of the U.S.? Hell no, but at 4-1 odds, they didn't need to be. Russian equipment emphasizes cost and field reliability in exchange for effectiveness. A great example is that while the MiG-29 lacked the avionics of the F-18, it cost half as much to produce and maintain.
These days, though, the picture is even bleaker for the Russians. Due to constricted budgets, the majority of their weaponry is still the same stuff they were using in 1990 since they don't have the money to buy anything better.
So, it may be a stretch to say the Russian military is 30 years behind us, but it's at least 10 years behind where it wants to be.
2006-12-18 13:41:50 · answer #2 · answered by Jason H 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Althought Russia has developed some good equipement, neither it nor its buys can really afford this stuff. Russian bases can't afford to pay the electric bill, sea rations is one can of beans a day and a couple of years ago they couldn't even complete a cruiser which China bought (although it didn't want the guns). Many of the top of the line jets have a fleet of one. Some of theri older ships don't even have computers so plotting has to be done with a slide rule, pen and paper.
Economically, Russia and Mexico have nearly the same GNP.
The Chinese, on the other hand might have stealth aircraft by 2020. At least that's their goal. Also by 2020, India plans to be a first world nation.
2006-12-18 12:54:04 · answer #3 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
re they behind? if so why does the usa nato most of eu Japan Israel the gulf kingdoms well over a billion are still trying to surround Russia with missiles? on top the usa has over a 1000 military basses world wide n spends more on defense than the next ten big spenders put together?
2016-03-28 23:35:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter Russia has nukes and remains the only country in the world that can end the existence of the united states in less that 30 minutes (of course the US would respond in kind). Research the topol-m, class of nuclear missiles, it is reported that they can penetrate any current missile defense system.
Besides, beware of propaganda, that's what they might want us to think, in war (poker) one never shows ones wild card.
2006-12-18 14:19:54 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
China would be 50 years behind us still if Clinton hadn't let them have the current technology they have. In the future that act may end up being the single worst act of treason in the history of mankind. Causing by far the most deaths. Before Clinton the Chinese couldn't hit anything outside their own country. That is no longer the case. Hmmm, it was under another lib, Truman, who gave the commies the secrets for the A-bomb. Given to them by fellow libs.
Russia still are using tube technology in much of their military (jets, etc). We stopped usign tubes probobly by the 60's. One goo thing about tubes though is a dirty bomb won't knock them out like they would transistors.
2006-12-18 11:51:18 · answer #6 · answered by dem_dogs 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes; that is correct. They still have weapons and tech dating back to the USSR.
---
Alexander, their Nuclear Weapons havent been looked at for 30 years, their not active and would take billions of dollars that Russia doesnt have to get their Nuclear Weapons back up. Billions of dollars Russia isnt even close to having.
2006-12-18 11:38:49 · answer #7 · answered by I Hate Liberals 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes but the nukes of the 70's were quite advanced and they still have 2000 of them (and our nukes are 70s tech as well).
2006-12-18 11:46:02 · answer #8 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ON AVERAGE we have much better stuff, by at least a decade or so, but they do have some good tech out there, just not the funds to upgrade everything to it.
2006-12-18 11:43:38 · answer #9 · answered by XX 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Big deal, that means absolutely nothing. The U.S. still uses some tech and weapons dating back to the Cold War.
Russia has nukes. That's all that matters.
2006-12-18 11:42:55 · answer #10 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