₦airaland Forum

mach7:
Missy89, I have been observing your posts and reading comments but I think I need to clear a few points. The purpose of the bear bomber has revolutionalized. It is a standoff weapons platform from which Kh55 nuclear tipped or conventional missiles can be fired onto continental USA from about a 1000 miles of the coast. Furthermore there are different categories of Bears, as they range from A-H. Bear D is super powerful and is used to penetrate air defences even sophisticated ones because while it is noisy, Its special coating makes it difficult to locate on radar. Most interceptions of bears by NATO aircraft used visual confirmation. the bear F is a reconnaissance platform while the bear C is an early warning platform. Also, I laughed at your description of the Tu-160. Do you know why it is called a blackjack? The Tu-160 is an ace that can penetrate US airspace. it was the golden weapon of the USSR and is why Russia wants to continue its production. As I said earlier stop reading Stratfor or National Interest or other CIA mouthpieces who glorify the performance of US war assets against weaker opponents. Russian aircraft are powerful when used appropriately and will match their US made. opponents any day. Before you make comparisons about aircrafts, check out their specs for better info. You spoke about the F22 raptor and I want to challenge you to point out a single conflict where it has been successful used and I will applaud you. Be informed that the direct competitor of the raptor is the Su35 (which is active in Russia's airforce) and not the PAK FA as you ignorant ly opined - it is built to compete with the F35 which is equally under development. As regards your bashing of Russia's T72 tank, I can only shake my head. Most Iraqi tank losses in desert one were taken out by airstrikes from Apaches and not by direct tank fire from Abrams tank. Research well and stop watching western influenced Discovery World documentaries. A tank is simply as good as its operator(s). Lastly, pls it wasn't the US that saved USSR from Germany's operation Barbarossa, it was a combination of snow, poor logistics, Hitler's pride and the sheer land mass involved coupled with guerilla warfare from Russian and Polish patriots that turned the tide. The Normandy beach landing took place in 1944 after the Soviet Union began pushing the Germans back. Furthermore note that upon Hitler's invasion, all war material and assets were moved back from the frontline to Omsk beyond the Ural mountains as a strategic decision to prepare for a counter offensive once the Russian winter set in. You are good dear, but you need to research more and learn your history properly.

my military history is nt too hazy.
Most imprtantly it ws d weather dt caused d german downfal in
russia,whch ws 1 of d reasons dt NAPOLEON also lost durin his campaign.D weather!
Again US cntributd in tanks n oda equipmts 2 russia wen russia ws goin down,lastly ovr cncentratn of troops also killed d germans.
Bak 2 F22,it had its 1st debut combt strike last yr sept 2014 alng sid oda jets n bombers against ISIS strng holds apart frm d nrmal flights it nrmaly tak.

Jesus, u cant cmpare su35 to f35, walai dts an insult on US tech.Su35 cnt even measure up 2 d raptor talk more of f35.
F35 wil hover on ur head n u wnt even knw.again cmpare d weapon pylons of d f35 to d su35 den u wil see dt even in russian dreams dey cn neva measure up to us tech

Tkester:
You're even going too far. What was the UK's response when U.S. Threatened to bomb Syria and Russia promised retaliation? Ans: (UK gave them the middle finger). What about the German's response when U.S. Threatened to arm Ukraine? answer (Minsk 2 agreement).

You see many people have been zombified with too much fairy tales (about the USA military might) that there brain cells have become sand-dust.

Loool. I agree with ya post.

But hey, stop using me as a troll bridge to speech ya game to the chic. You both live in the same country and if weak white boys can turn her out and corrode her brain cells to make her whitewashed, you should be able to do the same as a black man lol.

Or you want to help you? Shyte, I can do that with ease. You need to stop making yourself look like a troll and step up like a black man should, ya dig?

Too many kids (and lunatics) talking crap about war between two of the worlds only SUPERPOWERS.
Hear it loud and clear folks: It is MAD.

Anybody who tells you that either Russia or the US would win a nuclear confrontation with the other is LYING to you.
All those beating drums of war between these two countries HATE GOD and the EARTH he created.

I would not say that I hate Russia. I love US too much to wish her a war with Russia.
When the Russians fired 26 nuclear capable cruise missiles from ordinary missile boats (not destroyers, cruisers, or subs), from Caspian sea -an area far removed from interception by anybody- they were making a statement.
The Europeans understood that statement and have since played dead on Syria issues.

What I hope would happen is that the US work together with Russia to crush ISIS once and for all.
I also hope that all those stoking confrontation between these two countries be quickly put out of commission for the sake of our planet.

Nevertheless I believe that no human can destroy God's earth without God's authorization.

