Putin says Russia's military strength unmatchable

[tee-rex]

Probably has something to do with supercavitation effect used in USSR's Shkval torpedoes or improved variants thereof.

These torpedoes can do, as per Wikipeadia, only 370 km/h, which is somewhat faster that 100 m/s, i.e. more than three times less than the speed of sound in the air.

Although I'm not an expert in this, the technology has likely improved since 80's - 90's when it was first deployed. However, if supersonic claim is true, I wouldn't expect any official information about it to be freely available in the open.

And now we are waiting for mishax1 to come over here and tell us everything about this new technology (as soon as he clarifies the matter).

[Nemo1024]

Russia has changed a lot in a recent decade and will continue to do so, sanctions might actually accelerate some inner developments that are long overdue.

This! ^^^

The biggest threat to the West is not Russia, but the Western leaders falling into the trap of believing their own propaganda of weak and backward Russia.

[EvilPanda]

Funny. If the US wasn't spending exorbitant amounts of funding on defense I might believe Putin.

The US has the biggest army but Russia can compete.

I think China has the biggest one, in terms of strength.

I have a feeling that if it actually came to a land war (it won't) the Russians would quickly be shown up and routed.
They have lots of troops and good equipment, but even stuff that is 10 years old is pretty much antiquated now.  I think their air defences would be fine to start with, but would be targetted pretty quickly and then the air dominance of the americans would show.

Like I say, I don't think it will happen, but the fact that America spends so much more than the rest of the worlds surely means that they have the best technology too

Not really. They have much less troops than China, USA or India.
Russia's numbers may look good on paper, but if we counted only weapons and vehicles produced in the last 15 years, they'd be left with half of their gear as most of it, including flagships, was built in the 70s and 80s.

[pattu1]

Funny. If the US wasn't spending exorbitant amounts of funding on defense I might believe Putin.

The US has the biggest army but Russia can compete.

I think China has the biggest one, in terms of strength.

Nowadays, the strength of the army isn't really critical.
China has been downsizing and modernising its defence force.

[mishax1]

1. Putin has $200Billion
2. The Russians has submarine torpedo's that can go as fast as twice the speed of sound.

I think you are confusing torpedoes with cruise missiles launched from submarines. Russian cruise missile P-700 Granit has speed of 2.5 Mach.

No, I'm not. 

I just can't fancy a torpedo which would have the speed of twice the speed of sound (~700 m/s). At such speed water would behave more like concrete (unless it gets somehow evaporated en route).

You are correct. Nothing moves close to that speed in the water. Not to mention that the speed of sound would be different in water. mishax1, could you be thinking of a sub launched missile?

I'll try to provide some clarification in the next days.

Sorry guys, I misunderstood the man, the speeds of the advanced torpedo are actually 900-1000km/h (about 1 mach) and not 2mach as I said.

[tee-rex]

1. Putin has $200Billion
2. The Russians has submarine torpedo's that can go as fast as twice the speed of sound.

I think you are confusing torpedoes with cruise missiles launched from submarines. Russian cruise missile P-700 Granit has speed of 2.5 Mach.

No, I'm not. 

I just can't fancy a torpedo which would have the speed of twice the speed of sound (~700 m/s). At such speed water would behave more like concrete (unless it gets somehow evaporated en route).

You are correct. Nothing moves close to that speed in the water. Not to mention that the speed of sound would be different in water. mishax1, could you be thinking of a sub launched missile?

I'll try to provide some clarification in the next days.

Sorry guys, I misunderstood the man, the speeds of the advanced torpedo are actually 900-1000km/h (about 1 mach) and not 2mach as I said.

900 km/h (around 250 m/s) is still a far cry from 331 m/s of the speed of sound in the air. Strictly subsonic. Are you sure that the torpedo you are talking about is not a cruise missile, and that it moves entirely in water (not a hydrofoil)?

[mishax1]

1. Putin has $200Billion
2. The Russians has submarine torpedo's that can go as fast as twice the speed of sound.

I think you are confusing torpedoes with cruise missiles launched from submarines. Russian cruise missile P-700 Granit has speed of 2.5 Mach.

No, I'm not. 

I just can't fancy a torpedo which would have the speed of twice the speed of sound (~700 m/s). At such speed water would behave more like concrete (unless it gets somehow evaporated en route).

You are correct. Nothing moves close to that speed in the water. Not to mention that the speed of sound would be different in water. mishax1, could you be thinking of a sub launched missile?

I'll try to provide some clarification in the next days.

Sorry guys, I misunderstood the man, the speeds of the advanced torpedo are actually 900-1000km/h (about 1 mach) and not 2mach as I said.

900 km/h (around 250 m/s) is still a far cry from 331 m/s of the speed of sound in the air. Strictly subsonic. Are you sure that the torpedo you are talking about is not a cruise missile, and that it moves entirely in water (not a hydrofoil)?

Not a cruise missile.

[Nik1ab]

Funny. If the US wasn't spending exorbitant amounts of funding on defense I might believe Putin.

The US has the biggest army but Russia can compete.

I think China has the biggest one, in terms of strength.

