The Military Balance

ISSN: 0459-7222 (Print) 1479-9022 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmib20

Chapter Two: Comparative defence statistics

To cite this article: (2020) Chapter Two: Comparative defence statistics, The Military Balance,
120:1, 21-27, DOI: 10.1080/04597222.2020.1707962

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/04597222.2020.1707962

Published online: 13 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 135

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmib20
Chapter Two
Comparative defence statistics
Defence spending: top 15 in 2019† US$bn
1. United States 2. China US$bn
3. Saudi Arabia 4. Russiaa
700

600

78.4 61.6 500

181.1
5. India 6. United Kingdom 7. France 400

300

60.5 54.8 52.3 200

8. Japan 9. Germany 10. South Korea
684.6
100

48.6 48.5 39.8 0

11. Brazil 12. Italy 13. Australia 14. Israelb 15. Iraq United Other Rest
States top 15 of the
countries world

27.5 27.1 25.5 22.6 20.5

a
Total defence expenditure, including National Guard, Federal Border Service and military pensions; b Includes US Foreign Military Assistance
Note: US dollar totals are calculated using average market exchange rates for 2019, derived using IMF data. The relative position of countries will vary not only as a result of actual adjustments in defence-spending
levels, but also due to exchange-rate fluctuations between domestic currencies and the US dollar. The use of average exchange rates reduces these fluctuations, but the effects of such movements can be significant
in a number of cases. ©IISS

2019 top 15 defence and security budgets as a % of GDP*

Oman Afghanistan Saudi Iraq Algeria Israel Armenia Kuwait Jordan Mali Trinidad Bahrain Cambodia Iran Azerbaijan
Arabia and Tobago

11.7% 10.2% 10.1% 9.1% 6.0% 5.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% 4.1% 4.0% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 3.8%
* Analysis only includes countries for which sufficient comparable data is available. Notable exceptions include Cuba, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea, Qatar, Syria and the UAE. ©IISS

Planned global defence expenditure by region 2019† Planned defence expenditure by country 2019†

Latin America and the Caribbean, 3.4% Other Eurasia, 0.5% Sub-Saharan Africa, 1.0%
Russia, 3.5% Latin America, 3.4%
Asia, 24.5% Other Middle
East and North United
Africa, 5.8%
States
North America Saudi 39.1%
40.2% Arabia, 4.5%
Other Asia
5.6%
Middle East South
Korea, 2.3%
and North Africa
10.3% Japan, 2.8% United
India, 3.5% Kingdom
Sub-Saharan Africa China, 10.3% 3.1%
Europe
1.0% 16.6% Non-NATO France, 3.0%
Russia and Eurasia, 4.0% Europe,1.2% Other NATO, 7.6% Germany, 2.8%

©IISS
† At current prices and exchange rates
22 THE MILITARY BALANCE 2020

Real global defence-spending changes by region, 2017–19*

8
6
4
2
% 0
-2
-4
2017
-6 2018
-8 2019
-10
North America Europe Russia and Eurasia Asia Middle East and Latin America Sub-Saharan Global
North Africa and the Caribbean Africa
* Excludes states for which insufficient data is available

Selected European states: military pensions spending, 2019

Defence pensions, US$bn Defence pensions, % of defence budget
NATO’s definition of defence spending includes military pensions as part of the ‘personnel expenditure’ category of reporting. According to NATO, ‘pension payments made directly by
the government to retired military and civilian employees of military departments should be included regardless of whether these payments are made from the budget of the MoD or other
ministries’. However, because pensions systems can differ significantly from one European country to another, military pensions as a percentage of countries’ total defence budgets vary
widely. Pension systems are either social insurance regimes, where the state will provide the larger portions of retirement benefits, or multi-pillar systems, where the state provides only
a minimum pension and most of the benefits come from corporate or privately subscribed schemes, through funds for instance. In the first case, military pensions will therefore appear
as a larger proportion of total defence outlays than in the second category.

