Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005
CRS Report for Congress
Conventional Arms Transfers to
Developing Nations, 1998-2005
October 23, 2006
Richard F. Grimmett
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations,
1998-2005
Summary
This report is prepared annually to provide Congress with official, unclassified,
quantitative data on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United
States and foreign countries for the preceding eight calendar years for use in its
various policy oversight functions. All agreement and delivery data in this report for
the United States are government-to-government (FMS) transactions. Some general
data are provided on worldwide conventional arms transfers by all suppliers, but the
principal focus is the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations
in the developing world.
Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales
activity by weapons suppliers. During the years 1998-2005, the value of arms
transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 66.8% of all such agreements
worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations
constituted 64.3% of all such agreements globally from 2002-2005, and 68.4% of
these agreements in 2005.
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2005 was
nearly $30.2 billion. This was a notable increase over 2004, and the highest total,
in real terms, for the entire period from 1998-2005. In 2005, the value of all arms
deliveries to developing nations was $17.7 billion, the lowest total in these deliveries
values for the entire 1998-2005 period (in constant 2005 dollars).
Recently, from 2002-2005, the United States and Russia have dominated the
arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking first for 3 out
of 4 years in the value of arms transfer agreements, with Russia ranking second for
3 out of these same four years. From 2002-2005, the United States made $33.3
billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, in constant 2005 dollars,
made $21.8 billion in arms transfer agreements, or 24.3%. Collectively, the United
States and Russia made nearly 60% of all arms transfer agreements with developing
nations during this four year period.
In 2005, Russia ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing
nations with $7 billion or 23.2% of these agreements. France was second with $6.3
billion or 20.9% of such agreements. The United States was third with $6.2 billion
or 20.5%. In 2005, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to
developing nations at $8.1 billion, or 45.8% of all such deliveries. Russia ranked
second at $2.7 billion or 15.2% of such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked
third at $2.4 billion or 13.6% of such deliveries.
In 2005, India ranked first in the value of arms transfer agreements among all
developing nations weapons purchasers, concluding $5.4 billion in such agreements.
Saudi Arabia ranked second with $3.4 billion in such agreements. China ranked third
with $2.8 billion.
Contents
Introduction and Overview..........................................1
Major Findings....................................................4
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide.......................4
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations..............6
United States.............................................8
Russia ...................................................8
China ..................................................11
Major West European Suppliers.............................12
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements..............................14
Near East...............................................15
Asia ...................................................16
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers......................16
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations.............17
United States............................................18
Russia ..................................................18
China ..................................................18
Major West European Suppliers.............................18
All Other European Suppliers...............................18
All Other Suppliers.......................................19
Summary of Data Trends, 1998-2005.................................21
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values...............21
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1998-2005........................27
Near East...............................................27
Asia ...................................................29
Latin America...........................................32
Africa ..................................................32
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
1998-2005: Leading Suppliers Compared......................33
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared...............................33
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1998-2005:
Suppliers And Recipients..................................34
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
Agreements With Leading Recipients.........................35
Agreements With Leading Recipients.........................36
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values.........................36
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1998-2005........................41
Near East...............................................41
Asia ...................................................42
Latin America...........................................42
Africa ..................................................42
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared................................43
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared................................43
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1998-2005:
Suppliers and Recipients...................................44
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
The Leading Recipients....................................45
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2005:
Agreements With Leading Recipients.........................45
Selected Weapons Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1998-2005...........69
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 2002-2005.................69
Asia ...................................................70
Near East...............................................70
Latin America...........................................71
Africa ..................................................71
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values, 1998-2005....77
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1998-2005.......77
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1998-2005.......................78
Description of Items Counted in Weapons Categories, 1998-2005...........89
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts...................90
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts (Cont.).............91
List of Tables
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1998-2005 and Suppliers’ Share
with Developing World (in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars)......26
Developing World (in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars)..........40
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1998-2005 (in millions of current U.S. dollars)......................47
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1998-2005 (in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars)................48
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier,
1998-2005 (expressed as a percent of total, by year)..................49
