Russia (USSR) has always been an enemy for the Western world. Our military doctrines have been focused on fighting each other for six decades now. The weapons of Russia and the United States were assessed accordingly. Comparison of defense capability and striking power was the driving force behind the development of science and economics. Russia is the only country in the world that can technically wipe out the United States and also has comparable military potential.

For decades, without entering into direct confrontation, countries tested all types of weapons in combat conditions, except ballistic missiles. The antagonism is not exhausted. The ratio of the US and Russian armies, unfortunately, is an indicator of political stability on the planet. Comparing both countries may be a thankless task. The two powers have different doctrines. The Americans crave global domination, and Russia has responded symmetrically in all centuries.

Statistics are biased

Information related to the defense sector is always classified. If we turn to open sources, it is possible to theoretically compare the weapons of the United States and Russia. The table provides dry figures borrowed only from Western media.

Options	Russia
Firepower position in the world
Total population, people.
Available human resources, people.
Personnel on active military service, people
Military personnel in reserve, people.
Airports and runways
Aircraft
Helicopters
Armored fighting vehicles
Self-propelled guns
Towed artillery units
Ports and terminals
Civil fleet vessels
Navy ships
Aircraft carriers
Submarines of all types
Attack ships of the first rank
Military budget, US dollars

Based on these data, Russia has no chance in a confrontation with America. However, the real picture is slightly different. A simple comparison does not give anything. It all depends on the training of the personnel, as well as on how effective the equipment and weapons are. Thus, in the southeast of Ukraine, the loss of military equipment is 1:4 in favor of the militia, although the weapons are the same.

Numerical composition and mobilization reserve

The Russian and US armies are almost comparable in size. However, the American ones are 100 percent staffed by professional military personnel. The level of material and technical equipment is also high. The United States has significantly greater mobilization capabilities. There are 120 million people fit for military service overseas, we have only 46 million. Every year in the States there are 4.2 million young people, in Russia - only 1.3 million. In a war of attrition, Americans will be able to make up for losses much more effectively. However, Pentagon experts are for last decade significantly lowered the bar for the strategic capabilities of their armed forces. If previously they were designed for the simultaneous conduct of two full-scale wars, then after 2012 the General Staff declares the possibility of confrontation in only one conflict.

Fighting spirit

Another thing is the quality of the fighters. Hollywood and the Western media have created an image among the world community of an invincible and invulnerable Marine with an unbending will. A very significant moment is connected with the recent Crimean events. To intimidate Russia and demonstrate support for Ukraine, which is suffering from the “aggressor,” NATO sent a detachment of ships to the Black Sea in the spring of 2014. Among the warships of the "friendly powers" was the guided missile destroyer Donald Cook. The ship was maneuvering near Russian territorial waters. On April 12, a Su-24 front-line bomber without standard weapons, but equipped with on-board (and not any special) electronic warfare equipment, circled the ship. As a result of this maneuver, all electronic equipment on the destroyer was damaged. The result of the demarche: 27 sailors (a tenth of the crew) filed a petition for dismissal from service due to a threat to their lives. Imagine the picture: on the morning of January 26, 1904, the crew of the cruiser “Varyag”, in the face of an upcoming battle with a Japanese detachment of cruisers, writes a resignation letter to the commander! The reason is a threat to life. This is incomprehensible to any military unit.

At the beginning of this year, a similar situation occurred with the crew of the cruiser Vicksburg. The attack was simulated by a Su-34. There was no electronic influence on the vessel. The Americans failed to even use the air defense system. The result of flying over the ship: a resignation letter from two dozen sailors.

