With tension skyrocketing in Ukraine,
a confrontation between the United States and Russia is more likely than ever.
But what would that look like, and how do these two military heavyweights compare?
If Russia and the US come to blows, anyone caught in their way better make sure not to
get underfoot these two military titans. The US remains the world's premier military superpower,
but Russia holds fast to the number two spot, just barely edging out over China's rising star.
In Russia, crippling sanctions over the annexation of Crimea have bled Russia dry for almost a
decade, and been an absolute economic disaster for the nation. Not only is the Russian economy
critically weakened, but sanctions and stagnation have led to a slow but steady 'brain drain' of
Russian talent out of the country. Russian professionals, entrepreneurs, academics, and
artists are all migrating out of the country and seeking better opportunities in Europe or the US.
The lack of a diversified economy is a crippling vulnerability for Russia,
and the global fall in oil prices has only made economic woes even worse for the nation.
This has directly translated into a sharp decline in military capabilities,
as budgets shrink and planned replacements for aging equipment fail to materialize. Slowly,
but surely, the gap in technological capabilities between Russia and the United States is growing.
The United States has its own financial woes, seeing the worst inflation it's seen in 40 years.
With interest rate hikes coming in 2022, the American economy is sure to feel the pinch
as investors tighten their purse strings. However, the American economy remains
strong and well-diversified, leaving it far less vulnerable to economic disruption than Russia-
whether that disruption comes from social change, technology, or war.
But what do the numbers say about a possible war between the two heavyweights?
Population matters in a prolonged war- without population there are no reinforcements,
and an economy is far more vulnerable to mass conscription and casualties.
The United States has a population of 334,998,000, versus Russia's 142,321,000,
giving the US over a 2:1 advantage in population. However, that's only part of the story,
because Russia's aging population only makes its disadvantages even worse in comparison to the US.
The US has approximately 147,399,000 conscripts potentially available to fight a brutal,
multi-year conflict, while Russia only has 69,737,000. Of those potential conscripts though,
approximately 122,274,000 are fit for combat duty in the US, while in Russia only 46,681,000
potential recruits are fit for combat. Every year 4.4 million American youth reach military age,
but Russia's population crisis sees only 1.3 million youth reach military age.
Both nations are experiencing a decline in birth rates, with the US birth rate at 1.70
and Russia's at 1.50. This is below the 2.1 birth rate required to sustain a population,
but the United States continues a positive population growth rate thanks to healthy
amounts of immigration. Russia on the other hand is experiencing a population decline.
In simple terms, if the two powers engage in a mass-casualty conflict that spans multiple years,
Russia will be bled dry long before the US is.
A modern war however will likely be too fast and brutal for population trends to
determine a winner- even if it doesn't turn nuclear. That's why what might matter most
is the number of personnel both countries can muster within months of hostilities starting.
The United States enters a potential conflict with a military 1,390,000 strong, while Russia
maintains an active duty force of 850,000. The difference is staggering, with the US military
almost twice as big as the Russian military, giving the US an immediate numerical advantage.
Another advantage the US enjoys is a professional, all-volunteer fighting force, while Russia has
had to cancel plans to transition into an all-volunteer force due to economic woes and
shrinking budgets. However, Russia has come a long way from when its military was staffed primarily
by conscripts, and today only about 30% of the Russian military is conscripted- or about 225,000.
The disadvantage is still significant though.
A professional, all-volunteer military is more likely to retain highly trained individuals,
who over time transition into senior leadership positions. This fills the upper echelons of an
all-volunteer force with seasoned veterans, who make all the difference in combat operations. A
conscripted military however struggles greatly to retain individuals over the long-term,
leading to veterancy issues and a lack of a well-tested command core. There is no direct
way to measure the advantage of an all-volunteer military versus a partially conscripted one,
but throughout history volunteer soldiers routinely outperform conscripted soldiers-
which is what made mercenaries so attractive to world powers throughout most of human history.
The United States thus enjoys another advantage over Russia,
though that advantage has shrunk due to Russia's growing professional military.
A critical component of any army though is the strength of its reserve force, specially in modern
high-intensity warfare that can see regular forces quickly rendered combat ineffective.
The United States maintains a significant reservist force of 442,000 personnel, versus
Russia's 250,000. In terms of reservists, the US enjoys both an advantage in numbers and training.