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier,
1998-2005 (in millions of current U.S. dollars)......................50
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region,
1998-2005 ..................................................51
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions,
1998-2005 ..................................................52
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars).......53
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars).......54
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................55
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................56
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2005:
Agreements by Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars)..57
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................58
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars).........................59
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)...........................60
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................61
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1998-2005....62
1998-2005 ......................................................63
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1998-2005
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars).......64
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars).......65
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................66
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
The Leading Recipients........................................67
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2005:
The Leading Recipients (in millions of current U.S. dollars)...........68
Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Developing Nations........................................72
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific........................................73
Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Near East.................................................74
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Latin America.............................................75
Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Africa...................................................76
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1998-2005 (in millions of current U.S. dollars).....................79
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1998-2005 ..................................................80
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier,
1998-2005 (expressed as a percent of total, by year)..................81
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1998-2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars).......82
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars).......83
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)...............................84
(in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars).........................85
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1998-2005
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)...........................86
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1998-2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars).......87
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared (in millions of current U.S. dollars).......88
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing
Nations, 1998-2005
Introduction and Overview
This report provides the Congress with official, unclassified background data
from U.S. government sources on transfers of conventional arms to developing
nations by major suppliers for the period 1998 through 2005. It also includes some
data on worldwide supplier transactions. It updates and revises the report entitled
“Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1997-2004,” published by the
Congressional Research Service on August 29, 2005 (CRS Report RL33051).
The data in this report provide a means for Congress to identify existing
supplier-purchaser relationships in conventional weapons acquisitions. Use of these
data can assist Congress in its oversight role of assessing whether the current nature
of the international weapons trade affects U.S. national interests. Maintaining
regional stability, and ensuring the security of U.S. allies and friendly nations
throughout the world, for most of recent American history have been important
elements of U.S. foreign policy. Knowing the degree to which individual arms
suppliers are making arms transfers to individual nations or regions provides
Congress with a context for evaluating policy questions it may confront. Such policy
questions may include, for example, whether or not to support specific U.S. arms
sales to given countries or regions or to support or oppose such arms transfers by
other nations. The data in this report may also assist Congress in evaluating whether
multilateral arms control arrangements or other U.S. foreign policy initiatives are
being supported or undermined by the actions of foreign arms suppliers.
The principal focus of this report is the level of arms transfers by major weapons
suppliers to nations in the developing world-–where most of the potential for the
outbreak of regional military conflicts currently exists. For decades, during the height
of the Cold War, providing conventional weapons to friendly states was an
instrument of foreign policy utilized by the United States and its allies. This was
equally true for the Soviet Union and its allies. The underlying rationale for U.S.
arms transfer policy then was to help ensure that friendly states were not placed at
risk through a military disadvantage created by arms transfers by the Soviet Union
or its allies.
The data in this report illustrate how global patterns of conventional arms
transfers have changed in the post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf War years.
Relationships between arms suppliers and recipients continue to evolve in response
to changing political, military, and economic circumstances. Where before the
principal motivation for arms sales by foreign suppliers might have been to support
a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based as much on economic
considerations as those of foreign or national security policy.
In this context, the developing world continues to be the primary focus of
foreign arms sales activity by conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of
this report, 1998-2005, conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent
orders for future delivery) to developing nations have comprised 66.8% of the value
of all international arms transfer agreements. The portion of agreements with
developing countries constituted 64.3% of all agreements globally from 2001-2005.
In 2005, arms transfer agreements with developing countries accounted for 68.4% of
the value of all such agreements globally. Deliveries of conventional arms to
developing nations, from 2002-2005, constituted 67.8% of all international arms
deliveries. In 2005, arms deliveries to developing nations constituted 69.9% of the
value of all such arms deliveries worldwide.
The data in this new report supersede all data published in previous editions.
Since these new data for 1998-2005 reflect potentially significant updates to and
revisions in the underlying databases utilized for this report, only the data in this most
recent edition should be used. The data are expressed in U.S. dollars for the calendar
years indicated, and adjusted for inflation (see box notes on page 3). U.S.
commercially licensed arms export delivery values are excluded (see box note on
page 20). Also excluded are arms transfers by any supplier to subnational groups.