Our tanks are fast

During the Cold War, land strategy doctrine Soviet Union provided for tank units to reach the Atlantic coast within four days. The backlog has been preserved. Tracked combat vehicles still remain the basis of the striking power of combat operations on land. Tanks from Russia and the United States are approximately equivalent in combat qualities, but many experts agree that direct confrontation will be in favor of the Americans in a ratio of 1: 3. It should be borne in mind that the top overseas models are tens of times more expensive than their Russian counterparts. The American army is armed with 1,970 Abrams tanks of the latest modifications - M1A2 and M1A2SEP. 4800 units of earlier versions are in reserve. In Russia, until the troops receive new T-14 tanks, the most modern models will remain the T-90 of various modifications, of which there are about five hundred in combat units. 4,744 gas turbine T-80s are being modernized in accordance with modern requirements and equipped with the latest defense and weapons systems.

An alternative to the expensive T-90 is latest version T-72B3. There is no exact information about how many of these tanks are in service. At the beginning of 2013, there were 1,100 of them. Every year Uralvagonzavod modernizes at least three hundred units. In total, the defense department has about 12,500 T-72s of different versions on its balance sheet. In terms of combat-ready units, our army maintains a two-fold superiority over the US army and its NATO allies (!). New tanks will consolidate this superiority. The Americans expect to keep the Abrams in service until 2040.

Infantry armor

Russia has 15,700 armored personnel carriers (9,700 of them in service), 15,860 infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles (7,360 in service), and 2,200 armored reconnaissance vehicles. The Americans have more than 16,000 armored personnel carriers. There are about six and a half thousand combat-ready Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. American technology is better protected.

Heavy weapons

Artillery is still the queen of the fields. Russia has a fourfold superiority in self-propelled artillery and systems volley fire, double - in towed artillery systems. Experts talk about higher professional training of US military personnel. Really, heavy weapons requires competent specialists. On the other hand, the domestic armed forces have weapons that have no analogues in the West and are not expected in the near future. This is, for example, the Solntsepek heavy flamethrower system or the Tornado multiple launch rocket system.

First things first - airplanes

Nominally, the American Air Force has an overwhelming (more than fourfold) superiority over the Russian one. However, American technology is becoming outdated, and replacement is delayed. Combat aircraft in service have a twofold superiority. One of the arguments is the fact that Russia has only a few 4++ aircraft and no fifth generation, while the United States already has hundreds of them, more precisely F-22 - 195 units, F-35 - about seventy. The Russian Air Force can counter them with only 60 Su-35S. It should be taken into account that the F-22 has been discontinued due to the high cost of production and operation. The mounting of the tail unit and the fire control system cause criticism. The F-35, despite a colossal PR campaign, is far from the fifth generation. This car is pretty crude. It is possible that the advertised radar invisibility is just another myth. Manufacturers do not allow measuring the effective dispersion surface.

The production of new aircraft in Russia is growing at an unprecedented pace. In 2014, more than 100 combat aircraft were built, not counting export units. There are no such indicators anywhere in the world. In the USA, the following combat aircraft are produced annually:

• F-16 - no more than 18 units (all for export);
• F-18 - about 45 units.

The Russian Air Force is annually replenished with the following modern aviation complexes:

• MiG-29k/KUB up to 8 units;
• Su-30M2 up to 6 units;
• Su-30SM at least 20;
• Su-35S up to 15 units
• Su-34 at least 20.

It should be remembered that information on the number of cars produced is classified. Actual production volumes may be much higher. and MiG-31BM, armed with powerful radars and R-37 missiles with a launch range of 300 km, allow these models to significantly reduce their gap in front of the F-22 Raptor fighter. They can handle F-15, F-16 and F-18 aircraft without any problems.

Guarding distant borders

The presence of long-range strike aircraft distinguishes the weapons of Russia and the United States. Comparing the power of heavy bombers and missile-carrying aircraft on combat duty causes nervous tremors among Western generals. And for good reason. The numbers may not be impressive. American long-range aviation is represented by three types of bombers:

• B-52N: 44 in service, 78 in reserve;
• B-2A: 16 units in service, 19 in storage;
• B-1VA: 35 in service, 65 in reserve.