American reservists receive regular training and even partake in combat deployments,
making their competency comparable to many nation's regular forces.
This is not an accident, but rather by design. The United States keenly understands that in
a modern high-intensity conflict it will face significant initial losses,
and is prepared to mitigate this loss in capabilities via a strong reserve force.
By comparison, Russian reservist training has been historically spotty at best. Efforts to retain
veteran soldiers with reservist contracts hopes to counteract a critical lack of training, but
at the moment the Russian reserves simply pale in comparison to American reserves in capabilities.
A lack of training also extends into the Russian regular forces as well,
though great leaps have been made to increase the readiness of combat troops. Large exercises
however are not cheap, and can produce a great deal of wear and tear on equipment-
something that is a critical concern for a Russian army fielding aging equipment and with a limited
budget. Thus while Russian forces have undergone an increase in military drills in the last decade,
they still fail to match the training tempo of their American counterparts.
The Russian air forces have also seen a dramatic reduction in training, with most pilots flying
only between 100 and 120 hours per year. The United States was matching this rate until 2019,
when it pushed for an increase to an average of 200 hours per year. Aging military aircraft
in both militaries is directly leading to a skyrocketing in maintenance expenses,
and flight hours are threatened with further reduction for both militaries. Big buys of
F-35 and 4.5 generation F-15 and F-18s by the US though seeks to replace its aging fleet, which has
an average age of 28 years. Russia on the other hand is procuring jets at a much slower rate.
The US spends $770 billion dollars on its military, while Russia spends $154 billion. When
adjusted for purchasing power parity though, the Russian defense budget is closer to $170 billion,
given that Russia buys much of its equipment from its native defense contractors. The US
still retains a massive advantage, but not as large as one might think
given that salaries and benefits are much more expensive for the US than for Russia.
Still, in sheer value, the United States purse is exponentially deeper than the Russian war purse,
leading to a much greater proliferation of hardware.
In the air, the United States fields a fleet of
13,247 aircraft- over three times as large as Russia's air fleet of 4,173. America's fighter
fleet is over twice as large as Russia's- with 1,957 fighter aircraft versus Russia's 772.
Both the US and Russia have nearly the same number of attack aircraft, with 783 vs 739-
though this is only because the United States prefers multirole aircraft over dedicated
attack platforms. A significant technological advantage in munitions allows even non-attack
aircraft in the US fleet to effectively carry out air to sea or air to ground strike missions,
while Russia struggles with a lack of smart weapons and support platforms for said weapons.
This disparity in numbers and capabilities means that the United States Air Force and Navy aren't
just better positioned to secure air supremacy, but to exploit it with devastating fire support
missions against Russian ground targets. Though American air supremacy will still have to contend
with one of the world's best air defense forces- knowing that it can't match America in the skies,
Russia has historically put a lot of weight behind ground-based air defenses,
creating some of the most advanced air defense systems in the world. It is assumed then that
Russian ground forces will operate under cover of their ground-based air defense assets,
seriously threatening the survival of American attack platforms. However,
due to a need to operate under this umbrella of safety, Russian ground forces would be unable
to rapidly maneuver- potentially leaving the decisive advantage of momentum in US hands.
In a defensive mode however, Russian ground forces would be incredibly difficult for the
US to break if it was denied its air power by robust air defenses.
Mobility is incredibly important in modern warfare, and here the US shines with the largest
air and sea mobility fleet in the world. The US operates 982 transport aircraft versus Russia's
445, giving it a decisive advantage in quickly maneuvering troops and equipment in-theater.
The US's focus on a large mobility fleet though is a matter of necessity- just like the Atlantic
and Pacific oceans both make the United States invulnerable to invasion by any power on Earth,
it is just as big a barrier for American troops needing to get to the front.
As Russia lacks any capability whatsoever to threaten the US with a land invasion,
a conflict between the two would indubitably play out in eastern Europe,
necessitating the rapid movement of troops and supplies from America to Europe.
Once in theater though, the American air mobility fleet will make it an agile force
capable of quickly exploiting opportunities, which can just as quickly replenish losses.
One area of air power where the US absolutely dominates Russia or any other world power though
is in the number of special-mission aircraft. These highly specialized
platforms are critical for the success of a modern combined arms military,
and run the gamut from airborne early warning, to maritime patrol aircraft, to electronic warfare
platforms. These aircraft can be everything from eyes in the sky to specialized platforms
that listen in on or jam enemy communications, and are critical for modern high tech warfare.
