Chapter Two: Comparative defence statistics

This article was downloaded by: [Fordham University]On: 18 March 2013, At: 14:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Military BalancePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmib20

Chapter Two: Comparative defence statisticsVersion of record first published: 14 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: (2013): Chapter Two: Comparative defence statistics, The Military Balance, 113:1, 41-48

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/04597222.2013.756997

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distributionin any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that thecontents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, anddrug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable forany loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmib20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/04597222.2013.756997

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Chapter Two

Comparative defence statistics1. United States

645.7

UnitedStates

Other top 15

countries

Restof theworld

2. China

102.4

7. Franceb

48.1

5. Japan

59.4

4. Russia

59.9

8. Germany

40.4

11. South Korea

29.0

12. Australia

25.1

13. Iranc

23.9

14. Italy

23.6

15. Israeld

19.4

10. Brazil

35.3

9. India

38.5

6. Saudi Arabiaa

52.5

3. United Kingdom

60.8

Algeria

4.54%

Myanmar

4.21%

Bahrain

3.88%

Armenia

3.71%

Singapore

3.61%

Top 15 Defence Budgets 2012 US$bn

2012 Top 15 Defence and Security Budgets as a % of GDP*

*Analysis only includes countries for which suf�cient comparable data is available. Notable exceptions include North Korea, Cuba and Eritrea.

Afghanistan

10.54%

SaudiArabia

7.99%

Jordan

5.58%

Iraq

11.28%

Oman

8.42%

Israel

7.85%

Iran

4.95%

Yemen

4.55%

United States

5.18%

SouthSudan

4.69%

a Estimated spending; b Figures based on 2012 ‘credits de paiement’, the French public-accounting de�nition for the actual level of �nancial resources allocated for 2012, as distinct from the higher ‘autorisation d’engagement’ �gure (US$50.6bn), which includes funding permitted to be disbursed in future years; c Based on Iranian of�cial Rial–US dollar exchange rate (see p. 359); d Includes US Foreign Military Assistance.

†Figures do not sum due to rounding effects

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

US$bn

North America42.0%

Europe17.6%

Russia and Eurasia4.4%

Asia andAustralasia

19.9%

Middle East andNorth Africa

10.5%

Latin America and the Caribbean

4.4%Sub-Saharan Africa

1.2% Sub-Saharan Africa1.2%

United States40.8%

United Kingdom 4.0%

France 3.0%

Germany2.6%

Other NATO8.0%

Non-NATO Europe1.3%

China, 6.5%

Japan, 3.8%

India, 2.4%

Other Asia andAustralasia, 7.2%

Russia, 3.8%

Other Eurasia, 0.6%

Saudi Arabia, 3.3%

Other Middle Eastand North Africa, 7.2%

Brazil2.2%

Other Latin America and the Caribbean, 2.1%

Planned Defence Expenditure by Country 2012Planned Global Defence Expenditure by Region 2012†Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:13

18

Mar

ch 2

013

42 The MiliTary Balance 2013

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

20122011 2013201020092008200720062005

United States,77.2%

Sub-Saharan Africa, 1.0%

Latin America and the Caribbean, 0.2%

Italy, 3.5%Spain 3.4%

Canada, 2.4%United Kingdom, 1.8%

Germany, 1.2%Other NATO Europe, 2.1%

Non-NATO Europe, 0.9%Asia, 1.9%

Iran, 3.7%

Other Middle East & North Africa, 0.6% Eurasia, 0.2%

Composition of Real Defence Spending Increases 2011–2012†

China–US Defence Spending Projections Under Various Assumptions*See pp. 255–257 for analysis

Composition of Real Defence Spending Reductions 2011–2012†

*At current prices and exchange rates †At constant 2010 prices and exchange rates

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

205020

1020

0520

1520

2020

3020

4020

2520

3520

45

President’s FY12 Budget Proposal

President’s FY13 Budget Proposal

Under Budget Control Act 2011and sequestration

US defence budget projections

Of�cial PLA budget

IISS Estimate

Chinese defence budget projections

+15.6% annual growth(average annualincrease 2001–2011)

+7.8% annual growth(half average annualincrease 2001–2011)

+5.0% annual growth

US$bn

US$bn

Asia (excludes Australia and New Zealand)