The definition of developing nations, as used in this report, and the specific classes
of items included in its values totals are found in box notes on page 3. The report’s
table of contents provides a detailed listing and description of the various data tables
and summaries which can guide the reader to specific items of interest.
CALENDAR YEAR DATA USED
All arms transfer and arms delivery data in this report are for the calendar year
or calendar year period given. This applies to U.S. and foreign data alike. United
States government departments and agencies publish data on U.S. arms transfers and
deliveries but generally use the United States fiscal year as the computational time
period for these data. As a consequence, there are likely to be distinct differences
noted in those published totals using a fiscal year basis and those provided in this
report which use a calendar year basis. Details on data used are outlined in
footnotes at the bottom of Tables 1, 2, 8 and 9.
CONSTANT 2005 DOLLARS
Throughout this report values of arms transfer agreements and values of arms
deliveries for all suppliers are expressed in U.S. dollars. Values for any given year
generally reflect the exchange rates that prevailed during that specific year. The report
converts these dollar amounts (current dollars) into constant 2005 dollars. Although
this helps to eliminate the distorting effects of U.S. inflation to permit a more accurate
comparison of various dollar levels over time, the effects of fluctuating exchange rates
are not neutralized. The deflators used for the constant dollar calculations in this
report are those provided by the U.S. Department of Defense and are set out at
the bottom of tables 1, 2, 8, and 9. Unless otherwise noted in the report, all dollar
values are stated in constant terms. The exceptions to this rule are all regional data
tables that are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals (1998-2001 and 2002-
2005). These tables are expressed in current dollar terms. And where tables rank
leading arms suppliers to developing nations or leading developing nation recipients
using four-year aggregate dollar totals, these values are expressed in current dollars.
DEFINITION OF DEVELOPING NATIONS AND REGIONS
As used in this report, the developing nations category includes all countries
except the United States, Russia, European nations, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New
Zealand. A listing of countries located in the regions defined for the purpose of this
analysis — Asia, Near East, Latin America, and Africa — is provided at the end of the
report.
ARMS TRANSFER VALUES
The values of arms transfer agreements (or deliveries) in this report
refer to the total values of conventional arms orders (or deliveries
as the case may be) which include all categories of weapons and
ammunition, military spare parts, military construction, military
assistance and training programs, and all associated services.
Major Findings
General Trends in Arms Transfers Worldwide
The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and
developing nations) in 2005 was nearly $44.2 billion. This is a notable increase in
arms agreements values over 2004, and is the highest total for arms agreements
during the last eight years (chart 1)(table 8A).
In 2005, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making
agreements valued at nearly $12.8 billion (28.9% of all such agreements), down
from $13.2 billion in 2004. France ranked second with $7.9 billion in agreements
(16.8% of these agreements globally), up substantially from $2.2 billion in 2004.
Russia ranked third, its arms transfer agreements worldwide standing at $7.4 billion
in 2005, up significantly from $5.6 billion in 2004. The United States, France, and
Russia collectively made agreements in 2005 valued at nearly $28.1 billion, 63.5%
of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers (figure 1)(tables
For the period 2002-2005, the total value of all international arms transfer
agreements ($145.3 billion) was lower than the worldwide value during 1998-2001
($148.8 billion), a decrease of 2.4%. During the period 1998-2001, developing world
nations accounted for 69.3% of the value of all arms transfer agreements made
worldwide. During 2002-2005, developing world nations accounted for 64.3% of all
arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2005, developing nations accounted for
In 2005, the United States ranked first in the value of all arms deliveries
worldwide, making nearly $11.6 billion in such deliveries or 45.6%. This is the
eighth year in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries. The
United Kingdom ranked second in worldwide arms deliveries in 2005, making $3.1
billion in such deliveries. Russia ranked third in 2005, making $2.8 billion in such
deliveries. These top three suppliers of arms in 2005 collectively delivered nearly
$17.5 billion, 68.8% of all arms delivered worldwide by all suppliers in that year
(Figure 2)(tables 9A, 9B and 9D).
The value of all international arms deliveries in 2005 was $25.4 billion. This
is a notable decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year (a
fall of $7.3 billion), and the lowest deliveries total for the 1998-2005 period.