35
12 35.4
30
31.4
10
25

% of defence budget
26.8
US$bn, current

25.1 26.1
8 23.2
22.7 20
20.9
6
16.8 15
13.9 15.8 15.5
4 10
11.5 11.0 11.3
9.7 10.2
2 6.2 5
5.2
3.3 2.1
1.4 1.3 0
Hu e
Be ia

De ia

Es k

Ge e

Lit via

ia

lan o
**

ay

Po d
Ro gal

Sl ia
ia

do d
um

nia

ly

**
c
ar

ar

ain
an
c

lan

ng ite
lan

lan
str

Ita
t

an

an

en
ee

th eg
ds

rw
oa

an

m
rtu
to
lgi

nm

ng

La
rm

Ki Un
Sp
Au

hu

Po

ov
Fin

Ire
Gr

*2018
Ne ten
Cr

Fr

No
er
on

**2017
M

Composition of real defence-spending increases Composition of real defence-spending reductions

2018–19‡ 2018–19‡
Other Asia, 1.5%
Sub-Saharan Africa, 0.8% Sub-Saharan Africa, 3.5%
Other Latin
Latin America and Russia and
Russia and Eurasia, 1.0% America and the
the Caribbean, 1.2% Eurasia, 0.2%
Caribbean, 1.7%
Other Europe, 7.3% Saudi
Other Europe, 0.5%
Other Middle East, 1.2% Arabia
Other Middle 34.2%
Other Asia, 6.2% East and North
France, 1.3% Africa, 0.01%
Lebanon, 1.6%
Netherlands, 1.3%
Canada, 1.7% Total reductions
Algeria, 1.4% United
Total increases Italy, 1.9% 2018–19:‡
United 2018–19:‡ States
Kingdom, 1.5% 47.9% Israel, 2.0%
US$18bn
US$82bn
India, 2.0% Mexico, 2.4%
Iraq, 3.9% Malaysia, 2.6%
South Korea, 4.1% Argentina, 4.2%
Germany, 4.9% Spain, 8.0%
Iran, 34.0%
China, 14.0%
©IISS
‡ At constant 2015 prices and exchange rates
 Comparative defence statistics 23

High-speed helicopters: pushing the rotary limits

The speed ceiling for a conventional rotary-wing design is
around 370 kilometres per hour (230 miles per hour). Almost
since the advent of rotary flight, designers have been
attempting to improve on this by combining lift rotors with
either a rear propeller (the ‘pusher’ concept) or jet thrust
combined with a stub wing to create a compound helicopter,
thereby reducing the rotor’s requirement to generate lift. One
of the most well-known ‘pusher’ designs, which almost made
it into service in the United States, was the late-1960s
Lockheed AH-56A Cheyenne attack helicopter. An alternative
approach is to use the propeller like a conventional rotor
blade. However, this requires being able to move the propeller
S-97 Raider
through 90 degrees, as employed in the only in-service
tilt-rotor design, the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey. There is now a
renewed focus on the ‘pusher’ concept. US Army require-
ments are a catalyst for this in the military domain, with its
Future Vertical Lift (FVL) project the design driver. However,
both tilt-rotor and compound helicopter designs are being
proposed to meet elements of the FVL programme. Bell’s
V-280 tilt-rotor is one option for the Future Long-Range
Assault Aircraft, while the Sikorsky/Boeing S-97 Raider
compound helicopter is a candidate for the Future Attack
Reconnaissance Aircraft.
Digital flight controls
 Manages blade angle
 Manages pusher thrust
 Vibration controls

Rigid co-axial rotor

Geared-pusher propeller
 Provides additional axial
thrust for increased cruise
and maximum speeds
 Can be disengaged
Retractable landing gear  Coaxial – avoids need for tail rotor
 Cleaner airframe  Rigid blades allow close mounting to reduce drag
reduces drag  Rigid blade reduces aerodynamic limitations of
traditional rotor blade
 Low-speed agility

Selected prototype compound helicopter and tilt-rotor designs, 1950s–1980s

XV-1 (US) XV-1G (US) XV-3 (US)

1954, 200 mph (322 km/h) 1954, 203 mph (327 km/h) 1955, 184 mph (296 km/h)

Rotodyne (UK) Bell 533 (US) S-61F (US)

1957, 198 mph (319 km/h) 1962, 315 mph (507 km/h) 1965, 225 mph (362 km/h)

AH-56A Cheyenne (US) XV-15 (US) XH-59A (US)

1967, 244 mph (393 km/h) 1973, 322 mph (518 km/h) 1977, 345 mph (555 km/h)

© IISS
 24

French military operations over recent decades have led the army to assess the likely
character of future land warfare and the capabilities it needs. A key response from
Paris has been the Scorpion combat system (Synergie du COntact Renforcé par la
Polyvalence et l’Info valorisatiON). France sees the requirement for manoeuvre
warfare platforms, networked together, that are as capable in dispersed operations at
reach as they would be as part of a concentrated force. The new platforms are
integrated by design around a common doctrine and linked by a common combat-in-
formation system. Deliveries to the French Army of the Scorpion system’s first
elements, the VBMR Griffon, began in 2019. Belgium is also procuring the system for its
ground forces.