[b]Please you guys stop comparing Apple with mango. When it comes to airforce, give it to America. We don't need to allow sentiment to overide our commom knowledge. Sentiment can deprive us of some certain and fundamental fact. In Airforce, Russia has a much different airforce structure than America. Russia put 'almost' all of their aircraft under the term '' Airforce'' while america on the other hand divided its airforce into dofferent categories and so every department in Us such as Navy, Marine, Army and the Airforce itself have different aircrafts and America is in possession of more expensive and sophisticated aircraft than Russia. http://migfly.com/jetfights/us-and-russia-military-aircraft-full-comparison.html America is already flying 5th generation fighter jet while Russia is still trying to develop its own 5th generation fighter jet. Right now, America is already developing its 6th generation fighter jet so this indication should able to tell you who is who; and please Tu-160 is a strategic bomber and not a fighter jet so stop comparing a bomber jet with a fighter jet. And right now, the most sophisticated and the most advanced bomber jet in the world right now is American B-2 northrope Grummen spirit bomber which is more advanced than Russian Tupolev 160 bomber ''blackjack'', you can visit http://www.airforcetechnology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-best-bomber-aircraft/ or if you think that I'm bluffing then go to http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/top_7_bombers.htm. [/b]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that comparing the two countries' military assets is certainly dumb because any confrontation between the two will CERTAINLY end in NUCLEAR war.
Neither would like to lose. And both will be destroyed.
Anybody claiming otherwise is an agent of satan who hates God and his creation.

BALLOSKI:
my God! Who denied us this?

Well, Gordon Brown PM at the time but I doubt David Cameron would do any different.

DonBobes:
my military history is nt too hazy.
Most imprtantly it ws d weather dt caused d german downfal in
russia,whch ws 1 of d reasons dt NAPOLEON also lost durin his campaign.D weather!
Again US cntributd in tanks n oda equipmts 2 russia wen russia ws goin down,lastly ovr cncentratn of troops also killed d germans.
Bak 2 F22,it had its 1st debut combt strike last yr sept 2014 alng sid oda jets n bombers against ISIS strng holds apart frm d nrmal flights it nrmaly tak.

Jesus, u cant cmpare su35 to f35, walai dts an insult on US tech.Su35 cnt even measure up 2 d raptor talk more of f35.
F35 wil hover on ur head n u wnt even knw.again cmpare d weapon pylons of d f35 to d su35 den u wil see dt even in russian dreams dey cn neva measure up to us tech

Mr DonBobes, ignorance is a disease that if not cured leads to further ailings. The Su35 is an air superiority fighter, and the F35 is a joint strike fighter, so how do they match up? Secondly, the Su35S effectively match up to the F22 because they are meant to cancel each other. They are equal both in speed, effectiveness, aerial capabilities including avionics and please forget about the price tag (thanks to cost overruns) and the title 'fifth generation'. One simple mistake and the plane is blown out of the sky. Back to the F35/T-50 (PAK FA) comparison (of which both are strike aircraft), please go and read the SPECS of both aircraft and comeback. The F35 is just an expensive junk, that has several defects while the T-50 is practically a flying robot. However, it equally facing an engine intake propulsion challenge currently. See both these countries are not stupid. They have equal assets to match each other up any day.
Finally, the British and not America supplied tanks ammunition to Russia and not tanks. This was beacuse the Soviets ran out of tank canons thanks to the Luftwaffe bombing of Soviet armament industries.

Shymm3x:
Loool. I agree with ya post.

But hey, stop using me as a troll bridge to speech ya game to the chic. You both live in the same country and if weak white boys can turn her out and corrode her brain cells to make her whitewashed, you should be able to do the same as a black man lol.

Or you want to help you? Shyte, I can do that with ease. You need to stop making yourself look like a troll and step up like a black man should, ya dig?

Hahahaha, which chic are you talking about?

Missy89:
I dont get the Hitler reference. What does the Hitler story got to do with the topic or am i missing something? or can you point out to where i gave US the credit for ww2?

As per Iraq tank loses in Medina Ridge, and 73 Easting If you have an academic reference pointing to the fact that most Iraqi tanks were taken out by aircrafts, all you need to is post your reference (or they dont exist) instead of accusing me of watching western influence documentaries and posting propaganda. That line is getting old already.

Again while i disagree about your description of Tu-160 capability, Where did i even mention it in my posts or compare the PAK FA to the raptor? so what are you laughing at exactly?

My dear, I used my post to respond to several comments. So not all were directly to you. As per the Iraqi tank losses, please research and read about the Iraq war - the memoirs of Gen Norman Schwarzkopf, interviews by Saddam and articles written about the war in military journals as I am not here to lecture you. Please as regards the bolded, almost all documentaries exist to make US strong and its enemies weak. Why haven't we seen a documentary detailing how America was decimated in Vietnam and the tactical failures evident in that war? Oh no, it an history they want to forget. I dont know about the 'line getting old' but it is true.
Please also specify why you have reservations about the Tu-160's capabilities and let us compare notes. Hope you have learned about the Bear sha, coz it is not as 'weak' as you think. Lastly, where did I laugh in my post? Have a great day.