It is worthy, not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively superior to its “partner”, despite the fact that it does not have machines like the B-2 in service. The subsonic stealth bomber is difficult to control and ineffective in combat use. Domestic long-range aviation is represented by the following aircraft:

• Tu-160: all 16 aircraft are in service, production is planned to resume;
• Tu-95MS: 32 are on constant combat duty, 92 are in storage;
• Tu-22M3: 40 in service, 213 in reserve.

The placement of the Tu-22 at sites in Crimea is of particular concern. Armed with high-precision X-32 missiles with a range of up to 1000 km, the aircraft is capable of hitting any target in North Africa and throughout Europe. Without weapons, in nine hours the plane will land at the Libertador airbase in Venezuela. In another half hour it will be equipped with ammunition and ready to take off.

Helicopters

An armada of rotary-wing aircraft for various purposes complements the armament of Russia and the United States. Comparing the number of this type of technical equipment is also far from being in our favor. True, of the declared list of American cars, about half are currently operational. To support its activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon has paid for the supply of about three hundred Mi-17s over the past ten years. You couldn't ask for better recognition of the quality of a product. These machines can be added to our asset. The Russian Helicopters concern annually produces more than 300 aircraft for the domestic market. Two thirds are for the armed forces.

Air Defense Forces

Conducting a large-scale ground operation is unthinkable without air support. In this case, the leading role is played by the system air defense. recognized as the most effective in the world. The basis of the combat power of anti-aircraft gunners is the S-300 complexes of various modifications and the S-400 system. To cover formations from air attacks in the near zone, Pantsir-S1 mobile installations are designed. NATO experts clearly agree that in the event of an air attack on Russia, the air defense system will destroy up to 80% of enemy aircraft, including the latest cruise missiles flying to the target while skirting the terrain. The American Patriot system cannot boast of such indicators. Our experts’ estimates are more modest; they put the figure at 65%. In any case, the enemy will suffer irreparable damage. Complexes based on the Mig-31BM have no analogues in the world. The aircraft are armed with air-to-air missiles with a range of 300 km. According to the latest report from the analytical agency Air Power Australia, in the event of a large-scale military conflict between Russia and the United States, the likelihood of survival of American aviation is completely excluded. The high assessment of your opponents is worth a lot.

Rocket umbrella

It is no secret that in a hypothetical war with Russia, the Americans expect to deliver the first quick global strike using high-precision non-nuclear weapons. Russia is already quite reliably protected from possible aggression in the future. Under the cover of the anti-missile umbrella, a comprehensive re-equipment of the armed forces is planned until 2020. Latest technology and weapons are being supplied to the troops at an increasing pace. By this time, samples of a new generation will appear, which will reduce the possibility of direct armed confrontation between the two superpowers to almost zero.

But we have something

At the same time, domestic aviation is capable of attacking enemy ground targets with almost impunity. This is facilitated latest systems electronic warfare. The electronics do not allow one to approach at a dangerous distance: the missile either moves to the side, changing its flight path, or is eliminated at a safe distance. The prototype of the system was first tested in combat conditions during the conflict in South Ossetia in 2008. Our armed forces lost 5 aircraft, although the opposing side was transporting containers from spent Buk missiles in trucks.

On the ocean expanses

Where Russia is clearly inferior to its overseas partner is in the power of its naval forces. In terms of the power of the surface component, the American Navy has an overwhelming superiority. The renewal of the domestic fleet mainly concerns ships of the near maritime zone. The Americans are also superior in the number of nuclear submarines (they do not build others): the United States has 75 nuclear-powered submarines, Russia has 48. The United States has 14 ballistic missile submarines, Russia has one more.

To be fair, it is worth noting that the Americans do not have submarines armed with anti-ship cruise missiles similar to our 949A Antey. For these purposes, they are re-equipping Ohio-class strategic missile carriers. On a positive note is the adoption of domestic multi-purpose and strategic submarines of the 4th generation. A significant advantage is the basing of strategic missile carriers under the ice of the Arctic. In these positions they are inaccessible to the enemy.