VBMR Griffon 6x6 wheeled armoured EBRC Jaguar reconnaissance vehicle European collaboration
personnel carrier As well as a vehicle purchase, Belgium and France are
jointly developing the Scorpion doctrine, and a joint training
programme has been established. Training has already taken
place in the field and in synthetic environments. Both armies
intend that Scorpion-equipped units are inter-operable down
to section level. A May 2019 report by the French National
THE MILITARY BALANCE 2020

Assembly said that Scorpion could set a template for other

armies in Europe.

Operational concept S Command echelon

Weight: 24.5 tonnes Weight: 25 tonnes

Discovery echelon Assault echelon Logistics echelon
Capacity: 2+8 soldiers Main armaments: Cased Telescoped Armament 40 mm cannon,
Versions: PAX carrier, command post, artillery observation, 7.62 mm remotely operated turret, two MMP anti-tank guided-
France’s Scorpion armoured-vehicle-replacement programme

 Reconnaissance and
ambulance. missile launchers reconnaissance-by-contact
Main armament: 7.62 or 12.7 mm remotely operated turret Other equipment: with acoustic detonation-tracking system,  Shaping enemy  Main body for
Deliveries: from 2019 laser warning detector dispositions prior to decisive engagement
Deliveries: from 2021 engagement

Combined Arms Tactical Formations

Scorpion Combat Information System
(CIS)
The Scorpion CIS networks troops, vehicles and
weapons, and is also designed to process information
from sensors installed on vehicles and other ground
and air platforms. This capability is intended to allow
distributed operations, so reducing the targeting
options for adversaries, but enabling own forces to
concentrate at speed when required. The CIS is also
intended to generate information useful in reducing
the logistical burden, including information on
ammunition consumption, in order to lessen the
cognitive workload on troops.
© IISS
Vehicle replacement plan
Other elements of the Scorpion programme include the multi-role VBMR-L
Serval armoured vehicle, to be introduced from 2022, followed by
modernised Leclerc main battle tanks and VBCI infantry fighting vehicles
upgraded to Scorpion standard. However, the VBL reconnaissance vehicle
replacement programme (VBAE) is expected to be initiated after 2025. The
French Army plans to replace its 2,255 VAB APCs with 1,872 VBMR Griffons
and 978 of the 2,000 VBMR-L Serval vehicles that the armed forces are due
to receive. France’s 247 AMX-10RC wheeled assault guns and its remaining
59 ERC-90 reconnaissance vehicles are due to be replaced with 300 EBRC
Jaguars. In Belgium, the VBMR Griffon will replace the Piranha-III-C
wheeled APC and Dingo-2 armoured utility vehicle, and the EBRC Jaguar
will replace the Piranha III-C DF30 and DF90 IFVs.
The Scorpion combat system is designed to facilitate
combined-arms manoeuvre warfare. France’s future
Scorpion-equipped Combined Arms Tactical Formations will
include ‘Command’, ‘Discovery’, ‘Assault’ and ‘Logistics’
echelons. France is looking to more closely integrate these
elements both physically and in terms of their networked
capability, in order to fuse these elements in a bid to
enhance combat capability. Jaguar will be found in the
Discovery echelon, operating far ahead of the main force
and utilising such tactics as reconnaissance-by-contact, in
order to assess and if required shape enemy dispositions so
they can be better targeted by the Assault echelon. The VBCI
IFV and Leclerc MBT will be located in the Assault echelon.
China and Russia currently field a number of surface-launched anti-ship missile systems that outrange the Harpoon, the Missiles by country and range
standard anti-ship weapon used by the United States and a range of other navies. This situation is recognised as a capability China
deficit by Western navies in particular. Capability development in some of these navies has been focused elsewhere in recent YJ-18 (CH-SS-N-13)
years, such as on littoral power projection. The US is investing to try to close this gap, and other nations will likely also look to 540 km
upgrade their capabilities. Russia
3M45 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck)
Operators of major Western surface-launched anti-ship missiles, by region Key to symbols
660 km
 Harpoon
Europe 3M54 (SS-N-27B Sizzler)
 Exocet
Belgium  Netherlands   RBS15 625 km
Croatia  Norway   Naval Strike Missile
Denmark  Poland   Otomat (Teseo) 3M80 Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn)
Finland  Portugal  120 km
North America
France  Spain  Russia and Eurasia
USA   United States
Germany    Sweden  Turkmenistan 
Canada  Harpoon Block 1C (RGM-84D)
Greece   Turkey  
Italy  UK  130 km
Asia Naval Strike Missile (RGM-184A)
Middle East and
North Africa Australia 
Bangladesh  200 km
Algeria 
Brunei  Selected other long-range anti-ship missiles
Bahrain  
Latin America and Egypt    Indonesia  MM40 Exocet Block 3 (France)
the Caribbean Sub-Saharan Africa Japan 
Israel  200 km
Argentina  Nigeria   Republic of Korea 
Kuwait  Brahmos (India, Russia)
Brazil  South Africa  Malaysia 
Morocco 
Chile   Pakistan  290 km
Oman 
Ecuador  Singapore  RBS15 Mk.3 (Sweden)
Qatar 
Peru   Taiwan 
Saudi Arabia   200 km
China, Russia and the United States: surface-launched anti-ship missiles