Here the United States fields a whopping 774 special-mission platforms, versus Russia's 132,
putting the logistical, intelligence, and technological advantage firmly on the US side.
Attack helicopters are absolutely critical for supporting any ground offensive,
and the US operates 366 more of these platforms than Russia, with 910 versus 544. Russia operates
three main attack helicopters- the Kamov Ka-50 “Black Shark”, the Mi-24 “Hind”,
and the Mil Mi-28. The US operates the AH-64 Apache and the AH-6M Little Bird.
With a focus on special operations, the AH-6M Little Bird provides an extremely agile air
support asset for soldiers in dense urban areas, while the US Army's Apache is designed to destroy
enemy armor and provide direct fire support for American infantry. The Russian attack helicopter
fleet represents the shifting of priorities and ideologies between its years as the Soviet Union
and its modern life as the Russian Federation- the Hind is a heavy fire support platform
with the capacity to ferry up to 8 fully equipped troops into combat,
while the Ka-50 and Mi-28 represent a more traditional attack helicopter design.
Tanks make up the backbone of any modern army, and here both nations shine. The United States
has a tank force of 6,612 platforms, versus Russia's 12,420. It appears that Russia enjoys
a two to one advantage over the US in the tank arena, but the truth is that Russia inflates the
size of its armored forces by counting units kept in storage as part of its active force.
In reality, Russia operates closer to 3,000 tanks, with 9,000 mothballed and in reserve. Not
only would these tanks require weeks for them and their crews to be prepared for combat, but most
are Cold War relics with extremely questionable survivability on a modern battlefield. As Stalin
once put it though, “Quantity is a quality all its own”- though Stalin never lived to
see the blistering speed and overwhelming firepower of modern anti-tank platforms.
The bulk of Russian tank forces is the T-72,
which has received modernity upgrades alongside its M1 Abrams American counterpart. However,
pound for pound the Abrams continues to outclass the T-72. While most comparisons of the Abrams’
capabilities rely on the shocking display of overwhelming superiority against Iraq's T-72s,
this is a grossly unfair comparison. For starters, export models of Russian T-72s
are not nearly as capable as those fielded by the Russian army. Secondly, Russian tank
crews are overwhelmingly better trained than their Iraqi counterparts in Desert Storm.
The Abrams however is still the better tank in 2022, with armor,
sight, and electronics upgrades integrated into the active tank force on a consistent basis.
Russia on the other hand has struggled to keep its own tank forces fully modernized.
The one advantage that the T-72 enjoys over the Abrams is its ability to fire anti-tank missiles
from its barrel- though doing so requires the T-72 to stand still while guiding its
missile to target, during which an Abrams could simply scoot out of the way or kill the T-72.
Both Russia and the US place a strong emphasis on mechanized infantry, with the US fielding
45,193 armored vehicles versus Russia's 30,122. While this leaves the US better able to replenish
losses, Russia still fields enough armored vehicles to provide ample mobility and protection
to its infantry. In a battle of attrition though the numbers favor the United States.
There is one area however where Russia dominates not just the United States,
but the entire world- and that's artillery.
It's said Russia can field enough artillery that if it all fired at once, you'd feel the explosions
on the other side of the world- and the numbers are truly astonishing. Russia absolutely dwarfs
the US in numbers of self-propelled artillery, with 6.574 platforms versus America's 1,498. The
story remains the same for traditional artillery, with 7,571 howitzers versus the US's 1,339. Russia
also enjoys a three to one advantage in rocket artillery, with 3,391 units versus the US's 1,366.
The difference is a product of both geography and priorities. Russia has traditionally had
to be concerned with fighting a massive land battle in either Europe against NATO,
or Asia against China. The nation has also had to contend with the reality that in battle against
its greatest competitor- the United States- it could not count on air platforms to provide
fire support for front-line troops. Facing off against a technologically superior foe,
Russia placed an emphasis on sheer firepower- superior American Abrams tanks don't matter much
if they can't advance due to withering barrages of Russian artillery.