Nuclear deterrent forces

This clause is subject to strict compliance within the framework of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. A nuclear shield, also known as a nuclear club, consists of three components:

• Strategic Missile Forces.
• Submarines with intercontinental ballistic missiles.
• Strategic aviation.

And Russia is approximately equivalent. Americans have a larger number of charges in long-term storage. But the basis of our immunity is not only new types of ballistic missiles capable of breaking through any missile defense system, but also practically invulnerable ground-based systems, as well as railway installations being developed. Of course, the most frightening argument of military superiority over other powers is the nuclear weapons of Russia and the United States. Comparison of one appearance ballistic missiles can cool hotheads. A terrible dream American warriors are the “Perimeter” autonomous retaliatory strike system, or, as they themselves call it, “Dead Hand”. The name of the updated version is classified.

Quite recently, in terms of the number of deployed charges, we achieved parity and even a slight advantage. According to experts, at the end of 2014 the number of nuclear weapons two countries is expressed in the following figures:

• Russia has 528 deployed carriers, the United States has 794.
• There are warheads on deployed carriers: Russia has 1,643, the United States has 1,642.
• Russia has 911 total carriers (deployed and non-deployed), and 912 for the USA.

By the end of 2017, both sides should have no more than 700 deployed delivery vehicles and no more than 1,550 warheads. In addition, no more than one hundred delivery vehicles can be in reserve. Analysts on the other side of the ocean admit that in peacetime conditions, with the existing levels of operationally deployed nuclear warheads, US offensive forces do not have the ability to launch a surprise strike on Russia’s nuclear deterrent forces. This situation will continue in the coming decades.

The Russian navy and army are being intensively renewed. Naturally, the same processes take place in the American armed forces. The priority of our strategy is the defense of our borders, and this gives us significant advantages.

Combat laser

Just last year, the world press reported on a demonstration by the US Navy in Persian Gulf combat laser installed on board ships. The thirty-colowatt installation is 30 million times more powerful than a conventional laser pointer; its adjustable beam can, at a minimum, disable all on-board electronics of an enemy ship or aircraft, and at a maximum, completely destroy a ship or aircraft. The Pentagon assured that all testing of the new weapon is over and it is in full combat readiness.

Grenade launcher with computer

Laser technology is also present in the American XM-25 grenade launcher, which is also equipped with a computer. The four-round magazine contains four 25 mm ammunition, each of which is programmed when aimed at a target in such a way that it hits it in a non-contact manner - the explosion occurs the moment it passes the target. This valuable quality is used when firing at an enemy in cover. XM-25 grenade launchers are already in service with the US Army and Special Forces.

"Quantum Invisibles"

Another innovation is “quantum stealth”: a target becomes virtually invisible and hides its thermal radiation thanks to naturally occurring “metamaterials” that cause light to bend around that target. Reducing the risk of detection - or at least providing a "delay" in detection - makes this new technology particularly valuable to special forces. The Americans are somewhat hesitant with the widespread introduction of “invisible camouflage” due to fears that it could fall into the hands of terrorists from al-Qaeda, the so-called. "Islamic State", "Hezbollah", etc.

Electromagnetic rail installations

Traditional artillery and missile systems that use certain chemicals (gunpowder, hydrocarbon fuel, etc.) are being replaced by electromagnetic rail systems that use magnetic field energy to launch a warhead. Such a system is capable of delivering a projectile over a distance of 100 nautical miles (185.2 km) at a speed of 7,200 to 9,000 km per hour and with an energy of 32 megajoules. The American military considers this weapon equally valuable for both defensive and offensive actions (with its help you can significantly strengthen your air defense and missile defense, as well as more effectively suppress the enemy’s air defense and missile defense). The US Navy is working to double the range of electromagnetic rail systems - they want to bring their range to 200 nautical miles. The Chinese armed forces are testing their analogue of this weapon.