mach7:
Missy89, I have been observing your posts and reading comments but I think I need to clear a few points. The purpose of the bear bomber has revolutionalized. It is a standoff weapons platform from which Kh55 nuclear tipped or conventional missiles can be fired onto continental USA from about a 1000 miles of the coast. Furthermore there are different categories of Bears, as they range from A-H. Bear D is super powerful and is used to penetrate air defences even sophisticated ones because while it is noisy, Its special coating makes it difficult to locate on radar. Most interceptions of bears by NATO aircraft used visual confirmation. the bear F is a reconnaissance platform while the bear C is an early warning platform. Also, I laughed at your description of the Tu-160. Do you know why it is called a blackjack? The Tu-160 is an ace that can penetrate US airspace. it was the golden weapon of the USSR and is why Russia wants to continue its production. As I said earlier stop reading Stratfor or National Interest or other CIA mouthpieces who glorify the performance of US war assets against weaker opponents. Russian aircraft are powerful when used appropriately and will match their US made. opponents any day. Before you make comparisons about aircrafts, check out their specs for better info. You spoke about the F22 raptor and I want to challenge you to point out a single conflict where it has been successful used and I will applaud you. Be informed that the direct competitor of the raptor is the Su35 (which is active in Russia's airforce) and not the PAK FA as you ignorant ly opined - it is built to compete with the F35 which is equally under development. As regards your bashing of Russia's T72 tank, I can only shake my head. Most Iraqi tank losses in desert one were taken out by airstrikes from Apaches and not by direct tank fire from Abrams tank. Research well and stop watching western influenced Discovery World documentaries. A tank is simply as good as its operator(s). Lastly, pls it wasn't the US that saved USSR from Germany's operation Barbarossa, it was a combination of snow, poor logistics, Hitler's pride and the sheer land mass involved coupled with guerilla warfare from Russian and Polish patriots that turned the tide. The Normandy beach landing took place in 1944 after the Soviet Union began pushing the Germans back. Furthermore note that upon Hitler's invasion, all war material and assets were moved back from the frontline to Omsk beyond the Ural mountains as a strategic decision to prepare for a counter offensive once the Russian winter set in. You are good dear, but you need to research more and learn your history properly.

Respect bro....those mofos after feeding of articles from CNN,DAILY BEAST think they know it all...

mach7:
Mr DonBobes, ignorance is a disease that if not cured leads to further ailings. The Su35 is an air superiority fighter, and the F35 is a joint strike fighter, so how do they match up? Secondly, the Su35S effectively match up to the F22 because they are meant to cancel each other. They are equal both in speed, effectiveness, aerial capabilities including avionics and please forget about the price tag (thanks to cost overruns) and the title 'fifth generation'. One simple mistake and the plane is blown out of the sky. Back to the F35/T-50 (PAK FA) comparison (of which both are strike aircraft), please go and read the SPECS of both aircraft and comeback. The F35 is just an expensive junk, that has several defects while the T-50 is practically a flying robot. However, it equally facing an engine intake propulsion challenge currently. See both these countries are not stupid. They have equal assets to match each other up any day.
Finally, the British and not America supplied tanks ammunition to Russia and not tanks. This was beacuse the Soviets ran out of tank canons thanks to the Luftwaffe bombing of Soviet armament industries.

i see u seem 2 hv bn blinded by russian junks.nw get ds straight even in d dream world wuld a russian junk match up 2 an american equipmt. U cant even cmpare dt russian junk to d raptor talk more of d f35 even in ur dreams.
Bak 2 ww2, even b4 d US entad d war fuly. Der equipmt(both and metal) wer at d disposal of british. And tanks/equipmt wer also gvn 2 d russians.
I think ur mil history is a lil hazy.

Mehn! Things are really getting hotter here

DonBobes:
i see u seem 2 hv bn blinded by russian junks.nw get ds straight even in d dream world wuld a russian junk match up 2 an american equipmt. U cant even cmpare dt russian junk to d raptor talk more of d f35 even in ur dreams.
Bak 2 ww2, even b4 d US entad d war fuly. Der equipmt(both and metal) wer at d disposal of british. And tanks/equipmt wer also gvn 2 d russians.
I think ur mil history is a lil hazy.

My friend, your ignorance is alarming.
The below is a comparison of the F22 and the Su27 series (the predecessor series from which the the Su35S/Su35 Flanker E is derived) by www.quora.com Kindly enlighten yourself and be informed.

"Questions like this are the classic "Us V Them" or "X v Y" sorts, which make people want to take sides vociferously. And given this is Quora, which has more Americans than Russians, you'll see more hollering from the F-22's fans (and I count myself among them). It is just that I count myself as an Su-27 fan more than an F-22 fan. But I am an engineer, and want to see things objectively. That said, let me move on to answer the question.

The question doesn't state many key details:

What is the grounds for comparison?
What capabilities are being compared?
Under what battlefield scenarios are we evaluating these aircraft?

However, here are some elements of the comparison, and how the two aircraft in question perform "on paper". Real life situations are way more complex than our simplistic assessment here, and each aircraft may perform very differently given any situation. To put it simply, "there is no silver bullet". Someday, you'll be staring down the open end of the MiG-21's cannon barrel in a middle eastern conflict, and some day, you'll be eliminated by an aircraft you can't even see. War presents curious and strange scenarios. However, here are the criteria I'd think are important, tactics wise and operation wise. There's another invisible force at work when deciding how well aircraft work, and that is "politics". We won't go too much into that now.

