Answers_ Page 1
Depends on what you consider 'military technology'. If you mean equipments with a lot of sophistication and gizmos to make the job easier, the US would excel. If you want equipments that excel in 'dirty' and extreme conditions, the Russian tech would be a better alternative.
I'll give you a pilot's analogy to explain. The Tu-154 for example, can fly in very harsh weather and airport conditions, including gravel or iced runways with length of 750 metres. The trade-off is analog avionics and a lower passenger cabin comfort. The Boeing 737 is on the other hand has very advanced avionics and excellent passenger comfort level. The tradeoff is, airports have to be 'prepared' to handle Boeing 737s and the aircraft is quite expensive to maintain.
At present, there is a generation gap between Russian and American military aircrafts, owning to the severe economic recession of the 90s. It was a struggle to survive which led to massive military cutbacks. This has changed the Russian military policy to one of a greater reliance on missiles and asymmetic weapons, which ensure more efficiency at lower costs (both in terms of money and manpower).
I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Why do you say the T-50 can "easily outperform" the F-22? That seems like kind of a weird assumption, considering that it hasn't even been produced in quantity yet.
I'm also puzzled by why you say they have a better submarine force.
The Russians have done a markedly better job recently than they have in the past. That is true. I just don't understand where you are basing your assumptions on.
America still has better weapons technology. If you have information that proves otherwise, please share it with us.
The T-50 can "easily outperform the F-22". On what basis do you make this assertion. The F-22 is in production and squadron service. The T-50 has flown once - it is where the F-22 was 20 YEARS AGO!
The T-95 tank, after 20 years of being a Powerpoint Presentation has been officially cancelled with no prototypes ever having been so much as photographed let alone demonstrated publicly.
The submarine force is largely submerged - IN HARBOR. Check out some satelite images of Russian naval yards - littered with subs rusting and sunk at their moorings.
You need to research your facts and think objectively instead of with jingoistic fervor. Your question exhibits the same thinking that you asked responders to not display.
As for the air, the T-50 yes, will outclass the F-22, but the US's latest jet is actually the F-35. It'll easily be another 10 years before the Russians can get something that matches it. As for the ground units ie. tanks, every country is constantly developing new techs of military units, so who knows. By the time Russia finds a tank worthy of the Abram, we'll already have something in the next tech. And by the way, again, the US's latest tank technology is the M1A2 Tusk.
Only time can tell.
You're another one of those...?
Is the T50 operational? No. Will it ever be in squadron service? Maybe in ten years. Is it stealthy? Nope.
Has this T-95 ever been made? No. And it's cancelled.
Better submarines? Like the Kursk? Right.
Larger submarines-yes-finally; but what does size matter?
There is a good reason we no longer regard Russia as a military rival.
@ Matt Hughes
You asked this question one week ago:
Who is this Marine you have as your avatar and what makes you think you rate it?
well there both evenly matched ull never get a stright anser because there people who hate us but love russia and the other way rwnd . its life deal with it . btw i say usa
I enjoy words like "is going to be developing" vs. the already produced F-22.