Pulse weapons in space

Fantasy scenarios are being developed for space - despite international protests against the use of outer space for military purposes. The United States, Russia, China and other major powers are considering a wide range of possibilities, some of which would be straight out of a science fiction novel: for example, sending an asteroid towards Earth - directly into enemy territory. But it is much more realistic, for example, to equip orbital spacecraft with nuclear or non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse weapons, with the help of which it is possible to disable power supply systems on enemy territory, his command centers, computer networks etc.

Space-based lasers

Centers for advanced defense technology (such as the American DARPA) have long been eyeing space-based laser weapons. It could intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles in the active section of the trajectory in which the vehicle’s propulsion engine operates (after which the flight begins by inertia) - in other words, before reaching maximum speed, - which increases the chances of hitting the target. Lasers deployed in space are practically invulnerable to the weapons that the enemy can use against land- and sea-based missile defense. In light of the missile ambitions (and progress) of Iran and North Korea, not to mention increasingly sophisticated missiles falling into the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, Americans are showing increased interest in this technology. But, for obvious reasons, very little information is available about this.

Supersonic missiles

The United States (in parallel with Russia, India, China, etc.) is actively working to transform cruise missiles into supersonic weapons. These missiles have the highest accuracy, but their flight speed is low. In 1998, when, following terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa, US Navy ships in the Arabian Sea launched cruise missiles at al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, the missiles took 1 hour and 20 minutes to reach their target. If supersonic cruise missiles had been available then, their flight time would have been 12 minutes, and Osama bin Laden would probably have been eliminated then, and not 13 years later. Now a powerful consortium of several US defense departments, as well as Boeing and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, is closely working on the X-51A supersonic cruise missile. According to the American press, the US Navy is developing another - underwater - supersonic missile.

Drones with high intelligence

We can talk about the weapons of the future for a long time, but I will limit myself to one more type of it - this is a whole class of weapons that replace a person, requiring only remote control. The most famous representative of this class is the drone (as unmanned aerial vehicles are called). The Americans use drones on a massive scale to conduct reconnaissance and carry out air strikes on targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. What is new in this already old weapon is the upcoming use of artificial intelligence in it, which will allow smart machines to make independent decisions. For example, we are talking about the fact that a drone, having received the task of striking a certain target (for example, terrorist leaders) located in an invulnerable shelter, will wait for hours for the target to appear on the surface in order to deliver a deadly blow to it.

The US Armed Forces can rightfully be considered the most powerful army on the planet for one simple reason: the best weapons. This country is investing a lot of money in the development of weapons systems and, if something happens, all investments will pay off handsomely. Nuclear stealth bombers will put serious pressure on the enemy’s strategic targets, US ground equipment is capable of ensuring dominance in almost any bridgehead - but what kind of weapon will all this be carried out?

M1A1 Abrams

The main battle tank of the United States of America, which has been produced since 1980. Beautiful performance characteristics, serious power and a relatively low price make this vehicle one of the best on the modern battlefield.

AH-1Z Viper

This attack helicopter is included in the list of the most powerful helicopters in the world. The Viper, equipped with upgraded engines and improved avionics, entered service only in 2011, and is now in service only with the US Marine Corps.

AV-8B Harrier II

The classic Marine attack aircraft underwent a major modification in 1993. A reliable and versatile aircraft with a vertical take-off function can have a significant impact on the outcome of any battle.

LAV-25

Actually, Canada produces a lightly armored vehicle for the American Marines. In essence, the LAV-25 is a deeply modernized chassis of the Swiss MOWAG Piranha I. The body of the vehicle protects the crew from bullets and fragmentation grenades, and the 25 mm rifled gun allows the armored car to act as serious fire support for the infantry.

AH-64 Apache

Since the mid-1980s, the Apache has remained the main attack helicopter of the US Army. Now it is also the most common combat helicopter in the world, which is explained by the high combat power, maneuverability and relatively low cost of the vehicle.

M-109A6 Paladin

Self-propelled artillery installation, capable of single-handedly turning the tide of a battle. The Paladin is armed with a 155 mm M126 howitzer and a 12.7 mm M2NV machine gun.