The US however has by necessity shifted most of its fire support capabilities to more mobile
airborne platforms. As it faces no threat of invasion or major conflict on its own continent,
mobility is more important for the United States military. With a greater focus on technology,
mobility, and smart munitions, airborne fire support simply makes more sense to the US military
than masses of artillery that need to be transported thousands of miles to any
conflict zone. American air-based fire support is far superior even
to Russia's masses of artillery in delivering effective fire on target,
but only if Russian air defenses can be neutralized. Otherwise American soldiers
may find themselves completely overwhelmed by the world's largest artillery corps.
At sea, Russia operates a larger fleet than the United States, with 605 ships versus America's
484. However, the capabilities of America's navy far surpass those of the Russian navy,
which has historically been the least important of its military branches.
Funding priorities reflect this, and today the Russian navy is in a state of serious decline,
operating largely Cold War era equipment that rarely sees upgrades.
The United States currently operates 11 aircraft carriers, with its carrier air forces by
themselves larger than most nation's entire air fleets. Russia by comparison operates only one,
and 'operates' is a term we're using rather loosely here as the Admiral Kuznetsov is infamous
for breakdowns. A remnant of the Cold War, the Kuznetsov is in a perpetual state of disrepair,
and would be incapable of posing even a moderate threat to US forces before it was destroyed.
However, America's mighty carrier fleet is its own vulnerability, with Russia having developed
hypersonic anti-ship missiles that present a lethal risk to American naval power. Currently,
the United States has no defense against these weapons except to attack and degrade Russian kill
chain assets such as radar tracking installations, communications nodes, and satellites.
The United States also operates 9 smaller carriers to support amphibious assault operations,
while Russia completely lacks this capability. Amphibious operations would likely not play
a big role in a US-Russian conflict, but with the ability to fly the F-35,
these 'mini-carriers' would only complicate matters for the Russian air force and navy.
Russia does outnumber the US in number of submarines, with the US operating 68
versus Russia's 70. However, modernity is an issue with Russia's submarine fleet,
and it's unknown how many subs Russia can actually put to sea in case of war
given the state of poor logistics in the Russian navy. By comparison,
the United States submarine fleet is being steadily upgraded with the acquisition of
the Virginia class attack submarine, and are on the whole more capable than Russian boats.
The United States outnumbers Russia in numbers of destroyers,
with 92 guided-missile destroyers versus Russia's 15.
While outnumbered and outgunned by major combatants, Russia has a far greater fleet
of smaller vessels, which could pose a serious threat if massed together or used to harass US
supply lines. Russia has also mounted its Kalibr cruise missiles on civilian vessels,
meaning that any Russian ship could be a potential deadly threat to an unwary American vessel.
On the whole, the American military is larger and more capable than the Russian military in 2022.
However, Russia has achieved a breakthrough in hypersonic weapons that the US has yet to match,
and has even begun to press these weapons into service. This gives Russia a decisive advantage
at the opening of any major hostilities, though its weak economy means that the nation can't
fully capitalize on this advantage by fielding hypersonic missiles in significant numbers.
This is a trend that tracks all across the board, and has repeated itself with the SU-57
5th generation fighter and T-14 Armata tank. Both of these weapon platforms present deadly
threats to their US counterparts, but due to a lack of funding Russia has been forced to
postpone any significant purchases for years- if ever. Today Russia faces a modernity crisis,
as its legacy forces are being rapidly outclassed technologically by potential rivals.
The United States has its own technological problems however.
An over-reliance on technology may become a critical vulnerability for the US military
should its satellite or command and control networks be compromised. An addiction to
technology by the United States has also led to a legacy of weapons acquisitions in the post 2000s
that is frankly, catastrophic. Funneling billions upon billions into moonshot after moonshot,
the United States has failed to bring few of its new weapon systems in the last twenty years
to full maturity. The F-35's capabilities are still so in question that both the US Navy and
Air Force purchased significant amounts of F-15s and F-18s to compensate for a potential crisis.
The Zumwault destroyer and Littoral Combat Ships were both complete boondoggles that cost billions
and left the US Navy high and dry. The failure of the Future Force Warrior program left the
US Army with few working technologies, and a massive waste of taxpayer money.
A focus on technological moonshots has eroded the United State's technological
advantage significantly, and today the American military is in desperate need
of new weapons platforms that can not just match,
but outcompete those being developed or already in service with the armies of China and Russia.
Now go check out Can China Defend From A US Invasion, or click this other video instead!