The better question is: How big a threat are we to them? Their military is a hollow shell of what it once was, and so they have become reactionary. Their only offensive weapon in a conventional military sense is the destruction of the world. So they bloviate. This from a country with such poor health and such high alcoholism that it will be dead in a few decades if it's not careful.

Originally Posted by hamidreza

When I do a comparison between Russian and European weapons, I feel that the Russian weapons are better than European weapons.
For example the Russian Air force is second in the world and utilizes the most advanced airplanes. For example I can’t find any European airplane deals with Su-T50, although it hasn’t been mass produced. And the other airplanes such as Su-37, 34,33and MiG 29, 31 and 35 are better than European airplanes such as Rafale, EF or Mirage 2000 or at least are in the same position.
They have most developed combat helicopters (Mi28 and kamov 50, 52) and they are better than European helicopters and are almost as dangerous as the US combat helicopters.
The Russian Air-defense systems and missiles are great and are best in the world. Just remember S-400 or S-500 and Alexander.
They have a large and strong armored force. T90, 94 are good examples. Although the European Tanks such as leopard and Leclerc are very advanced.
Their Navy is not as developed as European Navy except that their Submarines which I think are better than even the US submarines. For Example Victor class submarines are masterpiece.
Also their Electronic technology and drone are their weak points. Although the European countries don’t have advanced drone. In this part the US is first and Israel is second.
Russia is one country with one army while the European countries consist of several countries with several army. So the management of a war will be easier for Russia.
And the last thing, Russia has the largest nukes stockpile even more than US. I think if they blow up their nukes in their land, the whole of the world will be destroyed.
It is my opinion, maybe it is wrong.

Maybe you're just misinformed.
Let's take a look at their submarines.

Russian subs were never all they were cracked up to be. The loss of a Russian sub showed the kinds of problems they faced. You could see the old military culture of avoiding blame showing up almost immediately, with the initial attempts to blame the loss of the sub on a collision with an American sub. It took nearly a year, and constant pressure from Putin, for the Navy to finally admit that it had been lost due to explosion of the fuel in a torpedo on board (which is the kind of thing that happens in a Navy which doesn't do the maintenance it really needs).

Like every other kind of military equipment that the Soviets built, the Navy has always cut corners to save money. Their surface ships were incredibly formidable looking, with their superstructures bristling with guns and other weapons, but that disguised serious problems, most important of which was that they didn't actually carry much ammunition. One of our destroyers, with much less impressive looking upper decks, would still be firing away several hours after theirs had exhausted their entire magazines. In fact, in nearly every way the real Soviet policy about their military was that it was far more important to look formidable than to actually be formidable. It was, in fact, a gigantic bluff.

Their nuclear-powered submarines were legendary, because of the significant death rate among sailors who served on them. ("How can you tell a Soviet submarine sailor? They glow in the dark.") Men were cheap and expendable (a general attitude in Russia predating the Soviet Union, going back to before Peter the Great). So they skimped on shielding on their reactors, among other things. Admiral Rickover once was given a tour of a Soviet nuclear submarine, and happened to be carrying a film dosimeter. It turned out later that he'd been exposed to more radiation during his brief tour of that sub than he had in total in all the years he spent commanding America's nuclear submarine program.

I've spent almost my whole life trying to keep an eye on what the Russians did and did not do, and let me assure you that we in the West have a very clear picture of what potential Russia has today.

At this point, the Russian military is, for all practical purposes, useless in most regards. The Russian descendant of the Strategic Rocket Forces continues and for obvious reasons is still worthy of respect. But most of the conventional force that they're often credited with having is in practice not real, because its equipment is useless for lack of spare parts and vital maintenance that the military no longer can afford, and the men can't be relied on. They have a few units which actually can operate, a few divisions, a few squadrons, a few ships, but their effective conventional military power now is probably much less than that of the UK, as well as being far less versatile.

Der Alte:
But most of the conventional force that they're often credited with having is in practice not real, because its equipment is useless for lack of spare parts and vital maintenance that the military no longer can afford, and the men can't be relied on. They have a few units which actually can operate, a few divisions, a few squadrons, a few ships, but their effective conventional military power now is probably much less than that of the UK, as well as being far less versatile.

They spent about 72 billion dollars previous year for their army. more than UK and France while their cost is less than them. So how they have just a few units which actually can operate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

Originally Posted by hamidreza

They spent about 72 billion dollars previous year for their army. more than UK and France while their cost is less than them. So how they have just a few units which actually can operate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

Because Russia has an ambitious plan to upgrade its army over the next ten years, planning to spend US$650 billion on the project.

First and foremost, Russian defense will focus on the development of strategic nuclear weapons, construction of over 100 military vessels for Russian Navy, including construction of four originally French-made Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, and the introduction into the Air Force of over 1,000 helicopters and 600 military planes, including fifth generation PAK-FA fighter. Most of the military hardware will be equipped with next-generation weaponry.