Moreover, the total value of such arms deliveries worldwide in 2002-2005 ($124.1
billion) was substantially lower in the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers
worldwide from 1998-2001 ($162.3 billion, a decline of over $38 billion) (figure
Developing nations from 2002-2005 accounted for 67.8% of the value of all
international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 1998-2001, developing nations
accounted for 68.6% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2005,
developing nations collectively accounted for 69.9% of the value of all international
arms deliveries (figure 2)(tables 2A, 9A and 9B).
The increase in weapons orders worldwide in 2005 was significant. The total
of $44.2 billion was the largest for the entire period from 1998-2005. Global arms
agreement values for the years other than 2005 ranged from $41.8 billion in 1999 to
$29.3 billion in 2003. Various arms orders placed in 2005 include not only the sales
by the traditional major suppliers, but also those of less noted suppliers in Eastern,
as well as Western Europe. Some of the major weapons orders in 2005 reflect
deferred purchases that were finally consummated by several nations.
Increasingly, developed nations have sought to protect important elements of
their national military industrial bases by limiting arms purchases from other
developed nations. However, several key suppliers have placed additional emphasis
on joint production of various weapons systems with other developed nations as a
more effective way to preserve a domestic weapons production capability, while
sharing the costs of new weapons development. The consolidation of certain sectors
of the domestic defense industries of key weapons producing nations continues, in
the face of intense foreign competition. Meanwhile, a number of supplying nations
has chosen to manufacture items for niche weapons where their specialized
production capabilities give them important advantages in the evolving international
arms marketplace.
The intensely competitive weapons marketplace has led several producing
countries to focus sales efforts on prospective clients in nations and regions where
individual suppliers have had competitive advantages resulting from well established
military support relationships. Within Europe, arms sales to new NATO member
nations to support their military modernization programs have created new business
for arms suppliers, while allowing these NATO states to sell some of their older
generation military equipment, in refurbished form, to other less-developed countries.
While there are inherent limitations on these European sales due to the smaller
defense budgets of many of the purchasing countries, creative seller financing
options, as well as the use of co-assembly, co-production, and counter-trade to offset
costs to the buyers, have continued to facilitate new arms agreements here. The
United States and European countries or consortia seem likely to compete vigorously
for prospective arms contracts within the European region in the foreseeable future.
These sales seem particularly important to European suppliers, as they can potentially
compensate, in part, for lost weapons deals elsewhere in the developing world that
result from reduced demand for new weapons.
Various developing nations have reduced their weapons purchases in recent
years primarily due to their limited financial resources to pay for such equipment.
Other prospective arms purchasers in the developing world with significant financial
assets continue to exercise caution in launching new and costly weapons procurement
programs. The general rise in the price of oil, while an advantage for significant oil
producing states in funding their arms purchases, has, at the same time, caused
economic difficulties for many oil consuming states, contributing to their decisions
to defer or curtail new weapons procurements. The state of the world economy has
induced a number of developing nations to choose to upgrade existing weapons
systems in their inventories, while reducing their purchases of new ones. While such
an approach may dampen sales of new weapons systems for a time, the weapons
upgrade market can be very lucrative for some arms producers, thus partially
offsetting the effect of loss of major new sales.
Finally, during recent years, new weapons sales have been limited, in part, by
the practical need for some purchasing nations to absorb and integrated major
weapons systems they have already purchased into their force structures. This
requirement may increase the number of arms contracts related to training and for
support services, even as it reduces the number of large orders for new military
equipment.
More recently, although overall there appear to be fewer large weapons
purchases being made by developing nations in the Near East and in Asia, when
contrasted with sales activity over a decade ago, some major purchases continue to
be made by a select few developing nations in these regions. These purchases have
been made principally by China and India in Asia, and Saudi Arabia in the Near East.
Although these apparent trends are subject to abrupt change based on the strength of
either the regional or international economies, or the threat assessments of individual
states, the strength of individual economies of a wide range of nations in the
developing world continues to be a significant factor in the timing of many of their
arms purchasing decisions.
In Latin America, and, to a much lesser extent, in Africa, some nations continue
to express interest in modernizing important sectors of their military forces. Despite
some large arms orders (by regional standards) by a few states in Latin America and
Africa, most nations in these areas of the developing world are constrained in their
weapons purchases by their limited financial resources. So long as there is limited
availability of seller-supplied credit and financing for weapons purchases, and
national budgets for military purchases remain relatively low, it seems likely that
major arms sales in these regions of the developing world will continue to be limited.
