Certainly, Russia hasnt enough money to afford all new equipment (like Black Eagle MBT, Su-35 Fighter, BTR-90 APC, Ka-52 Gunship, etc.etc.). But our weapon designs are from 1990-s or later. US army now equipped mainly by equipment designed in 1970-1980s (M1 tank, F-16, F-15, F-18, Apache, Bradley, MLRS, Paladin, etc.etc.)

KA 52 BTR90 Black eagle MBT..how many do you have? And are you really confided that they are better than the latest versions of the Ah64 block III , M2/3 , M1A2 SEP. Don't think that you want to find out.

Okay there are only prototypes of new vehicles. Black Eagle is on endless trials, BTR-90 is on limited series, Su-35 is on very limited series. As I've said the lack of funds is real problem. On subject which tank is better... There are many discussions on other threads (armor, infantry). I've said comparable or better (not definitely better), for example, Mi-28N is comparable with Apache Longbow (and better than any non-US attack chopper). Russia still able to produce vehicles competitive with US, but Russia lacks money to exploit this.

Hmm, well let's agree that the russian stuff is capable. To which degree, well, that's anybody's guess

Roadcop, I didn’t actually refer to any air force frames, I commented on the disparity in flight time, which shows the Russian air forces weaknesses. (40 hours compared to 200 hours). I commented mainly on the Navy that Russia has; like I said, its Typhoon SSBN’s are down to 2 from six. Its Delta IV’s are in the main, inspirational. It has sailed the Kuznetsov with a full air wing since 1995. Gf-aus put a figure on the surface forces; 80% inspirational. In other words, if it came up against the main navies of NATO; USN and the Royal, then it would be annihilated. Russia can produce some useful equipment. However its next generation prototypes, like the Su-47, will always remain prototypes, unless India or China buy them. Its remarkable that Russia get to this stage, as you R&D budget is only $2.1 billion. Russia simply can’t afford the weaponry or platforms it manufactures, no matter how good or bad it is in comparison to NATO. However at least you know that with NATO, whether its inferior or not, you know it will always be in large supply, tested and manned by experience, crew, soldiers or airmen.

Never say never, you know...

“Its Delta IV’s are in the main, inspirational*. It has* sailed the Kuznetsov with a full air wing since 1995. Gf-aus put a figure on the surface forces; 80% inspirational*” /inoperable /hasn’t /inoperable

OK lets me put it like this Us bering richer than russia has nothing to do with it or there technology, Russia fights with anything they are possibly one of the 3 most powerful nations today alongside China and India, lets face it America could never sustain a attack on Russia, the lack of the supplies and climate would destroy any chance of a even decent attack and Russia still remains the worlds largest nuclear, biological and chemical power you cannot deny that, they have defnce treaties with China, North Korea, Vietnam and India making them the most unlikely target by US. The US knows that those 3 powerful countries can match the US gun for gun , bullet for bullet even Russia alone can do it. They would be no likely invasion the US is follish and imperailistic but not to seal there own destruction. Words of advice dont talk ill of Russia, China and India because they are poorer than the US today come 10-20 years they wil be the superpowers well not russia that soon unless dramatic change. They wil be calling the shots not the so called Global Superpower the USA. (Iraqi Invasion was unfounded,)