NATO Europe

Asia–Europe Defence Spending Convergence*See p. 32–3 for analysis

Total reductions†

2011–2012: $65.5bn

Other Eurasia, 2.2% China, 19.1%

Australia,5.3%

Indonesia,5.0%

Other Asia, 7.2%

India, 5.0%

Oman, 5.2%Saudi Arabia,

4.8%Iraq, 4.9%

Israel, 4.1%Syria, 3.7%

Other Middle East & North Africa, 3.3%

Europe, 3.2%

Sub-SaharanAfrica, 2.5%

Russia, 17.3%

Other Latin America & the Caribbean, 3.4%

Venezuela, 3.8%

Total increases†

2011–2012: $34.7bn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:13

18

Mar

ch 2

013

43Comparative defence statistics

Selected C-130H Hercules operators

C-13

0K17

C-13

0J82

C-13

0H(a

ll ve

rsio

ns)

380

C-13

0E74

C-13

0B64

C-13

0A 3

The

youn

gest

C-1

30H

stil

l in

serv

ice

is a

lmos

t 20

year

s ol

d.

Man

y ar

e fa

r old

er, t

here

fore

mai

nten

ance

, sup

port

and

ser

vice

-lif

e ex

tens

ion

take

on

incr

easi

ng im

port

ance

. Man

agin

g ag

eing

ai

rfra

mes

bri

ngs

with

it a

num

ber o

f cha

lleng

es. T

here

are

se

vera

l wel

l-kno

wn

area

s of

the

C-1

30 th

at re

quir

e att

entio

n as

th

e ai

rfra

me

serv

ice

life

prog

ress

es, i

nflue

nced

by

the

type

of

flyin

g, a

nd la

ndin

gs, t

hat c

hara

cter

ises

ope

ratio

nal u

tilis

atio

n.

Thes

e in

clud

e th

e ce

ntre

win

g bo

x, w

hich

can

be

repl

aced

if

requ

ired

, as

can

the

trai

ling

edge

flap

s. F

usel

age

dam

age

arou

nd

the

whe

el w

ells

on

the

unde

rsid

e of

the

airc

raft

also

ofte

n re

sults

fr

om ro

ugh

stri

p op

erat

ions

. But

, one

adv

anta

ge o

f a fl

eet s

ize

on th

e sc

ale

of th

e cl

assi

c H

ercu

les is

a la

rge

user

com

mun

ity,

and

one

that

with

few

exc

eptio

ns w

ill re

adily

sha

re e

xper

ienc

es

and

less

ons

offer

ed. A

s th

e us

ers

liste

d sh

ow, t

he H

-mod

el

cont

inue

s in

wid

espr

ead

use

in s

ubst

antia

l num

bers

in th

e ex

port

mar

ket,

a tr

end

that

will

like

ly c

ontin

ue fo

r man

y ye

ars.

C-13

0 va

rian

ts in

ser

vice

(e

xpor

t mar

ket –

doe

s no

t inc

lude

US)

as

of e

nd-2

012

Iran

Belg

ium

A-4

00M

*

Mor

occo

Braz

il†

KC-3

90*

Gre

ece

Egyp

t

Alg

eria

Japa

nC-

2*

Taiw

an

Fran

ce†

A-4

00M

*

Sout

h Ko

rea

C-13

0J*

All

H v

aria

nts.

*Pla

nned

futu

re p

urch

ase;

† Del

iver

ies

dire

ct fr

om m

anuf

actu

rer,

othe

r airf

ram

es a

cqui

red

seco

ndha

nd

Saud

iA

rabi

aC-

130J

*

1970

19

75

1980

19

85

1990

19

95

2000

20

05

2010

1970

19

75

1980

19

85

1990

19

95

2000

20

05

2010

in se

rvic

e 1

1

in se

rvic

e 1

9+

in se

rvic

e 1

6

in se

rvic

e 1

8

in se

rvic

e 1

0

in se

rvic

e 2

6

in se

rvic

e 1

6

in se

rvic

e 1

6

in se

rvic

e 2

0

in se

rvic

e 1

4

in se

rvic

e 1

2

deliv

ered

12

deliv

ered

49

Firs

t de

liver

yFi

nal

deliv

ery

deliv

ered

32 de

liver

ed 1

9 deliv

ered

8

deliv

ered

12

deliv

ered

26

deliv

ered

18

deliv

ered

16

deliv

ered

21

deliv

ered

12

deliv

ered

12

in se

rvic

e 4

5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:13

18

Mar

ch 2

013


Key defence statistics

Manoeuvre

Modern main battle tanks(1,000 vehicles per unit)