General Trends in Arms Transfers to Developing Nations
The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2005 was
nearly $30.2 billion, a notable increase over the $26.4 billion total in 2004. This was
the highest annual total, in real terms, for the eight year period since 1998 (chart
1)(figure 1)(table 1A). In 2005, the value of all arms deliveries to developing
nations ($17.7 billion) was substantially lower than the value of 2004 deliveries (over
$23.6 billion), and the lowest total for the 1998-2005 period (charts 7 and 8)(figure
Recently, from 2002-2005, the United States and Russia have dominated the
arms market in the developing world. The United States ranked first for 3 out of 4
years during this period, while Russia ranked second for 3 out of 4 these years in the
value of arms transfer agreements. From 2002-2005, the United States made $33.3
billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, 35.2% of all such
agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier during this period, made $21.8
billion in arms transfer agreements or 24.3%. France, the third leading supplier, from
2002-2005 made $8.7 billion or 9.3% of all such agreements with developing nations
during these years. In the earlier period (1998-2001) the United States ranked first
with $41.5 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations or 40.2%;
Russia made $19.7 billion in arms transfer agreements during this period or 19.1%.
France made $11.6 billion in agreements or 11.2% (table 1A).
During the years from 1998-2005, most arms transfers to developing nations
were made by two to three major suppliers in any given year. The United States has
ranked first among these suppliers for seven of the last eight years during this period,
falling to third place in 2005. Russia has been a continuing strong competitor for the
lead in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, ranking second every year
from 1999 through 2004, and first in 2005. Despite its lack of the larger traditional
client base for armaments held by the United States and the major West European
suppliers, Russia’s successes in obtaining new arms orders suggests that Russia is
likely to continue to be, for the short term at least, a significant leader in new arms
agreements with developing nations. Although, Russia’s most significant high value
arms transfer agreements continue to be with two Asian countries, China and India,
Russia has had some recent success in securing arms agreements with clients beyond
its principal two. In this regard, Russia has sought to expand its prospects in North
Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. It even has increased sales efforts in
Latin America, despite having essentially abandoned that region in the period
following the Cold War’s end. The Russian government has further stated that it has
adopted more flexible payment arrangements for its prospective customers in the
developing world, including a willingness in specific cases to forgive outstanding
debts owed to it by a prospective client in order to secure new arms purchases. At
the same time, Russia is seeking to enhance the quality of its follow-on support
services to make Russian products more attractive and competitive, and to assure its
potential clients that it can effectively service the weapons systems that it sells.
Major West European arms suppliers such as France and the United Kingdom,
in particular, have concluded large orders with developing countries over the last
eight years, based on either long-term supply relationships or their having specialized
weapons systems they can readily provide. While, there is notably increased
competition between the United States and the other major arms suppliers, the U.S.
seems likely to hold its position as the principal supplier to key developing world
nations that are most able to afford major new weapons purchases. Even when it does
not conclude major new weapons systems agreements in a given year, the fact that
the U.S. has such a wide base of arms equipment clients globally means that it still
will be able to conclude a notable number of agreements annually to provide support,
upgrades, and ordnance for the large variety of weapons systems it has sold to its
clients for decades.
The prospects for purchases of new and highly expensive weapons appear to be
on the increase most recently with the wealthier developing countries. Yet the
unsettled state of the international economy, and the scarcity of funds in their defense
budgets, continues to constrain such arms purchases by the less affluent developing
nations. The overall level of the arms trade with developing nations was on the
decline in the period from 2001 until 2004. The significant rise in agreements in
2004, and the notable increase in the level of arms transfer agreements in 2005, might
indicate that such sales are beginning to trend upward again. But a significant
increase in the total value of arms agreements in one or two years is not necessarily
predictive of the immediate years to come.