BGM-71 TOW

The heavy anti-tank system has remained one of the most common anti-tank systems in the world for twenty years. The missile is launched from a man-portable launcher and can also be launched from a launcher located on various vehicles. It is the Tou that rebels are now actively using in battles in Syria.

M-2 .50-Caliber Machine Gun

It's hard to believe, but this heavy machine gun was put into service back in 1933. The successful design and increased bullet weight allows the operator to achieve the highest accuracy. For example, Marine sniper Carlos Hascock used his machine gun for sniping: he managed to hit targets at a distance of 2250 meters.

Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

What could be more dangerous than a strategic bomber? The legendary B-2 Spirit is designed to break through dense air defenses and can “deliver a package” over a distance of 13 thousand kilometers. True, one machine costs a billion dollars, which is an order of magnitude more expensive than almost all similar solutions.

F-15E Strike Eagle

The American two-seat fighter-bomber performed well in military operations in the Middle East and the Balkans. The F-15E can quickly strike strategically important targets and, more importantly, is excellent at protecting itself from a possible attack by enemy fighters.

These weapon systems are certainly not off-the-shelf versions. From the legendary M1 Garand to today's M4 and M16 rifles, generic infantry rifles have been ubiquitous icons for the military. But over the course of many U.S. wars, certain types of custom small arms were adopted when a specific situation or circumstance called for a unique weapon.

Browning M1919(Stinger)

This World War II weapon originated from the creative minds of the Marines of the 5th Marine Division. The Stinger was built using an M1 grip, a simple trigger, a Browning automatic biped, and a handy box magazine. Since it was based on the ANM2, the Stinger's fire rate could reach 1,200 rounds per minute, three times that of the regular M1919.

It was a rare weapon; only six were made, and no copies survive. But the Stinger left the concept of the medium or general purpose machine gun in history, exemplified in weapons today by the 7.62x51mm M240 machine gun.

M3 Carbine

This weapon system was ahead of its time. Tentatively called T3, the system consisted of early versions of image intensification, an infrared illuminator mounted on a special M2 carbine and powered by an external battery. Several T3s were used during the invasion of Okinawa, causing significant casualties to Japanese forces, and was effective against night infiltration of American lines. After the war, improved versions of the M3 already had improved optics, increasing the visibility range to 115 meters. M3 demonstrated the potential of night military weapons, being the basis for modern infrared and thermal optical systems.

SOG - Modified 7.62 mm light machine gun

The Degtyarev machine gun is generally associated with the early Soviet arsenal. However, the weapon had some unconventional modifications in American units

The gas piston mechanism was developed at the very end of World War II by the Soviet small arms designer Degtyarev. It had a 7.62x39 mm cartridge, like the famous AK-47. The RPD was adapted for the needs of the Special Operations Division, but went a step further: the RPD barrel was shortened down to the end of the gas tube and the stock was reduced, resulting in an overall length of only 79 cm. The OSO also changed the RPD drum magazine to hold 125 rounds instead of the usual ones 100. These modifications created a compact guided machine gun weighing 5.5 kg.

EX-41 China Lake

During the Vietnam War, several evolutions of grenade launchers were released. The M79 replaced older models of grenade launchers and the XM148 underbarrel grenade launcher was accepted for testing. But still, the US Navy special forces were not happy with them and asked for better weapons. What they got was something between a grenade launcher and a shotgun. The weapon was named after the China Lake Naval Weapons Development Center where it was developed. The EX-41 had three 40mm rounds in the under-barrel magazine plus one in the chamber. The EX-41 could fire multiple grenades in a matter of seconds, making it good for ambushes and for destroying enemy combat positions. Despite its quality, the grenade launcher never developed beyond the experimental phase. The EX-41 concept evolved into the M32 multi-grenade launcher that provides rain explosives any time.

Stoner 63 (also known as M63)

This weapon system is from the legendary American designer Eugene Stoner, also the creator of the original AR-15 rifle, or M16.