Stealth: Yes, the F-22 is the clear winner here with low observable characteristics - radar and visual. With huge dimensions, aerodynamics and materials that don't suit low radar cross sections, the Su-27 is at a disadvantage here. But then generals aren't going to be putting the Su-27 in harm's way deliberately. The F22 will have the element of surprise, especially in aerial bombardment roles (which it unfortunately isn't meant for). That said, sensor suites on the Su-27 are way more advanced than they were before, with advanced IRST, optical scanners and more. The Su-30 MKI and MKK have a complement of aerial weapons that use advanced optical and IRST functionality, which is the Su-27/30's deterrent. However, by itself, it doesn't possess a solution for the weapons suite of the F-22, which has very capable AIM-120 and AIM-9X long and short range missiles. Overall, the F-22 is the clear winner when it comes to stealth - but that's only because the Su-27 wasn't designed for stealth.
Performance: The Su-27 ekes out more performance from its refined aerodynamic platform and unstable integrated biplane/triplane, which has been developed over decades by TSAGI and Sukhoi, since the 1970s. Relaxed static stability, combined with superb post-stall performance and thrust vectoring give it an edge when it comes to turn rate. [b]The Su-27 series can point their noise to any point in the sky in a controlled fashion faster than most fighter aircraft in the air. Given the wing body blending, excellent pilot visibility and engines spaced out (with multi axis thrust vectoring in some advanced models), it has the ideal configuration for high manoeuverability in subsonic air combat and for supersonic cruise. The F-22 is definitely refined, but not as aerodynamically accomplished as the Su-27, compromising top speed and manoeuverability for stealth. [/b]The inability of the exhausts to have MATV is a sore point. However, the built in single axis thrust vectoring suffices for most combat situations. The F-22 out of the two probably has a faster climb rate or time to height, but the aircraft are comparable in acceleration and turn rate. Only smaller fighters like the Gripen, LCA, F-16, J-10 and Eurofighter can out-turn these two machines under conventional conditions, and even then, not many of them. We're talking two of the best air superiority aircraft, but the Su-27 series would win this game more often than lose it.
Weaponry: [b]Manoeuverability and stealth aren't everything. The airplane's primary teeth are the air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, not to mention the built in cannon. The Su-27 series of aircraft are at a distinct advantage here because of the sheer range of weaponry they can carry, and the quality of the air-to-air missiles. The RVV-AE (R-77) and the R-73 - both made by Vympel - are very competent missiles, for long and short range use. The AA-8 Aphid ultra short range missile is extremely manoeuverable and capable for short range engagements, unlike any other missile in the world. On the AGM side, the Su-30 has access to a number of smart weaponry including laser guided bombs and anti-radiation missiles. The F-22 is limited here in its ability to carry munitions - the internal bay provides space for 6 AIM-120s and the bays on the side allow it to carry 4 AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. JDAMs are used by the F-22 but rarely. The Su-27 series has between 12 and 14 hardpoints, for multi-role missions. Su-27s can be armed with as many as 8 medium range missiles and 8 short range missiles on air superiority only missions. The F-22 makes the Su-27 look like a workhorse that carries a wide range of weaponry, the systems suites for them and possessing the performance and agility to deliver these weapons effectively.[/b]
Cost: Yes, what's a cost criterion doing here? It matters. The USAF and the US government has not been happy about the F-22 program's costs thus far, and the cost impact of the Su-27 has been overridden by decades of development, improvement and sales. The F-22 is a classic case of trying to do too much at the same time. When you have tens of technologies which haven't all attained maturity (refer Technology readiness levels), you tend to have teething problems. We've seen this before in the US with the F-111/FB-111, F-14, F-20 Tigershark, YF-23 Black Widow, X-29/X-31A FSW, and countless more aircraft. This is the inherent advantage of evolutionary aircraft development, which is like "earn while you learn". The Russian KNAAPO (MAPO) developed the Su-27 (and MiG-29) over decades and sold them to many countries in different variants. They've done an admirable job of keeping costs low despite the capabilities of these aircraft. The Su-27's most advanced variants probably cost not much in excess of $50m a piece, with sensor suites, modifications and MATV driving up costs to maybe $100m a piece, at most. By comparison, European and American fighters cost loads more for less equipment. The F-35, a smaller fighter than the F-22, costs upwards of $135m a piece, with the F-22's unit cost (not including budget, design and development costs) are estimated to be around $250m a piece. The F-22 program has regularly come under scrutiny for its costs.
Complexity: The essence of good aircraft in the battlefield is rugged simplicity. Two American icons here are the P-47 Thunderbolt and the A-10 Thunderbolt. These aircraft are so simple, rugged and easy to maintain, that they served the units they were assigned to extremely well and through the most difficult conflict. The Su-27 is by no means a very simple aircraft, but it is extremely rugged compared to the F-22. The Su-27 and its variants routinely land and take off from unprepared air strips, and are ruggedly built. Among the current crop of operational US aircraft, only the F-18 can lay claim to such rugged construction. The aircraft which the F-22 replaced, the F-15, was also similarly high-key for its time, requiring prepared strips from which to take off and land, and so on. In a modern conflict, I'd rather be stuck with the Su-27 than with the F-22, for reasons of finding technicians and crews who can fix and fly the airplane, and for reasons of simplicity and wider compatibility with weaponry.
BVR combat ability: BVR is generally used in the context of air superiority, and as a tool of air superiority, the F-22 is, on paper, vastly more advanced than the Su-27 series of aircraft, which are a generation older. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Su-27 and MiG-29 would have been the most advanced BVR capable aircraft in the sky, in the absence of the F-22, F/A-18E/F and other western contemporaries, with the possible exception of the Dassault Rafale (which is a smaller class of aircraft). The F-22 can track, engage and fire at targets more than 100 miles away, using missiles with smokeless motors and advanced sensors. This is very impressive and something the Su-27 series can do less effectively, although competently enough. In this sense, the F-22 was a paradigm shift in military fighters.
Short range combat ability: If things ever get to close range - under 30km - (and they will, in real conflicts), the Su-27 series would undoubtedly be more superior to the F-22, with an advanced close range sensor suite, extremely good short range weaponry and cannon and supermanoeuverability.