Those arms suppliers who ranked well below the major ones, such as China,
other European, and non-European suppliers, do appear to have increased their
participation in the arms trade with the developing world in recent years, albeit at a
much lower level. Nonetheless, these non-major arms suppliers have proven capable,
on occasion, of making arms deals of consequence. Most of their annual arms
transfer agreement values during 1998-2005 have been comparatively low, although
larger when they are aggregated together as a group. In various cases they have been
successful in selling older generation equipment, even while they procure newer
weaponry to update their own military forces. These arms suppliers also are more
likely to be sources of small arms and light weapons, and associated ordnance, rather
than sellers of major military equipment. Thus it is unlikely that most of these
countries will routinely rank with the traditional major suppliers of advanced
weaponry in the value of their arms agreements and deliveries ( tables 1A, 1F, 1G,
United States.
The total value — in real terms — of United States arms transfer agreements
with developing nations fell significantly from $9.4 billion in 2004 to about $6.2
billion in 2005. The U.S. share of the value of all such agreements was 20.5% in
2005, down from a 35.4% share in 2004 (charts 1, 3 and 4)(figure 1)(tables 1A and
In 2005, the value of U.S. arms transfer agreements with developing nations was
attributable to a substantial number of smaller valued purchases by a wide variety of
U.S. clients in the Near East and in Asia, rather than by the conclusion of a few very
expensive contracts with a small number of traditional clients. These arms agreement
totals illustrate the continuing U.S. advantage of having well established defense
support arrangements with weapons purchasers worldwide, based upon the existing
variety of U.S. weapons systems their militaries utilize. U.S. agreements with all of
its clients in 2005 include not only sales of major weapons systems, but also the
upgrading of systems previously provided. The U.S. totals also include agreements
for a wide variety of spare parts, ammunition, ordnance, training, and support
services which, in the aggregate, have very significant value.
Among the larger valued arms transfer agreements the United States concluded
in 2005 with developing nations were: with the United Arab Emirates for the upgrade
of its AH-64A APACHE helicopters to the AH-64D model, together with associated
weapons for over $740 million. Other U.S. arms agreements in 2005 were with
Egypt for 25 AVENGER fire units for $110 million, and for 50 turbine engines to
upgrade CH-47 CHINOOK helicopters for $73 million; with Kuwait for upgrade
support of its FA-18 fighter aircraft for $195 million; with Saudi Arabia for $110
million in F-15 fighter engine overhauls; with Pakistan: for 60 AGM-84L
HARPOON missiles for $160 million; for 6 PHALANX close-in-weapons systems
for $79 million; for 2000 TOW-2A missiles for $65 million, and for a package of
HF/VHF radio systems for $77 million.
Russia.
The total value of Russia’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations
in 2005 was $7 billion, a notable increase from $5.4 billion in 2004, placing Russia
first in such agreements with the developing world. Russia’s share of all developing
world arms transfer agreements increased, rising from 20.3% in 2004 to 23.2% in
Russian arms transfer agreement totals with developing nations have been
notable during the last four years. During the 2002-2005 period, Russia ranked
second among all suppliers to developing countries, making $21.8 billion in
agreements (in current 2005 dollars) (table 1F). Russia’s status as a leading supplier
of arms to developing nations stems from an increasingly successful effort to
overcome the significant economic and political problems associated with the
dissolution of the former Soviet Union. The traditional arms clients of the former
Soviet Union were generally less wealthy developing countries valued as much for
their political support in the Cold War, as for their desire for Soviet weaponry. Many
of these traditional Soviet client states received substantial military aid grants and
significant discounts on their arms purchases. The Russia that emerged in 1991
consistently placed a premium on obtaining hard currency for the weapons it sold.
Faced with stiff competition from Western arms suppliers in the 1990s, Russia
gradually adapted its selling practices in an effort to regain and sustain an important
share of the developing world arms market.
In recent years, Russian leaders have made major strides in providing more
creative financing and payment options for prospective arms clients. They have also
agreed to engage in counter-trade, offsets, debt-swapping, and, in key cases, to make
significant licensed production agreements in order to sell its weapons. The
willingness to license production has been a central element in several cases
involving Russia’s principal arms clients, China and India. Russia’s efforts to
expand its arms customer base have met with mixed results. Russia’s arms sales
efforts, beyond those with China and India, are focused on Southeast Asia. It has had
some success in securing arms agreements with Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia,
even though recurring financial problems of some clients in this region have
hampered significant growth in Russian sales there. Russia has also made combat
fighter aircraft sales in recent years to Algeria and Yemen. Elsewhere in the
developing world Russian military equipment is competitive because it ranges from
the most basic to the highly advanced, and can be less expensive than similar arms
available from other major suppliers.