I have a feeling that if it actually came to a land war (it won't) the Russians would quickly be shown up and routed.
They have lots of troops and good equipment, but even stuff that is 10 years old is pretty much antiquated now.  I think their air defences would be fine to start with, but would be targetted pretty quickly and then the air dominance of the americans would show.

Like I say, I don't think it will happen, but the fact that America spends so much more than the rest of the worlds surely means that they have the best technology too

Not really. They have much less troops than China, USA or India.
Russia's numbers may look good on paper, but if we counted only weapons and vehicles produced in the last 15 years, they'd be left with half of their gear as most of it, including flagships, was built in the 70s and 80s.

Exactly.

[jackjohn79]

JSOW, MALD and HARM, s-400 killers 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pu_PKpEhqU

[jackjohn79]

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/PAK-DA.jpg

PAK DA
The PAK DA (or PAK-DA), is a Russian next-generation strategic bomber design, developed by the Tupolev Design Bureau.[1] The PAK DA acronym (ПAК ДA in Russian) stands for пepcпeктивный aвиaциoнный кoмплeкc дaльнeй aвиaции (perspektivnyi aviatsionnyi kompleks dal'ney aviatsii) literally meaning "prospective aviation complex for long-range aviation".[2] The PAK DA was planned to be a new stealthy strategic bomber and is expected to enter service in 2025–30,[1] with the first aircraft previously planned for delivery in 2020,[3] but delivery will now occur in 2023.[4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAK_DA

[bryant.coleman]

Nowadays, the strength of the army isn't really critical.
China has been downsizing and modernising its defence force.

The ability of a nation to cope with huge population loses can be very important in cases of attrition warfare. China has a population of 1.3 billion. It can sustain population loses up to 100 million. The same can't be said about either the US or the Russians.

[tee-rex]

Nowadays, the strength of the army isn't really critical.
China has been downsizing and modernising its defence force.

The ability of a nation to cope with huge population loses can be very important in cases of attrition warfare. China has a population of 1.3 billion. It can sustain population loses up to 100 million. The same can't be said about either the US or the Russians.

With the present day weapons of mass destruction the size of population is not as important as its density (in the reverse order). China's population is accumulated along the seacoast mainly, which makes it an easy target. And it had happened already in the past when British battleships devastated many Chinese coastal cities in the 19th century (during the Opium Wars).

[freedomno1]

Nowadays, the strength of the army isn't really critical.
China has been downsizing and modernising its defence force.

The ability of a nation to cope with huge population loses can be very important in cases of attrition warfare. China has a population of 1.3 billion. It can sustain population loses up to 100 million. The same can't be said about either the US or the Russians.

With the present day weapons of mass destruction the size of population is not as important as its density (in the reverse order). China's population is accumulated along the seacoast mainly, which makes it an easy target. And it had happened already in the past when British battleships devastated many Chinese coastal cities in the 19th century (during the Opium Wars).

Tactically high casualty devices does make the impact of higher populations less important than the amount of extermination level weaponry you have
Still a population that size is a tactical advantage due to strength in numbers as long as they are fairly reasonably equipped it's quite the multiplier effect.
Imagines a zombie invasion with guns for the zombies
They may not be to strong individually but when swarming they are scary, this of course assumes they have a lot of transit mechanisms to go invade with etc.

Of course WMD does win all but its called MAD for a reason.

[seen369]

Probably has something to do with supercavitation effect used in USSR's Shkval torpedoes or improved variants thereof.

These torpedoes can do, as per Wikipeadia, only 370 km/h, which is somewhat faster that 100 m/s, i.e. more than three times less than the speed of sound in the air.

Although I'm not an expert in this, the technology has likely improved since 80's - 90's when it was first deployed. However, if supersonic claim is true, I wouldn't expect any official information about it to be freely available in the open.

Russia has changed a lot in a recent decade and will continue to do so, sanctions might actually accelerate some inner developments that are long overdue.

That is exactly right! Russia knows never to trust the US. Never rely on them for anything!

[Lauda]

Not really. They have much less troops than China, USA or India.
Russia's numbers may look good on paper, but if we counted only weapons and vehicles produced in the last 15 years, they'd be left with half of their gear as most of it, including flagships, was built in the 70s and 80s.

Exactly.

No, not exactly, rather somewhat true. It is correct that some countries are stronger in numbers. But if you're going to be using numbers found online there are quite a few websites claiming that Russia is right behind USA in strength if you take into consideration multiple factors.

[BitMos]

Probably has something to do with supercavitation effect used in USSR's Shkval torpedoes or improved variants thereof.

These torpedoes can do, as per Wikipeadia, only 370 km/h, which is somewhat faster that 100 m/s, i.e. more than three times less than the speed of sound in the air.

Although I'm not an expert in this, the technology has likely improved since 80's - 90's when it was first deployed. However, if supersonic claim is true, I wouldn't expect any official information about it to be freely available in the open.

Russia has changed a lot in a recent decade and will continue to do so, sanctions might actually accelerate some inner developments that are long overdue.

That is exactly right! Russia knows never to trust the US. Never rely on them for anything!

If the table of the laws where written today I am sure that this line would be at the top .