If you were a country who were buying (and not developing) military aircraft, Russians would mostly be happy to sell you an Su-27 variant, because that's the way the MAPO works. The F-22 is rarely if ever put up for sale, as it is viewed as a strategic asset. The Russians have always been better salesmen for their military aircraft. Even sales pitches involving the less capable F-35 Lightning II are on, but not the F-22 (which is a decidedly older aircraft than the F-35 with a less advanced sensor and weapons suite)."

Written by Rajesh Sampathkumar on 4 Oct 2013 • View Upvotes link: https://www.quora.com/Military-Technology/How-does-the-F-22-compare-to-the-Sukhoi-Su-27

My bro, have you noted the bolded? Stop reading CIA inspired crap. Both Countries have wonderful equipment, and I pray they never have the cause to go to war, because the world might just cease to exist.

I rest my case.

cc: Missy89

By mere reading this thread and judging by what everyone posited - you'd know those who have either been in the military, are military/war enthusiasts, have families in the military, read global military journals and briefings extensively, and/or watched different documentaries of different wars with perspectives from both sides. And only Rotimi47 and mach7 made sense in their posts. A lot of these other kids who can barely spell and constructing intelligible sentences is a myth to think war is just about propaganda and exhibition. Thank God those at pentagon aren't suicidal cos every time Russia dares them, they always fall back cos they know what is at stake. Posturing is all good and fun, but a shooting match is a different ball game entirely.

The world just need to keep praying against any miscalculations that might lead to an all out war between superpowers cos it will be devastating for both sides and that is when you will know that most of these flamboyant hardware are just toys. Those of us who like the US just don't want to see it in ruins but the country needs to fall back after decades of creating utter chaos and killing tens of millions of folks everywhere. And if the re-emergence of Russia and arrival of China would make that happen, so be it. Russia has always been the country where civilisations are buried - you can ask the ghost of Napoleon. Just leave the bear alone. Even at its weakest state during Yeltsin's era - it was a very dangerous country. Now imagine what it is now with the lightening speed in which Putin is modernising everything.

When it comes to pilots and armoured brigades who can get the best out of their hardware - the Russians are masters. The Cubans they trained in tank warfare would outwit the yanks in tank battle - go check what they did to the Israelis. Personally, I won't even go as far as comparing the untested F-22 raptors and its oxygen problems with SU-35/MiG-35...even the SU-30M should outflank it in a duel, that's if oxygen problem doesn't kill whoever is the F-22. As for F-35, that is just a colossal waste of billions, hence all the countries involved are pulling out one after the other. 5th gen fighter jets are a waste, regardless, hence every country (not just the US) has moved to 6th gen fighter jets - including: Sweden, France, Germany, South Korea, Japan, and the UK (that is the reason why the UK is phasing out the Tornados in 2018 or so).

Regarding bombers, they're only as good as the fighter jets protecting them - they can't win in air superiority. And I don't know how any of the US bombers would even get to the Russia airspace, to be honest. The US still can't find answers to s300 - and Russia is about to phase that out for the more mobile and effective vityaz. The s500 is also coming and there's Pantsir-S1 which most analysts believe is the best on the planet. I honestly don't know how any country can overcome a very complex multiply layers of air defence like that with a bomber.

The US definitely has its capabilities and advantages but in a proper shooting match - both countries would be utterly destroyed. But the bear can withstand utter destruction like they did against the Nazis...can the same be said about the US? Don't underestimate the bear - just leave it alone cos it will fight to the last man when push comes to shove.

babaireti:
By Polina Tikhonova on November 3, 2015 in Politics, Russia

Russia is the only country in the world with the nuclear capability to destroy the U.S., according to Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley. The General called Russia an existential threat to the U.S., speaking in front of the audience at the Defense One summit in Washington, DC on Monday.
Russia General Mark Milley
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

Milley also considers Russia “aggressive” and “adversarial to the interests of the United States,” which is why Moscow’s nuclear weapons are capable of destroying the U.S.

The General warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent behavior suggest the country would be willing to use nuclear weapons. Milley also noted that Russia has been violating “the Westphalian order” ever since it started invading “sovereign nations” in 2008.

Milley has already called Russia an existential threat during his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate back in July. Two weeks prior to his confirmation hearing, U.S. General James Dunford used the same phrasing during his own Senate confirmation hearing to become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Who doesn't know that Russia can destroy the continental US in 30 minutes? So you know and still chose to antagonize a sleeping Bear? It shows your madness knew no bounds. Just tell us you want to get more spendings for the defence budget that will ultimately satisfy the Military Industrial Complex driving America into senseless wars.

“I would say that Russia’s recent behavior is adversarial to the interests of the United States,” Milley said, referring to Russia’s aggressive drills and patrols with its troops, aircraft and submarines for the past “four-five-six-seven” years. “Russia bears close watching,” he added.


While diplomacy is very “nuanced,” Russia must be fought with sanctions and NATO’s confident stance, he noted. However, the General added that the U.S. must cooperate with Russia on matters that require involvement of both Washington and Moscow.