Modern armoured infantry fighting vehicles(1,000 vehicles per unit)

Fourth-generation tactical aircraft (500 per unit)

Attack helicopters(250 per unit)

Heavy/medium transport helicopters(500 per unit)

2,830

254

609

1,300

227

2,785

2,280

400

1,105

5,110

526

4,559

771322 230913

3,020

267

237

66

865

378

20

46

42

172

117

616

186 2,796

Fifth-generation tactical aircraft

Modern MBT/AIFV: ISD post 1980. Fourth-generation aircraft: ISD post 1980 (includes upgraded third-generation designs). Fifth-generation aircraft: those designed with low-observable characteristics as a fundamental design driver

Active manpower (100,000 per unit) Artillery (1,000 per unit)

2,285,000228,850 375

1,325,000 9,682

12,515

845,000 5,803

162,000 621

1,520,000 7,983

Projection

ISTAR

Aircraft carriers (10 per unit)

Cruisers/destroyers(25 per unit)

Nuclear-powered submarines(25 per unit)

Frigates (25 per unit)

Principal amphibious ships(25 per unit)

Tanker and multi-role tanker/transport aircraft(100 per unit)

Airborne early-warning and control aircraft(100 per unit)

Imagery satellites(5 per unit)

Electronic-/signals-intelligence satellites

(5 per unit)

Navigational satellites(5 per unit)

1111

14

12

11

5

84

58

24

5

6

1

6

25

62

2

11

4

1

7

29

11

9

13

25

Heavy/medium transport aircraft(100 per unit)


14

2011

17

27

30

2

21

3

3

11

7 3 23 6 104

Some 4 4 Some 10

393

13 34 6 20 1564 38 30 186 40

528790

Heavy unmanned aerial vehicles(50 per unit)

11

China France India Russia UK US

212

Strategic

ICBM (Launchers) (25 per unit) Bomber aircraft (25 per unit)

Ballistic-missile nuclear-powered submarines (10 per unit)

313

450

184

4 4 11 4 14

155

72 112

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:13

18

Mar

ch 2

013


Manoeuvre

Modern main battle tanks(1,000 vehicles per unit)

Modern armoured infantry fighting vehicles(1,000 vehicles per unit)

Fourth-generation tactical aircraft (500 per unit)

Attack helicopters(250 per unit)

Heavy/medium transport helicopters(500 per unit)

2,830

254

609

1,300

227

2,785

2,280

400

1,105

5,110

526

4,559

771322 230913

3,020

267

237

66

865

378

20

46

42

172

117

616

186 2,796

Fifth-generation tactical aircraft

Modern MBT/AIFV: ISD post 1980. Fourth-generation aircraft: ISD post 1980 (includes upgraded third-generation designs). Fifth-generation aircraft: those designed with low-observable characteristics as a fundamental design driver

Active manpower (100,000 per unit) Artillery (1,000 per unit)

2,285,000228,850 375

1,325,000 9,682

12,515

845,000 5,803

162,000 621

1,520,000 7,983

Projection

ISTAR

Aircraft carriers (10 per unit)

Cruisers/destroyers(25 per unit)

Nuclear-powered submarines(25 per unit)

Frigates (25 per unit)

Principal amphibious ships(25 per unit)

Tanker and multi-role tanker/transport aircraft(100 per unit)

Airborne early-warning and control aircraft(100 per unit)

Imagery satellites(5 per unit)

Electronic-/signals-intelligence satellites

(5 per unit)

Navigational satellites(5 per unit)

1111

14

12

11

5

84

58

24

5

6

1

6

25

62

2

11

4

1

7

29

11

9

13

25



14

2011

17

27

30

2

21

3

3

11

7 3 23 6 104

Some 4 4 Some 10

393

13 34 6 20 1564 38 30 186 40

528790

Heavy unmanned aerial vehicles(50 per unit)

11

China France India Russia UK US

212

Strategic

ICBM (Launchers) (25 per unit) Bomber aircraft (25 per unit)

Ballistic-missile nuclear-powered submarines (10 per unit)

313

450

184

4 4 11 4 14

155

72 112

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:13

18

Mar

ch 2

013


IEDs and the rise of the MRAP

IED casualties (US, NATO and Coalition troops killed in action)