The Stoner 63 system had different sub-assemblies, which made it possible to assemble various configurations. Full rifle size, compact carbine, even a solenoid auto was available for the Stoner 63 system. But the most popular version of the Stoner 63 was a light weight machine gun - 5 kg lighter than the standard M60 machine gun. The 5.56 mm caliber system was also significantly more controllable than the heavy 7.62 caliber M60.

Its modular design was a revolutionary small gun design, and even today's AR versions don't offer what the Stoner 63 did in the 1960s.

RO635(typeColt 9mm SMG)

These weapons were first seen during America's invasion of Panama in 1989. Externally similar to the M16 family of rifles, the RO635 uses a recoil bolt action rather than a direct action system. Introduced in 1982 and chambered for the popular 9x19mm NATO caliber, the RO635 can accept modified magazines similar to the Israeli Uzi. Compared to other assault rifles of the time, the RO635 is more accurate in full-auto fire due to its closed bolt design. The weapon was in limited supply to the Marine Corps in 1985, and members Navy used it during the battle in Panama.

Pistol HK MK23 Mod 0

This German pistol was the concept of the OHWS program for the US Special Operations Forces. In the 1990s, Special Operations Command sought to provide its units with common small arms. The competition for the OHWS program was launched in 1991, and the .45-caliber ACP and the high-pressure capability of the 185-grain cartridge were determined. A silencer and laser module with a target were also provided, as new gun was to be used as the main weapon in special operations. German gun manufacturer Heckler & Koch won this competition in 1996, and gave the name Mark 23 Mod 0.

The M4 CQBR continues to be an important step in the development of the M16 family of weapons. Consists of an upper receiver with a 10.3-inch barrel. This is approximately four inches shorter than the standard M4 barrel length. The CQBR was developed by the Naval Surface Weapons Development Center to meet the 5.56mm weapon requirement for US Navy special forces.

FN Scarl Mark 17 assault rifle

This 7.62mm rifle brought the Cold War concept into the 21st century. The Mark 17 comes from the FN Herstal family of weapons that were selected by the SOCOM program in 2004. The two main family options are 5.56 mm SCAR-Light(Mark 16) and 7.62 mm SCAR-Heavy(Mark-17). But in 2010, SOCOM announced the cancellation of the Mark 16 in favor of the Mark 17.

The Mark 17 brought the old concept of the battle rifle into the modern era. Once the US had to fight Afghanistan after 9/11, it was clear that the 7.62mm rifle would be better suited for extreme environments. The Mark 17 performed well as a battle rifle with modern fire controls, control systems, and improved ergonomics than the older M14s.

XM-25 CDTE

The ultimate XM25 grenade launcher rose from the ashes of a failed rifle program. It was originally developed as part of the XM29, an attempt to make a computer rifle coupled to a 20mm explosive grenade launcher. The program was canceled in 2005, but the concept still lived on. Increased to 25 mm shells, testing of such an XM25 began in 2010.

The XM25 has a five-round magazine, uses laser rangefinder to determine when to detonate the designated target. The projectile detonates automatically when the distance traveled corresponds to the range to the target. The XM25 earned a reputation for lethality in Afghanistan and the nickname 'Punisher'.

After some delays due to safety issues, the XM25 is now undergoing Army qualification testing. If tested successfully, troops will be able to use one of the most advanced marksman rifles ever created in 2017.