Since you have the license from Satan to kill at will and destroy nations at your chosen, nobody should dare fight back? So you expect the Bear not to wake up and keep " close washing " when you are expanding close to its borderline, unilaterally withdraws from the ABM treaty, increasingly moving your troops to Europe, sponsored coup and installed Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, while you have bulging eyes and long-throat salivating with greed and covetous tendency towards Siberia...nobody should take you serious? You even refered to Georgia where your puppet government under Saakashvili was killing people at will, but you can go about bombing nations like Iraq under false pretext. Your madness is even more complicated in the sense that on the one hand, you want to maintain cooperations with a nation while still maintaining sanctions on the other hand.

Russia’s military far more advanced than that of U.S. – American analyst

Russia is far more advanced and superior in terms of military technologies than the U.S., while the recent American missile tests were nothing but a “bluff” to trick people into thinking the U.S. military could easily counter even such a nuclear-powerful adversary as Russia, according to an American counter-terrorism analyst.

Scott Bennett, a former U.S. Army psychological warfare officer, said in an interview with Press TV on Monday that this is something Washington typically does: it tells its military brass to show off in front of its Russian counterparts, claiming that American missile technology is “the absolute end-all technology that can determine any war.”

The analyst’s comments come just a day after the U.S. military carried out a $230 million test involving Lockheed Martin’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems and the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) equipped onto the USS John Paul Jones destroyer.

The results of the test showed that the missile systems were capable of successfully hitting their targets in all but one of the tests. The tests with the missile systems involved a medium-range ballistic missile fired from C-17 aircraft.

During one of the tests, a SM-3 missile fired from the warship failed mid-air in its flight and missed the target. But the THAAD system was capable of taking the failed shot out.

“From a psychological warfare perspective, I see this as a massive bluff, as just a lot of feather puffing, and [it] really doesn’t have a lot of substance because the technology is not there and the Russian technology as we know is far superior,” Bennett said.

Bennett sees this elaborate $230 million missile test as a standard military test, while Washington wants to make it look as if it is more lethal than it really is.
U.S. will be responsible for deaths in Syria, not Russia – Analyst

The analyst also believes that the test is an attempt of the U.S. to assure its allies in the Middle East, who turn away from Washington one by one because of its incompetence in Syria, that the U.S. still has what it takes to maintain influence in the region.[/quote]I believe this wasn't me nor Nairaminted, nor Shymm3x talking. This is one of their own, one who have served in the game before - Bernett - now telling you the whole Aegis show was a bluff and just a show - that Russia's technology in this area is far superior Na me talk am? Well, that should be food for thought for those still living in self confinement of denial on the other side. Truely, the Yankees have been known for hype when it comes down to such level, not that their weapons aren't formidable, but the way they will put it to you would make you feel that is the end of it. The truth is, when it comes to rocket technology, the Soviets have always been king, the US is still learninjg how to fix the screws. Maybe in other areas of technology, you can give them the thump up, but when it comes down to missiles and EW, the Russians rules the streets!

As regarding the downed airbus plane, i don't think there is any connection there. We just have to wait for the analysis from the fleight recorder and the of the impact on the debris, then we can say what.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is discussing the possibility to station more of its ships and naval objects in Europe as a response to Russia’s most threatening naval operations in two decades, according to the new U.S. Navy chief of naval operations.

The U.S. Navy is now reassessing its global stance to counter the aggressive activity of Russian warships and submarines, Admiral John Richardson, chief of naval operations said in an interview with the Financial Times.

“Their submarine force and their navy are as active as they have been in a long time, 20 years or so,” Admiral Richardson noted. “How are we going to posture our forces to make sure that we maintain the appropriate balance and are suitably engaged?”

The Admiral also said that the U.S. Navy is considering to step up its presence in Europe and the Pacific. “That’s the conversation we’re having right now.”

Russian Admiral Viktor Chirkov, the chief of the Russian navy, recently said that Russian submarine patrols have increased by 50 percent from 2013.

Galadima Muhamadu Putin, see what your God-sent adventure to Syria and your 26 cruise missiles show from the Caspian sea has caused? :DNow this hawks of Pentagon are in panick mode while inadventently admiting their handicapness as it relate to Russia, they are virtually saying, ' we need more money to step up our presence in Europe and beyond,' despite having up to 800 bases world wide, arm with a $500 billion dollar military budget, plus a mouth-gaping military assets at their disposals, these guys still feels they are not " protected from Russia ". I pity the innocent US tax payer. As more and more military assets are deployed and stationed overseas, more and more billions are needed to keep them in shape, which ultimately means more economic catastrophy is lurking behind close doors (maybe somebody can tell me what infrastructural and capital economic projects that was realized from the over 18 trillion Dollar debt the US owes, other than the maximum satisfaction of the elites greed through wars). The United States is simply but slowly taking the path of the formal Soviet Union; and each time i come accross people saying the debt own by the US is own to itself, i just can't help but laugh. Its like saying Tkester is owing himself money he borrowed from himself. What a babel!

Appleyard

What do you think about ISIS claiming the Russian plane crash?

In as much as I think it has CIA/MOSSAD written all over but this might be beginning of the end of Saudi Arabia and Russia will definitely strike back. I guess that is why they are not saying anything.

CSTR2:
If Russia is a motherland, then what is America that houses over 50,000 Nigerian immigrants, and a significant percentage of its black American populace are of Igbo heritage.

