The USN is not superior to the Russian Navy.
If the USN was suddenly the Russian navy then Russia would either have to slash the Navies budget… to obvious effect, or Russia would be in more economic pain than during the 90s.
The current USN would be an enormous step backwards for Russia, so how could it be considered better for Russia?
Russia does not invade countries on a global scale so the USNs performance in that is irrelevant.
The Russians would have enormous trouble just finding a base for all of the USNs assets let alone be able to fund its normal operation.
And it is not just Russia any other country on the planet would be crippled economically by bearing the burden of the USN and the military benefit would be minor for most countries and would evapourate within a year because of the effect on the country burdened with paying for its existence.

The fact that the Russians can’t fight three wars and still threaten other countries all at once is a good and normal thing… the fact is that only the US can do this and the US can only do this because it is currently in a position to do this and its government has the will to ignore its own principles and inflict pain and suffering on others to impose its will globally… hense the recurring backlash of “anti americanism”.

The USSR was interested in peace… something the US may never understand as it has never really tasted war on its soil. Except the war on drugs… :rolleyes:

If US carrier groups ever become a serious threat in the future launching a dozen satellites would probably take less than a week. Humint will give them at least that length of warning. As its financial situation improves they will be launched anyway, so the capability is coming… and there is curently no hurry.

There is no info that prooves Russia can not fight 3 wars at the same time, only U.S./Western lies and Russian “dis-informnation” making them selves look weak, the U.S. can not have a full blow invasion type war with any other nation right now, because there’s no money, stop believing in these cold war lies and look at the reality, of U.S. exageration of it’s stregnth and Russia’s “supposed” weakness.

None of them say anything about the air launched versions being in service, if they do you will be able to quote the relevant lines.

Well it looks like they are not yet for air launched once I read it again.

If I recall, Saddams’s air force used the same standard version of the MiG-25 as used by the Soviet Union, the MiG-25PD.

Is there such a thing as a “downgraded export version” of the MiG-25?

The simple fact that Grizzly had to explain that tp you shows people have to do more indebt research, as I’m convinced that Russia in the post-cold war times is using “The Art of War” strategy to make U.S./Europe “think” the are weak.

I have read them hundreds of times and they say nothing about the air luanched versions being in service.

Then read them AGAIN!

http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/exports/general/expmsl.htm

In the grand scheme of things i would imagine that units such as backfire bomber squadrons and ballistic missile crews – infact any units with really high priority systems that are vital for keeping Russia’s stratigic power projection (if you get me) and that ‘showcase’ the Russian military to be highly proficient, I know if i were in Putins position i would want those Backfire bombers operating at a peak efficiency and with excellent crews flying them – it’d be mad not too but what about all the other units and personal in the Russian forces?

I’ve been doing a bit of googling this morning about them but to be honest can’t find an awful lot on the subject so far, lots of talk of superb Russian weapons systems all over the web it seems but no body ever seems to tackle how good the humans in the link are, not just the pilots either but the whole range of people right from the pilots (and thier flight hours) to weapon loader guys and mission planners, the maintenance crews and probably tens of perhaps hundreds of other roles required to be a credible force.

On the Russian Navy side of things from what i can gather the surface fleet is not a patch on what it used to be back in the cold war days, it would seem the showcase units are better as you mention the Slava class in exercise but it takes alot more then just a few heavy cruisers and one carrier to match the USN, oh anyone know for sure if the Kirov class ships are still afloat/operational, extremely formidable vessels it would seem (on paper at least) but i guess sailing a Kirov out with no escorts etc in wartime is just asking for it to be relocated to the ocean floor. Anyways would love to hear some input about this from those who know.

Why would it be a formidable vessel only on paper?

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Wishfull thinking?! The MiG-29s fielded in Central Europe did not differ in performance really. It is just a “face-keeping” claim, that the Russian examples had some extras. That were limited to the IFF and the wiring for an atomic-weapon at first. The MiG-29M with FBW and related software did not reach front-line service. The MiG-29C had to pay in a loss of agility through higher weight, but had some more minutes in endurance by that.
There was a multilayer SAM-belt in the GDR as one in the FRG.
Having superior numbers in some areas is sometimes more a burden than a relief. All is ageing at a similar rate and in need of a constant upgrade work with the related cost and time.
Quality and “monkey”-assets or “throw-away-units”, when attacking in wave echolons are some questionable tactics. But the main difference is to find in the role of air-power. The Russians did trust their own, when limiting its role as support only. 2/3 of all forces is tasked with AD at first, when in the West it is the other way around. So 1973 and 1982 caused a severe headache for the Russian planers. The Chinese were/are less dogmatic and did/do change their doctrine to face the new realities. What is very difficult, because some weaponary is tailored to the former needs and to built a new spirit takes a lot of time.
By the way, a main problem of the Soviet Air Power in the 70s and 80s.
The CFE numbers verified did show, that propaganda on both sides did highlight differences and related threats, which did not excists really.

Not “wishful thinking” but actual FACTS” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-29

1. No advantage?? so I suppose F-117 was equalled by an equally able deep strike penetrator on the WP side?, that is just one example of superior NATO technology in East/West arms race.
2. Soviet Frontal Aviation did indeed have a large advantage in terms of fighter numbers, but however those aircraft consisted mainly of MiG-23’s and 21’s (aircraft which were built to counter the F-4), and some MiG-29’s, which have proven in multiple combat scenarios and simulations inferior to later NATO aircraft such as the teen series, which were in full squadron service by the 80’s. NATO’s superb advantage in both training and equipment would act as a force multiplier, negating the WP numerical advantage, and denying them air superiority. I believe that in a Central European Conflict the sheer numbers of SAM’s and Fighter Aircraft would mean neither side would posses air supremacy.

Start showing sources, cuz all your doing is saying, NATO Propaganda that has been proven WRONG, and proven not to be true.
MiG-29’s that have went against NATO/ U.S. were MiG-29 B’s vs. upgraded F-15 C/E and F-16’s not MiG-29 C’s vs. F-16 Blk 40, so U.S. NATO has never realy went up against Russian MiG-29’s just exported MiG-29 B’s, and that is a FACT.
Central Europe SAMS Russia had/has the LARGEST SAM airdefence in the WORLD till this day unmatched by ANY country even in 2008.