MRAP numbers

IED attacks

Iraq

Afghanistan

US MRAPs

Coalition MRAPs

Iraq

Afghanistan

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

20112010200920082007200620052004

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

20112010200920082007200620052004

US surge in Iraq

Peak of US and NATO surges in Afghanistan

Explosively formed projectile (EFP) devices introduced to Iraq War (see p. 19)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

20112010200920082007200620052004

This graphic shows the number of IED aacks in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004–2011 and the number of mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles fielded by US and other forces in the same time period. The boom graph shows US, Coalition and NATO fatalities in the same period. In Iraq, the US surge reduced IED aacks and the introduction of the MRAP reduced Coalition fatalities. The deployment of the MRAP to Afghanistan from 2009 onwards means that, despite a rise in IED aacks, US and NATO fatalities were less than they might have been and, in 2011, started to fall.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:13

18

Mar

ch 2

013


Sea-denial capabilities for selected countries in East Asia

0

150

300

450

600

750

0

150

300

450

600

750

0

150

300

450

600

750

0

150

300

450

600

750

0

150

300

450

600

750

0

150

300

450

600

750

0

150

300

450

600

750

0

150

300

450

600

750

0

150

300

450

600

750

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

China

Selected regional total

South Korea

Taiwan

Indonesia

North Korea

Singapore

Vietnam

Malaysia

Japan

China

South Korea

Taiwan

Indonesia

North Korea

Singapore

Vietnam

Japan

Heavyweight (533 mm) torpedo tubesAs with anti-ship missiles, torpedo tubes dropped o� signi�cantly in the early 1990s, as Soviet-era torpedo craft were phased out in countries such as China, North Korea and Vietnam. However, since then, more states have developed submarines, a key trend in current naval procurement, and hence the number of tubes available has levelled out. As further submarines are delivered, for instance with six Kilo-class en route to Vietnam and three Type 209s to Indonesia, these numbers are likely to increase further.

Ship-based anti-ship missile launchersWhile anti-ship missile launchers stayed relatively stable for much of the 1990s and 2000s, this was largely owing to the retirement of Soviet-era equipment in China. In recent years, China has developed more modern surface combatants with more advanced missiles, such as the Type-022 fast-attack craft, each of which carries eight tubes. At the same time, other governments have started to adopt such technology in greater numbers.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

Selected regional total

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

Over the past 20 years, East Asia has witnessed significant changes in the weaponry fielded by regional states, moving towards more technologically advanced guided missiles and submarine-launched torpedoes.

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

Sea-based anti-ship missile types in service: 2013: China YJ-82*, YJ-1*, 3M54 Klub*, 3M80/82, YJ-83, YJ-62, SY-1, HY-1, HY-2; Indonesia RGM-84A Harpoon, 3M55 Yakhont, MM-38 Exocet, MM-40 Exocet Block II, C-705; Japan UGM-84C Harpoon*, SSM-1B, RGM-84C Harpoon; North Korea P-15 Termit; South Korea RGM-84C Harpoon, MM-38 Exocet; Malaysia MM-40 Exocet, MM-38 Exocet, Otomat Mk2; Singapore RGM-84C Harpoon; Taiwan RGM-84C/L Harpoon, Hsiung Feng II/III; Vietnam 3M24 Uran, P-15 Termit, KN-01; 1994: China YJ-81*, HY-2; Indonesia RGM-84A Harpoon, MM-38 Exocet; Japan UGM-84C Harpoon*, RGM-84C Harpoon, SSM-1B; North Korea P-15 Termit; South Korea RGM-84C Harpoon, MM-38 Exocet; Malaysia MM-38 Exocet; Singapore RGM-84C Harpoon; Taiwan Hsiung Feng I/II, RGM-84C Harpoon; Vietnam P-15 Termit*Denotes may be/is submarine-launched

Malaysia

Torpedo craftSubmarines




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:13

18

Mar

ch 2

013


Revamping China’s tactical air power

© IIS

S

The

air f

orce

's in

dige

nous

act

ive

rada

r-gu

ided

air-

to-a

ir m

issi

le is

the

PL-1

2. T

his

is g

ener

ally

hel

d to

be

a ca

pabl

e m

ediu

m-r

ange

wea

pon,

an

d is

like

ly th

e ba

sis

also

for a

nu

mbe

r of o

ngoi

ng d

evel

opm

ents

, in

clud

ing

a co

mpr

esse

d ai

rfram

e de

sign

for i

nter

nal c

arria

ge. T

he

basi

c PL

-12

ente

red

serv

ice

arou

nd

2005

. Dur

ing

the

1990

s, th

e on

ly

beyo

nd-v

isua

l-ran

ge w

eapo

ns li

kely

av

aila

ble

to th

e ai

r for

ce w

ere

prov

ided

by

Russ

ia, w

ith th

e se

mi-a

ctiv

e R-

27 (A

A-10

A/C Alamo)