Then that should make the US a " fatherland", but sadly one that specializes in racial profiling in criminal prosecution and judicial activities, and systematic elimination of the same black race you are talking about. That is the difference. While Russia may have a significant populace that is racial towards blacks, it's government and foreign policies is in the opposite. But while the US may have a populace more tolerant than those of Russia, it's government and foreign policy is in the contrary. I have not seen Russian police shooting unarmed black people indiscriminately, naked their girls in public, nor have i seen their government denying a nation affected with ebola the trial vaccine needed for the treatment, nor have i seen them bombong from one nation to the other, causing troubles and sponsoring terrorist over the globe. This is why we call it " mother Russia ". -standing up against global terrorism and the hegemonic quest of the satanic elites.

@Shymm3X, The Germans were fantastic in tank battles during WW2, don't you still think those guys are the best in tank warfare?

CSTR2:
This is no news. The russsian nuclear capability is frightening, same for America.
The US is ofcourse scared of a nuclear war with Russia, it doesn't mean they can't obliterate Russia in return.
America has much more to lose than backward Russia.

Russia is backward because you watch too much of Hollywitch movies..

speedyGonzales:
Russia's military infrastructure are older than the cold war era!

The same old infrastructure the Yankees are afraid of today

EUROBOMBER:
@Shymm3X, The Germans were fantastic in tank battles during WW2, don't you still think those guys are the best in tank warfare?

The Germans still have one of top-3 best tanks but the Germans have lost their touch cos of the fall out of 2nd world war and the subsequent/continuous occupation by the yanks.

The technological prowess is still there but militarily, their military is in ruin. However, they can build it back rapidly, if they want to. And since Germany hasn't been involved in any wars for a long time - no one can really gauge them effectively.

speedyGonzales:
Fact man, America is richer than Russia... and spends more money on building military defence than any other country on earth! it is hard to admit but Russian military is just not as strong as America's... the only thing the have on their side is Nuclear weapons, but so does India and Pakistan.

A fight between Russia and the US will come down to who has more money to sustain their troops longer in battle... clearly America!

Man, go and do more research on wars. Money don't win wars, and try to understand that military spendings doesn't dictate capabilities. Come to think of it: no war between Russia and the US will ever CONVENTIONAL, if you are expecting that, then i must say you are still living in illusion.

mazeltov:
[b]Yes of course, this is not new, in fact this is not news!!! The General was absolutely right and so on point, we all know what Russia is capable of doing. Russia is the only country on earth that poses a military threat to America existence and America also poses a Military threat to Russia existence; Russai can destroy America and America can do the same thing to Russia, but the question is, what does Russia tend to lose ? They say: ''Never fight with an idiot else, he would drag you down and beat you with experience. That is the logic.!!

One thing we refuse to understand is that, America is facing two side war. #1 Military war, #2 Economic war.
As America is facing Military war with Russia, so also it is facing Economic war with China. China is a threat to America economic dominance and Russia is also a threat to America military domince which means, America is fighting double battles. But if Russia goes into a full-scale conventional war with America, America will lose a lot, few people understand what I'm saying. For example, If Russia loses N1,000 in war, America will lose N10,000.
If you think Russia ''gragra'' in Ukraine and Syria means military supremacy over America, then you have to wake up. If Iraq/Afghanistan war could incapacitate American's economy, how much more is Russia.
Untill when Russian economy is a large/sophisticated as American's own and untill when China military is as big/sophisticated as American's own, America won't think of fighting any of them. Don't fight with who has little or nothing to lose.
Yes Russia is a threat to America existence and America is also a threat to Russia existence. Final!!![/b]

For the greater part of your time here, you make alot of sense. Ride on.

mach7:
My dear, I used my post to respond to several comments. So not all were directly to you. As per the Iraqi tank losses, please research and read about the Iraq war - the memoirs of Gen Norman Schwarzkopf, interviews by Saddam and articles written about the war in military journals as I am not here to lecture you. Please as regards the bolded, almost all documentaries exist to make US strong and its enemies weak. Why haven't we seen a documentary detailing how America was decimated in Vietnam and the tactical failures evident in that war? Oh no, it an history they want to forget. I dont know about the 'line getting old' but it is true.
Please also specify why you have reservations about the Tu-160's capabilities and let us compare notes. Hope you have learned about the Bear sha, coz it is not as 'weak' as you think. Lastly, where did I laugh in my post? Have a great day.

Well, If you quote me, you should be responding to what i posted.

Watch Battle field Vietnam by PBS (one of so many). And how hard is it to post your war journals here? Or they dont exist? If you want to keep getting a response, post your argument and stop making it personal. I dont have time for that.

Missy89:
Well, If you quote me, you should be responding to what i posted.

Watch Battle field Vietnam by PBS (one of so many). And how hard is it to post your war journals here? Or they dont exist? If you want to keep getting a response, post your argument and stop making it personal. I dont have time for that.

gbam!

Appleyard:
The same old infrastructure the Yankees are afraid of today

Best response. Respect!

Pentagon Expert Says Russians Would ‘Annihilate’ US Army on Battlefield

Despite the size of its military budget, the US Army isn’t as strong as one might think it is and it would certainly lose to the Russian Army in a direct confrontation on a battlefield, retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor said, according to Politico Magazine.

The deployment of the US Army 2nd Cavalry Regiment from Germany to Hungary that was intended to scare Russia was a joke and it wouldn't help in a real-life fighting scenario, said Macgregor, who also holds a Ph.D. in international relations from the US Military Academy at West Point.

"This Stryker parade [the line of US military vehicles that drove from Germany to Hungary] won't fool anyone in Moscow," Macgregor said, adding that perhaps the Russians may not know how to do certain things well, but when it comes to fighting wars they're second to none.