Although Russia’s sale of military aircraft continues to be a significant portion
of its arms exports, the absence of major new research and development efforts in
this and other military equipment areas may jeopardize long-term Russian foreign
arms sales prospects. Although military weapons research and development (R&D)
programs exist in Russia, other major arms suppliers in the West are currently well
advanced in the process of developing and producing weaponry that is much more
advanced than that in existing Russian R&D programs.
Despite these potential difficulties, Russia continues to have very significant
arms development and sales programs involving China and India, which should
provide it with sustained business throughout this decade. Through agreements
concluded in the mid-1990s, Russia has sold major combat fighter aircraft, and main
battle tanks to India, and has provided other major weapons systems though lease or
licenced production. And it continues to provide support services and items for these
various weapons systems. In 2005, Russia agreed to sell India 24 SA-19 air defense
systems for $400 million and a number of Smerch multiple-launch rocket systems
(MLRS) for about $500 million. Russian also agreed to overhaul an Indian diesel
submarine for about $100 million, and to provide India with a number of BrahMos
anti-ship missiles.
Russian arms sales of advanced weaponry in South Asia have been a matter of
ongoing concern to the United States, because of long-standing tensions between
India and Pakistan. The acquisition of a new weapon system by India has usually led
Pakistan to seek comparable weapons or those with offsetting capabilities. Keeping
a potentially destabilizing arms race in this region within check is a U.S. policy
obj ect i v e. 1
China has remained a central client for Russia’s arms especially for aircraft and
naval systems. Since 1996, Russia has sold China Su-27 fighter aircraft and agreed
to licensed production of them. It has sold the Chinese quantities of Su-30 multi-role
fighter aircraft, Sovremenny-class destroyers equipped with Sunburn anti-ship
missiles, and Kilo-class Project 636 submarines. Russia has also sold the Chinese
a variety of other weapons systems and missiles. In 2005, Russia agreed to sell
China 30 IL-76TD military transport aircraft and 8 IL-78M aerial refueling tanker
aircraft for more than $1 billion. Russia also signed new arms transfer agreements
with China for a number of AL-31F military aircraft engines for $1 billion, and
agreed to sell jet engines for China’s FC-1 fighter aircraft at a cost in excess of $250
million. These arms acquisitions by China are apparently aimed at enhancing its
military projection capabilities in Asia, and its ability to influence events throughout
the region. Such acquisitions, in particular those of advanced military equipment
from Russia, continue to be monitored by U.S. policymakers. The U.S. policy interest
is, among other things, ensuring that it provides appropriate military equipment to
U.S. allies and friendly states in Asia to help offset any prospective threat China may
pose to such nations, while keeping the U.S. military aware of any threat it may face
in any confrontation with China. 2
Elsewhere in 2005, Russia made an agreement with Iran for 29 TOR-M1 (SA-15
Gauntlet) surface-to-air defense systems for over $700 million. Russia also agreed
to upgrade Iran’s Su-24 and Mig-29 aircraft, as well as their T-72 main battle tanks.
Sales of advanced military equipment to Iran by Russia and others has been an issue
of intense interest to U.S. policymakers for some time, given the hostile relations the
U.S. and Iran have had since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, and the rise to power
of an anti-American government in Tehran. For a period of time, in the mid-1990s,
the Russian government agreed not to make new advanced weapons sales to the
Iranian government. That agreement has since been rescinded by Russia. As the U.S.
1 For detailed background see CRS Report RL33515,Combat Aircraft Sales to South Asia:
Potential Implications; CRS Report RL32115, Missile Proliferation and the Strategic
Balance in South Asia; CRS Report RL30427,Missile Survey: Ballistic and Cruise Missiles
of Selected Foreign Countries.