. Pr

ior t

o th

e PL

-12,

nat

iona

l effo

rts

to d

evel

op b

eyon

d-vi

sual

-ran

ge

air-

to-a

ir m

issi

les

wer

e le

ss

succ

essf

ul. T

he b

asic

PL-

12 a

lso

uses

Rus

sian

sub

syst

ems.

The

PLAA

F is

ben

e�tti

ng fr

om a

n in

crea

sing

ly c

apab

le in

vent

ory

of a

ir-to

-sur

face

w

eapo

ns, w

ith d

omes

tical

ly d

evel

oped

sys

tem

s no

w c

ompl

emen

ting

prev

ious

ly

acqu

ired

Russ

ian

mis

sile

s an

d gu

ided

bom

bs. T

wo

deca

des

ago,

its

air-

to-g

roun

d w

eapo

nry

was

dom

inat

ed b

y fre

e-fa

ll un

guid

ed b

ombs

. The

air

forc

e no

w �

elds

a

varie

ty o

f ele

ctro

-opt

ical

, rad

ar, l

aser

-gui

ded

and

sate

llite

-nav

igat

ion

augm

ente

d w

eapo

nry.

The

KD-

88 fa

mily

of s

tand

-off

air-

to-s

urfa

ce m

issi

les

is n

ow in

ser

vice

, as

is th

e YJ

/KD-

63 la

nd-a

ttack

cru

ise

mis

sile

. An

air-

laun

ched

var

iant

of t

he D

H/CJ

-10

is a

t lea

st o

n th

e br

ink

of b

eing

bro

ught

into

the

inve

ntor

y, to

pro

vide

the

H-6

bom

ber

with

a 1

,500

km+

rang

e cr

uise

mis

sile

.

Chi

na’s

air

forc

e (P

LAA

F) a

nd n

aval

av

iatio

n ar

m a

re u

nder

goin

g

mod

erni

satio

n w

ith si

gnifi

cant

ch

ange

s in

equi

pmen

t and

op

erat

iona

l doc

trin

e. T

wen

ty y

ears

ag

o, th

e PL

AA

F w

as in

effe

ct a

larg

e bu

t poo

rly

equi

pped

forc

e in

tend

ed

only

for h

omel

and

air d

efen

ce, o

nly

just

beg

inni

ng to

intr

oduc

e m

oder

n co

mba

t air

craf

t typ

es. I

n 19

92 it

had

a

com

bat a

ircr

aft s

tren

gth

just

und

er

5,00

0; in

201

2 th

is h

ad b

een

redu

ced

to 1

,900

. It i

s now

a sm

alle

r but

far

mor

e ca

pabl

e fo

rce,

equ

ippe

d in

crea

sing

ly w

ith fo

urth

-gen

erat

ion

mul

ti-ro

le fi

ghte

rs a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d ai

r-to

-air

and

air

-to-s

urfa

ce w

eapo

ns.

Chi

na n

ow a

lso

has a

t lea

st tw

o lo

w-o

bser

vabl

e co

mba

t air

craf

t in

deve

lopm

ent,

the

J-20

and

J-21/

31,

and

othe

r stil

l cla

ssifi

ed p

roje

cts

coul

d ye

t com

e to

ligh

t.

0Y-

8JKJ

2000

KJ20

0H-

6UH-

6H-

5JH

-7Q-

5Su

-30

Su-2

7J-

10J-

8J-

7J-

6J-

5

2012

1992

500

3,40

060

057

6

100

216

268

28

308

97

600

120

240

480

0

150

112

136

44

J-10

J-11/Su-27

Su-30

JH-7

AEW

Air

bas

e an

d m

ain

type

lo

catio

ns

BEI

JIN

G

CH

IN

A

TAIW

AN

Shanghai

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ford

ham

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:13

18

Mar

ch 2

013

Documents

Chapter Two: Comparative defence statistics