Venezuela  Thailand  
Tunisia  Otomat Mk. 2 Block IV (Italy)
UAE 
200 km

US Navy Offensive Missile Strategy
The new Offensive Missile Strategy (OMS),
revealed in 2019, replaces the US Navy’s earlier
cruise-missile strategy. Aiming to rebuild an
offensive capability, the strategy reflects the
broader family of next-generation naval offensive
strike weapons. It covers ‘all non-nuclear offensive
strike missiles with a range greater than 50
The OMS is structured around three elements:
 sustaining current weapons systems
 enhancing current weapons capabilities
 developing next-generation weapons to
address future threats
Naval offensive strike systems will focus on
delivering ‘multi-domain’ capabilities. Key weapons
systems will be the maritime-strike Tomahawk, the
The anti-ship-missile challenge
There has been a proliferation of anti-ship-
missile capabilities to more states and
non-state actors. These weapons utilise
differing system attributes, including:
 stealth
 high speed
 plunging fire
 warhead size
 guidance
Future developments that may be
associated with anti-ship missiles could
include hypersonic speed and anti-ship
ballistic missiles launched from both the
sea and on land.
Comparative defence statistics

nautical miles’. Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile and developments of  hypersonic-dart closing engagement
the standard SM-6 with anti-ship capability.
25

© IISS
26 THE MILITARY BALANCE 2020

Key defence statistics

ICBM (Launchers) (25 per unit) Bomber aircraft (25 per unit)
Cruis
211
98

340 138 22

400 157

19
Ballistic-missile nuclear-powered submarines (10 per unit)

4 4 1 10 4 14

Active personnel (100,000 per unit) Reserve personnel (100,000 per unit)

2,035,000 510,000

203,750 38,550 248

1,442,900 1,155,000

900,000
2,000,000
148,450 79,800 Attack

1,379,800 849,450
70

25
Armoured infantry fighting vehicles Main battle tanks
(1,000 per unit) (1,000 per unit)

5,810 5,850 50

625 222
3,100 3,565
6,241 3,250 Heavy/m
545 227
3,419 2,836

Artillery (1,000 per unit) Attack/guided missile submarines

(25 per unit) 88 4
9,196
54
273
5
9,729
16 Airborne earl
5,325
39
637
6

6,916 53

Aircraft carriers (10 per unit)

1 1 1 1 11 29 7
 Comparative defence statistics 27

China France India Russia UK US

er unit)
Cruisers, destroyers and frigates Principal amphibious ships
211
(25 per unit) (25 per unit)
83
6
138 22
3
26
157 1
32
19 5
110
32

14
Fighter and ground-attack aircraft (500 per unit)
00 per unit)
1,976 1,045

248 162

155,000
720 3,311

2,000,000
Attack helicopters (250 per unit) Heavy/medium transport helicopters and tilt-rotor aircraft
(500 per unit)
278 395
70 155
25 16

401 368
108
5,850 50

889
3,058
65
50 Heavy/medium transport aircraft Tanker and multi-role tanker/transport aircraft
(100 per unit) (100 per unit)

le submarines
18 17 6 15 14
nit) 88 43 38 185 42
555
54 675

Airborne early-warning and control aircraft Heavy unmanned aerial vehicles

(100 per unit) (50 per unit)
39

26 5 13 Some 9
53

11 29 7 5 9 4 113
495

© IISS