US Army Europe Commander 'Astonished' by Russian Anti-ISIL Syria Campaign
Macgregor is a famous US war hero whose squadron destroyed an entire Iraqi Armored Brigade in 23 minutes, while suffering only one casualty, at the Battle of 73 Easting, a decisive tank fight during the Gulf War.
Later, reflecting on his famous victory, Macgregor said that if his military unit came to a face-to-face confrontation not with poorly-trained Iraqi soldiers, but with the Russians, his army would have been defeated.

"Defeated isn't the right word, the right word is annihilated," Macgregor told US military expert Mark Perry, according to Politico.

During his presentation at the US Congress in November of 2013, Macgregor compared the state of the US Army to a nine-passenger rowboat, in which "four would steer, three would call cadence and two would man the oars," according to Politico.

In other words, Macgregor said that the US Army is poorly organized or not well-trained, and if it had to face another army, equal in numbers and as technologically advanced, such the Russian or Chinese forces, on a conventional battlefield there is a high chance that US forces would be destroyed.

"Even if you increased the Army to 600,000 in its current form… it would still fail. That's the problem and, by the way, the Army knows it," the US military expert said, as cited by Politico.

Just for the mofos talking trash. A former USA colonel, and a war veteran confirming the ruskies capabilities.
Yet some people like CSTR, Miss89, Mazeltov, etc. who haven't been within 1000 miles radii of a military barracks will be running their mouths and talking arrant trash.

Appleyard:
Man, go and do more research on wars. Money don't win wars, and try to understand that military spendings doesn't dictate capabilities. Come to think of it: no war between Russia and the US will ever CONVENTIONAL, if you are expecting that, then i must say you are still living in illusion.

Money doesn't win wars? that is quite a dumb thing to say, especially for none conventional wars... I think you need the research man!


"To wage war, you need first of all money; second, you need money, and third, you also need money" — Prince Montecuccoli

“History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.” — Ronald Reagan

Tkester:
Pentagon Expert Says Russians Would ‘Annihilate’ US Army on Battlefield





Just for the mofos talking trash. A former USA colonel, and a war veteran confirming the ruskies capabilities.
Yet some people like CSTR, Miss89, Mazeltov, etc. who haven't been within 1000 miles radii of a military barracks will be running their mouths and talking arrant trash.

[b]your problem is not inability to read and understand but inability to make deep analyses. If you see my first statement on this thread, I seconded what the Us General said; the problem with most of you guys is that, all of you have been overided by sheer sentiment just because of love for the former eastern bric and strong aversion for the west. Let me make it clear and state it categorically that ''I love America'' yes I do but my love for the country won't blindfold my sense of reasoning when it comes to saying truth, facts and actuality. I deal with reality not propaganda machines or media that both America and Russia are using to feed the shallow-minded people like you.
Because Nigeria is my country doesn't mean that I will keepp deceiving myself that south Africa can't destroy Nigeria.
Of course the Us General was right- do you need to be told before you know that Russia can wipe off America completetly? - I have known this for long so it is not new to me,. Or do you need a prophet to tell you before you know that America can also turn Russia into ashes?
Nobody in his/her senses would say Ruusia can't destroy America and nobody in his/her sane mind would say America can't destroy Russia. But when it comes to comparison of weapons and military equipments, that's is where we use to make biased judgement and some reckless mistake due to our resounding ignorance ''including me'' . The notion I have been trying to correct is saying that Russia is stronger than America or America is stronger than Russia. To know the extent at which ignorance has criss-crossed our knowledge, some were saying that military spending is irrelevant in a full scale war, oh come on this is dumb and a paralytic thought!! And to show how fair minded I am, someone was saying American Abraham tank is the most sophisticated and I told the guy to go and check Russian Armata tank but when the guy didn't agree with me, I left him. Someone was also comparing Tu-160 bomber with B-2 spirit bomber and so on. All what we have been trying to dig out is to know whether Messi is better than Ronaldo or Ronaldo over Messi. Lastly if you are thinking that Russia would go into war with America, please wake up. America is being threatened by China on economis platform and the Same America is still facing rigid military competition with Russia. As you are fighting China in the Front, Russia is also kicking your ass at the back and you guys will come here and be saying Russia is this, Russia is that. I am not defending america but just saying the truth. See Mr, Neither America nor Russia is ready for war and we can never agree with eachother when it comes to military hardware because for every Russian SAM S-400 growler there is always American General Atomic Avenger and this is my legacy, this is what I stand for, this is what I can stand to defend. The heighest thing that could happen is proxy war between the two great nations and not full confrontational war. I rest my case[/b].

Missy89:
Well, If you quote me, you should be responding to what i posted.

Watch Battle field Vietnam by PBS (one of so many). And how hard is it to post your war journals here? Or they dont exist? If you want to keep getting a response, post your argument and stop making it personal. I dont have time for that.

Madam, I am not referring to an article on the Vietnam War - Wikipedia can help me with that. Secondly, there is nothing personal about my comments. I am not a Russian, and have never been to Russia. The fact that I oppose your opinions on Russia doesn't make it personal (except you feel that way). Thirdly, the war journals aren't mine. I have made an assertion, and the onus is on you to disprove my assertion as I am not here to lecture you. Go back and read about America's military tactics in desert one.

Ciao