April 29, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

Here’s how much global military spending rose in 2018

WASHINGTON — Overall military expenditures rose 2.6 percent between 2017 and 2018, to hit a total of $1.82 trillion dollars, according to new research from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The total from 2018 is 5.4 percent higher than 2009, and represents a 76 percent increase over 1998, a 20-year period.

Sixty percent of global military spending came from five countries: The United States ($649 billion), China ($250 billion), Saudi Arabia ($67.6 billion), India ($66.5 billion) and France ($63.8 billion). Russia ($61.4 billion) and the United Kingdom ($50 billion) were the other two countries to spend $50 billion or more on defense.

However, there are ups and downs among the biggest spenders. While the U.S. (4.6 percent, the first overall growth since 2010), China (5 percent) and India (3.1 percent) increased their respective military spending year over year, Saudi Arabia cut its spending by 6.5 percent, France by 1.4 percent and Russia by 3.5 percent.

And overall defense spending per gross domestic product fell to 2.1 percent in 2018, representing $239 per global citizen, a 0.1 percent decrease over one year and a 0.5 percent decrease over 10 years.

Notably, Russia ranked outside the top five for the first time since 2006. China, meanwhile, increased its military spending for the 24th consecutive year, and its spending is almost 10 times higher than it was in 1994; however, researchers warn that Chinese growth may slow in the coming year.

“The annual rate of growth of China's military spending has slowed steadily since it reached a post-2009 high of 9.3 percent in 2013. The growth of 5.0 percent in 2018 was the lowest annual increase since 1995,” the authors note. “China has followed a policy of linking growth in military spending with economic growth. With its economic growth slowing in 2018 to the lowest level in 28 years, slower rates of growth in the coming years can be expected if China continues to follow this policy.”

SIPRI, which is widely considered to be the authority on military expenditures and exports, having gathered such data for decades. Other key developments, as noted by the researchers:

Military spending in South America rose by 3.1 percent in 2018. This was mainly due to the increase in Brazilian spending (by 5.1 percent), the second increase in as many years.
Military expenditure in Africa fell by 8.4 percent in 2018, the fourth consecutive annual decrease since the peak in spending in 2014. There were major decreases in spending by Algeria (–6.1 percent), Angola (–18 percent) and Sudan (–49 percent).
Military spending by states in the Middle East, for which data is available, fell by 1.9 percent in 2018.
Total military expenditure by all 29 NATO members was $963 billion in 2018, which accounted for 53 percent of world spending.
Military spending in Turkey increased by 24 percent in 2018 to $19 billion, the highest annual percentage increase among the world's top 15 military spenders.
Six of the 10 countries with the highest military burden (military spending as a proportion of GDP) in the world in 2018 are in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia (8.8 percent of GDP), Oman (8.2 percent), Kuwait (5.1 percent), Lebanon (5 percent), Jordan (4.7 percent) and Israel (4.3 percent).

https://www.defensenews.com/global/2019/04/28/heres-how-much-global-military-spending-rose-in-2018

On the same subject

June 19, 2019 | International, Aerospace

Boeing Forecasts $8.7 Trillion Aerospace and Defense Market through 2028
--Growing demand expected across commercial air travel, defense, space and services markets --20-year commercial outlook projects $16 trillion market, powered by rising requirement for 44,040 new jets and related services LE BOURGET, France, June 17, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- A strong commercial aviation industry, stable defense spending and the need to service all platforms throughout their lifecycle are driving a growing aerospace and defense market, according to the Boeing Market Outlook. Released today at the Paris Air Show, the outlook values the aerospace and defense market at $8.7 trillion over the next decade, up from $8.1 trillion a year ago. The Boeing Market Outlook (BMO) includes a $3.1 trillion projected demand for commercial airplanes through 2028 as operators replace older jets with more capable and fuel-efficient models, and expand their fleets to accommodate the steady rise in air travel across emerging and established markets. Full article: http://www.asdnews.com/news/aerospace/2019/06/17/boeing-forecasts-87-trillion-aerospace-defense-market-through-2028
December 31, 2018 | International, Aerospace