For the first time ever, Russia is planning to buy military equipment from NATO-member countries – two Mistral helicopter carriers will be bought in France (with two more licensed to be built in Russia), as well as samples of armored vehicles from Italy and elements of personal combat systems also from France.

Originally Posted by hamidreza

When I do a comparison between Russian and European weapons, I feel that the Russian weapons are better than European weapons.
For example the Russian Air force is second in the world and utilizes the most advanced airplanes. For example I can’t find any European airplane deals with Su-T50, although it hasn’t been mass produced. And the other airplanes such as Su-37, 34,33and MiG 29, 31 and 35 are better than European airplanes such as Rafale, EF or Mirage 2000 or at least are in the same position.
They have most developed combat helicopters (Mi28 and kamov 50, 52) and they are better than European helicopters and are almost as dangerous as the US combat helicopters.
The Russian Air-defense systems and missiles are great and are best in the world. Just remember S-400 or S-500 and Alexander.
They have a large and strong armored force. T90, 94 are good examples. Although the European Tanks such as leopard and Leclerc are very advanced.
Their Navy is not as developed as European Navy except that their Submarines which I think are better than even the US submarines. For Example Victor class submarines are masterpiece.
Also their Electronic technology and drone are their weak points. Although the European countries don’t have advanced drone. In this part the US is first and Israel is second.
Russia is one country with one army while the European countries consist of several countries with several army. So the management of a war will be easier for Russia.
And the last thing, Russia has the largest nukes stockpile even more than US. I think if they blow up their nukes in their land, the whole of the world will be destroyed.
It is my opinion, maybe it is wrong.

All the Russian weapons you mention (exept the MiG-29 which has a very poor combat record) are not battle proven. They look good on paper.

Past Russian weapons also had a poor combat record. (Korea, Vietnam, Israel-Arab war, Balkan, Iraq)

Originally Posted by hamidreza

The population is not all. If it was the India and china would be the powerful power in the world. Even more than US.

Boots on the ground are what is important.

China stopped the United States Military dead in its tracks in the Korean War.
The USA could not kill Chinese fast enough to turn the tide of the battle.
The USA had to back up and regroup.

Because of China there is still a north and south Korea to this day.

China would be more powerful than the USA, if the USA butted up against China along a border the same size as the border with Canada or Mexico.

China has transportation issues, not manpower issues.
Moving Troops long distance to the would-be war zone is a major stumbling block for China, albeit one that China hopes to have rectified one day. The USA is working to deal with China when that day comes.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

All the Russian weapons you mention (exept the MiG-29 which has a very poor combat record) are not battle proven. They look good on paper.

Past Russian weapons also had a poor combat record. (Korea, Vietnam, Israel-Arab war, Balkan, Iraq)

I disagree most Russian weaponry is proven, on every battlefield since 1948 the smoldering wrecks of Russian equipment can be seen as proof that it doesn't work.

Q: How do you spot a Russian stealth sub?
A: Follow the radioactive cloud until you can see the smoke.

After the fall of the iron curtain German pilots trained with western pilots against F-15, F-16 and F-18s. Those exercises showed that the MiG-29 was superior in a dog fight. Big part of this dog fight superiority was due to the fact that the German pilots had many hours behind them as fighter pilots, often 3-4 times as many as their opponents. But in larger scale exercises (many aircraft on both sides) western tactics & command & control of air war were proven to be much better and kill-ratio turned against MiGs.

In one-on-one duel they were superior- I don’t remember exactly what the kill-ratio was, but it was at least 1:3 or even more.

Originally Posted by VDKMS
All the Russian weapons you mention (exept the MiG-29 which has a very poor combat record) are not battle proven. They look good on paper.

Past Russian weapons also had a poor combat record. (Korea, Vietnam, Israel-Arab war, Balkan, Iraq)

So you cant trust to F-35 because it hasn't been tested in a real battle.

Gator:
Boots on the ground are what is important.

China stopped the United States Military dead in its tracks in the Korean War.
The USA could not kill Chinese fast enough to turn the tide of the battle.
The USA had to back up and regroup.

Because of China there is still a north and south Korea to this day.

China would be more powerful than the USA, if the USA butted up against China along a border the same size as the border with Canada or Mexico.

China has transportation issues, not manpower issues.
Moving Troops long distance to the would-be war zone is a major stumbling block for China, albeit one that China hopes to have rectified one day. The USA is working to deal with China when that day comes.

China has a good potential to be the first power in the world in future maybe 20 years later. And except that their large population and area, I think they don't have any dark point in their behavior with other countries and it makes them reliable. As the US who was 70 years ago. It is why the US politician are care about it. They want to move their all aircraft carriers to Asia around China. Leon Panetta said it a few days ago in a conference in Singapore.