A list of weapons that will have the greatest impact on warfare over several decades was compiled by former Canadian Intelligence Service analyst Michael Cole. A list of five types of weapons, already in operation or just being developed, was published by The National Interest. The author of the article immediately notes that the list is inherently incomplete, since it is problematic to take into account all aspects. For example, a fifth generation combat aircraft is powerful force, but in some situations it may be completely useless. It can hardly be called an effective weapon against small ground brigades armed with machine guns. And yet, the expert writes, there are weapons that determine development and set new trends in military operations. Invisibility cloak". Scientists have made great progress in creating reflective materials that can significantly reduce the visibility of objects. And although there is a lot of skepticism around such developments, according to Cole, “adaptive camouflage” may well claim to be effective in combat conditions. Such camouflage will allow fighters to operate unnoticed on enemy territory, or at least gain enough time to occupy advantageous positions. In addition, it reduces the risk of losses during operation time , while simultaneously increasing the ability to deliver unexpected blows to the enemy. Invisibility cloaks will pose a serious danger if they fall into the possession of illegal military formations. Electromagnetic rail guns. The installation, which has been in development since 2005, has demonstrated the ability to deliver a projectile at a speed of about 7,000 kilometers per hour to a distance of more than 185 kilometers. The technology provides several advantages in both offensive and defensive operations. Even the most advanced air defense system cannot withstand a railgun, for example. In addition, such weapons eliminate the need to store dangerous explosive and flammable materials, since the shot occurs due to an electromagnetic field. According to the expert, the US Navy hopes to increase the range of the “electric gun” to 370 kilometers. But one salvo in this case will require six million amperes; scientists are unlikely to be able to quickly find a way to generate such a charge. We will have to rack our brains over the materials from which the tools will be made. Space weapons. The analyst calls the capabilities of weapons deployed in space limitless and monstrous. Many of the technologies that major countries are working on will forever be relegated to science fiction novels, but there are also those that may well exist in reality and have a major impact on the nature of war. One of them is the placement of orbital vehicles with nuclear or non-nuclear emitters of electromagnetic pulses. An attack from such satellites can be aimed at electrical networks, command centers, control, communications, surveillance and reconnaissance systems necessary for military operations. Depending on the size of the emitters, a cosmic impact can cover the entire country or part of its territory. Theoretically, it is almost impossible to react to such an attack and prevent it. Weapons of this type can end a war before the first shot is fired between the warring parties on Earth. Another technology that military developers are interested in is using high-energy space lasers to intercept ballistic missiles as they launch. Such systems are many times more effective than ground-based missile defense systems. The willingness to finance expensive programs to create space interceptors, according to the expert, will grow in the near future despite the fact that many technical problems must be solved to develop laser systems. It is worth noting here that Russia has practically solved these problems. And the fact that the Russian army already has combat lasers in service is also a fact. Hypersonic missiles. Cruise missiles have had an enormous impact on modern warfare. But in an era when the outcome of a battle can be decided in minutes, this type of weapon is beginning to become obsolete. For example, cruise missiles launched in 1998 from US ships in the Arabian Sea against militant targets in Afghanistan reached their targets in 80 minutes. For hypersonic warheads, this would take only 12 minutes. In the United States, the development of such weapons has been ongoing since 2001 under the Prompt Global Strike program. As the author of the list notes, Russia, China and India have made great strides in creating such tools. The effectiveness of hypersonic warheads is extraordinary; attempts to intercept them will most likely fail. The missiles can be aimed both at disabling command and control facilities and at defeating mobile ground formations. Just look at the Russian Avangard complex, which moves at a speed of 24,000 km. per hour in dense layers of the atmosphere. Drones. Michael Cole calls the emergence of intelligent unmanned vehicles the most important development in the defense industry over the past decade. Already today, drones are taking on tasks that were traditionally performed by humans. Human intervention in the operation of such technology is still required, but scientists are expanding the boundaries of artificial intelligence, and the capabilities of machines are growing. In the near future, robotic systems will become weapons that are much more effective in many respects compared to soldiers - in particular, in terms of reaction speed and decision-making. Another advantage of transferring the combat role to machines is the reduction in costs of training, maintaining soldiers, and paying compensation in the event of their injury or death. In addition, the analyst believes, the proliferation of drones reduces the psychological threshold for the use of force. Different countries will work to make automated combat systems more “free” - the side with weapons that require the least human intervention will have an advantage in the conflict. And that’s all, Zefer was with you and see you again!