A major U.S. military edition of The National Interest has published some sort of rating weapons, which must “deter Russian aggression” against members and, so to speak, the wards of the Alliance. Judging by the optimistic tone of the author, Russia is virtually nothing to oppose the West in military terms. Federal news Agency proves that it is not.
The real possibility of a war between NATO and the Russian Federation, the author of The National Interest is not directly writes. However, he noted that Moscow “had behaved aggressively in Ukraine” and is now “ramping up troops in the Kaliningrad enclave,” and “patrol bombers and submarines became more intense”. All this, according to the American journalist, suggests potential preparations for the attack on Europe. To contain it and offers the top five top-end NATO weapons. Let’s take a look at them and see what analogues has Russia.
The fight first. “Ash” vs. “Virginia”
Making a move towards the investment of the Russian military-industrial complex in the new “very capable” submarines, the author argues that the American submarine fleet remains the most powerful in the world. In particular, in the waters of the Atlantic, which is of special interest from the point of view of sea communications between the United States and European NATO members. It is also reported that the Pentagon has allocated substantial funds to build and increase the combat capabilities of their most advanced offensive nuclear submarines of class “Virginia”.
The supremacy of the United States submarine really hard to argue, especially considering the condition our country finds itself after the collapse of the USSR. A great example is just a direct competitor to “Virginia” – “Ash”. Work on this project had been carried out since the late 70s, and in 1993 he laid the first submarine, which in three years have stopped building. Only ten years later was able to continue construction, and in the Navy it was introduced only in 2014, i.e. after 21 years of bookmarks!
However, a normal rate, slowly resume as you can see from the above infographic. Yes, the American opponent presses a number, but, first of all, when it comes to underwater weapons, land power and needs to keep pace with sea quantitatively. And, secondly, the parameters of the “Ash” about the same, but it is better armed and much cheaper. And it’s not just the number of missiles, and also the fact that the U.S. is some “Tomahawks”, and we have a variety of weapons, including the CD “Caliber” (NATO codification – “Applical”), which after the Syrian events it is not necessary to tell anyone.
Moreover, it is planned to equip “Ash” and the strategic cruise missile Kh-101, which is on our bombers, the Tu-160, including with a nuclear warhead. The range of this missile is 5,500 km – three times higher than the long-range Tomahawks. Starting from this radius, the rockets formally considered Intercontinental. So while the “Virginia” will come closer to our shores, “Ash” will be able to put a massive rocket attack even the United States not to mention Europe.
The second battle. The t-50 against F-35
Speaking about the F-35, the author cannot get around the obvious problem: delays on the years, numerous technical difficulties, the discrepancy between the real parameters initially claimed and, of course, the exorbitant costs of program development. Pros much less: it’s vaunted stealth technology (which, as experience has shown, significantly affect flight characteristics, but still does not guarantee absolute protection from even old air defense systems with primitive means of detection) and the latest electronics.
In General, the author’s assessment is pretty grim: “the F-35 itself is not perfect, not even the fact that it can be called good machine. But America chose this fighter for investment – for better or worse. Therefore, American and allied pilots have somehow to work with it”.
For Russia this situation is analogous to the previous paragraph: the delay in the development of the PAK FA and, as a consequence, the quantitative gap with an equal or more superior options. Interestingly, the price was comparable – if you look at the upper limit available in the public domain “scatter”. While the Russian government says that the cost will be 2-3 times lower than the Western counterpart. But even if the price will be roughly equal, it would be strange if the American defense industry spent a tenth of its annual military budget on this one plane, then it would be much more expensive competitors.
The third fight. PAK vs LRS-B
New U.S. stealth strategic bomber (Long Range Strike Bomber, abbreviated LRS-B) to the author nothing is known. As, however, and all the rest. The project is not enough that top-secret, and constantly changing, as it causes a lot of debate.
As something more or less distinct can be seen only after a decade, about the specifics to speak of. Virtually all available information as for LRS-B and the Russian analogue of the PAK DA is listed in our infographics. As we can see, “on paper” there is complete parity, but as it will be a reality – time will tell. Anyway, now absolutely precisely it is impossible to claim that the US in this respect represent a danger for Russia, which we cannot answer.
The fourth fight. “Armata” against “Leopard”
If we talk about a hypothetical war in the European theater of operations, ground equipment will be predominantly local: the United States will not be able to move their armor across the Atlantic in a short time and in sufficient quantity. But it is not enough to stop Russian tank Armada (and “Armat”). It is obvious, from these considerations, the author and pointed out the last modification of the German tank “Leopard” – 2A7.
Here comes the turn of Russia to take the top quantity other things being equal. More precisely, relatively equal – T-14, in fact, is a new generation main battle tank, while the Leopard is literally the last century. And it can be compared only with the latest modifications of T-90 and T-80.
As The National Interest writes, “the lack” of tanks of the Bundeswehr is the lack of armor piercing shells with depleted uranium – Yes, the same that, according to many experts, is a serious threat to health, up to causing leukemia and severe genetic diseases. Unlike American army, the German somehow fundamentally does not want to use such shells, laments the author, harming its ability to counter Russian tanks.
The fifth fight. “Night hunter” against the “Apache”
But a good “killer tanks”, according to the American edition should be the latest version of attack helicopter AH-64 Apache: the machine has passed through a series of upgrades, and can still destroy a tank company with one gulp. In the text there is a reference to the War in the Persian Gulf, but if it worked with obsolete Iraqi tanks and very weak air defense system, not necessarily that will work with much more developed in this respect Russia.
In any case, our Mi-28N “Nuit hunter” to successfully “hunt” on American “Indian”, and not less formidable Ka-52 “alligator” – and does “bite” to them.
* * *
Summarize the results of these symbolic fights. Submarine forces of the USA is numerically bigger than the Russian, but our with your defense, standing alert and retaliation policy the hang of it. In the air the United States again on top – but not in all categories and only by number. Their advantage is negated by our excellent air defense system that The National Interest did not want to consider, apparently, in order not to spoil the picture of “Russian aggression”. Well, on land in front of our tanks, few can resist. Thus, the West should still try to keep in a draw the war in Europe.
We will add that now alarmist theories unique to representatives of NATO, for which Russia’s return to adequate protection of its national interests – almost a reason to go out the window shouting “Russian go!”.