Air Force looks to use fleet’s largest cargo plane for medical evacuations
By WYATT OLSON | STARS AND STRIPES The Air Force is moving ahead to certify the cargo hold of its largest plane, the C-5M Super Galaxy, for use in medical evacuations for both casualties of war and victims of natural disasters. Nearly as long as a football field, the Super Galaxy has significantly more capacity than the C-17, the largest aircraft used by the Air Force for aeromedical evacuations in the cargo area. The Super Galaxy is certified for such evacuations using its passenger area, not its cargo hold. This month, the Air Force completed a two-year initiative to prepare, equip and test the Super Galaxy for the broader certification. Its cargo floor can accommodate 89 unstacked litters, twice as many as the C-17, which can fit 48 unstacked litters, according to a statement provided to Stars and Stripes by the Air Mobility Command. A C-130 can move only 15 patients on its cargo floor. A final proof-of-concept test for the Super Galaxy was recently successfully completed at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., and certification to support aeromedical evacuations could come as early as this summer. About 100 personnel were involved in the culminating test, with the C-5M and crew flying in from Travis Air Force Base, Calif. For the purposes of certification, the Super Galaxy was configured with a proprietary litter-stacking system that reduces the maximum number of stretchers its bare cargo area could hold. Under this configuration, the Super Galaxy “can safely move 244 ambulatory patients and has space for 40 litters,” Air Mobility Command said. The aeromedical evacuation squadron brought aboard its standard in-flight kits used for medical care, and a transportable galley and lavatory were also added. The Super Galaxy can carry a payload of nearly 135 tons, with enough cargo space to carry, say, two tanks, 16 Humvees and three Black Hawk helicopters. Without cargo, it has a range of 7,000 miles without the need for refueling. The Super Galaxy is an upgraded version of the legacy C-5, which was introduced in the 1960s. Its more powerful engines provide more thrust, shorter takeoffs and longer range. Full article: https://www.stripes.com/news/us/air-force-looks-to-use-fleet-s-largest-cargo-plane-for-medical-evacuations-1.562170
November 7, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Ce qu’est l’Europe de la défense. Ce qu’elle n’est pas
(B2) Alors que le serpent de mer de l'armée européenne ressurgit par la gr'ce d'Emmanuel Macron (*), il n'est pas inutile de revenir sur terre. Ce qui existe aujourd'hui ... et ce qui n'existe pas en matière de défense au niveau européen. La réalité inscrite dans les Traités européens actuels est la politique (européenne) de sécurité et de défense commune (PeSDC). Ou en langage commun, l'Europe de la défense. Elle n'est cependant pas comparable à ce qui se définit au plan national comme une politique de défense. Que ce soit dans le langage des pro ou des anti-intégrations européennes, cet aspect est bien souvent gommé. Or, il est primordial d'avoir une vue ‘honnête' et ‘objective' de la situation actuelle. Une politique nationale de défense D'un point de vue national, une politique de défense se définit tout d'abord par une autorité qui imprime sa marque et un circuit décisionnel court (comme en France avec un président de la république acteur principal) ou plus long (comme en Allemagne avec une décision du gouvernement, une approbation du parlement). Elle répond à une stratégie de défense, qui est élaborée par strates successives, en répondant à des antécédents historiques et une logique politique. Elle se développe ensuite dans un budget d'investissement d'une armée, des équipements militaires, des troupes, une logique d'action et une légitimité dans l'opinion publique qui accepte, plus ou moins, un engagement militaire intérieur ou extérieur, à risque ou non. L'Europe de la défense : un projet politique L'Europe de la défense est tout d'abord un projet politique, qui vise à affirmer la place de l'Europe dans le monde, au service d'une politique étrangère. Elle ne consiste pas ainsi à assurer la défense du territoire ni la protection des citoyens (malgré les déclarations politiques en ce sens). Elle ne procède que d'une coordination des efforts des États membres. Son circuit décisionnel repose ainsi toujours, à toutes les étapes, de l'initiative à l'approbation puis au commandement et au contrôle, sur un accord de tous les États membres, de façon collégiale. Mettre tout le monde d'accord au même moment sur un enjeu commun est un véritable ‘challenge'. Elle a comme objectif unique d'avoir une capacité d'intervention, limitée, dans des missions ou opérations de paix ou de consolidation de l'état de droit. Elle n'est pas ainsi une force d'intervention tout azimut, n'a pas de commandement militaire direct (national) ou intégré (comme l'OTAN), ni de troupes ou de forces disponibles en permanence ni en propre. Elle ne peut intervenir qu'à l'extérieur des frontières, avec le consentement des États concernés (ou au moins de leurs gouvernements) et de la communauté internationale. On est ainsi très loin des ‘fondamentaux' d'une armée européenne. Quand on met face à face ainsi les principes d'une défense nationale et ceux de l'Europe de la défense, il est inévitable que la seconde soit moins efficace que la première. On peut considérer qu'il s'agit d'une faiblesse temporaire, due aux personnalités politiques du moment. Ce peut être le cas parfois. Mais il ne faut pas minorer les faiblesses structurelles dû à un fait principal : l'Europe n'est pas un État mais une structure juridique et économique de concertation et de coopération avant tout. Si on veut donner un aperçu plus mathématique, j'ai évalué, sous forme d'une note — sur une échelle de 0 à 3 — quels points remplit l'Union européenne, une fois mis en place tous les projets évoqués ces derniers temps. On va ainsi d'une note de 0 à 3 selon les thèmes : de 0 pour les équipements et les forces disponibles à 2 pour le budget de recherche, en passant par le mode de décision et le consensus politique que je cote à 1 sur 3. Article complet: https://www.bruxelles2.eu/2018/11/07/ce-quest-leurope-de-la-defense-ce-quelle-nest-pas/

All news