2 For detailed background see CRS Report RL30700, China’s Foreign Conventional Arms
Acquisitions: Background and Analysis; CRS Report RL33153, China Naval
Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities–Background and Issues for
Congress.
focuses increasing attention on Iran’s efforts to enhance its nuclear as well as
conventional military capabilities, major arms transfers to Iran continue be a matter
of concern.3
Russia in 2005 sold Venezuela 10 Mi-17 and Mi-35 helicopters for about $100
million. Recently, Venezuela’s populist President, Hugo Chavez, has taken a hostile
approach to relations with the United States. Among the actions he has taken that
have raised concerns in the U.S. is his decision to seek advanced military equipment
from Russia. Since Venezuela has major oil reserves, Chavez has the financial
resources to pay for such equipment. He has made clear that he plans to obtain
significant new weapons systems from Russia.4
China.
The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s provided the opportunity for China to become
an important supplier of less expensive weapons to certain developing nations. In
that conflict China demonstrated that it was willing to provide arms to both
combatants in the war, in quantity and without conditions. From 2002-2005, the
value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations averaged about
$950 million annually, a figure inflated by a very large agreements total in 2005.
During the period of this report, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with
developing nations peaked in 1999 at $3 billion. Its sales figures that year resulted
generally from several smaller valued weapons deals in Asia, Africa, and the Near
East, rather than one or two especially large sales of major weapons systems. Similar
arms deals with small scale purchasers in these regions are continuing. In 2005,
China’s arms transfer agreements total was $2.1 billion, with an important portion
of that total attributable to the sale of frigates and jet aircraft to Pakistan, a client of
long standing (tables 1A, 1G and 1H)(chart 3).
There are few clients with financial resources that have sought to purchase
Chinese military equipment during the eight year period of this report, because most
Chinese weapons for export are less advanced and sophisticated than weaponry
available from Western suppliers or Russia. Thus, China does not appear likely to
be a major supplier of conventional weapons in the international arms market in the
foreseeable future. Its likely clients are states in Asia and Africa seeking quantities
of small arms and light weapons, rather than major combat systems. At the same
time, China has been an important source of missiles in the developing world arms
market. China supplied Silkworm anti-ship missiles to Iran. Credible reports
persist in various publications that China has sold surface-to-surface missiles to
Pakistan, a traditional client. Iran and North Korea have also reportedly received
Chinese missile technology, which has increased their capabilities to threaten other
countries in their respective neighborhoods. The continued reporting of such
activities by credible sources raise important questions about China’s stated
commitment to the restrictions on missile transfers set out in the Missile Technology
3 For detailed background see CRS Report RL30551, Iran: Arms and Weapons of Mass
Destruction Suppliers.
4 For detailed background on Chavez’s policy initiatives in Venezuela, and U.S. concerns
see CRS Report RL32488, Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S. Policy.
Control Regime (MTCR), including its pledge not to assist others in building
missiles that could deliver nuclear weapons. Given the fact that it has some military
products — particularly missiles — that some developing countries would like to
acquire, China can present an obstacle to efforts to stem proliferation of advanced
missile systems to some areas of the developing world where political and military
tensions are significant, and where some nations are seeking to develop asymmetric
military capabilities.5
China, among others, has been a key source of a variety of small arms and light
weapons transferred to African states. While the prospects for significant revenue
earnings from these arms sales is small, China views this as one means of enhancing
its status as an international political power, and especially to obtain access to
significant natural resources, especially oil. Controlling the sales of small arms and
light weapons to regions of conflict, in particular to some African nations, has been
a matter of concern to the United States. Efforts to do so have also been a topic of
focus by the United Nations.6
Major West European Suppliers.
Apart from the United States and Russia, the four major West European arms
suppliers--France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy--are the states that can
supply a wide variety of more highly sophisticated weapons to would-be purchasers.
They can serve as alternative sources of armaments that the United States chooses
not to supply for policy reasons. As an example, the United Kingdom sold major
combat fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s, when the U.S. chose not to
sell a comparable aircraft for policy reasons. These nations have been close allies of
the United States especially during the Cold War, and all are members of NATO.
However, in the post-Cold War era, their national defense export policies have not
been fully coordinated with the United States as likely would have been the case at
the Cold War’s height.
These arms supplying states, particularly France, view arms sales foremost as
a matter for national decision. France has also frequently used foreign military sales
as an important means for underwriting development and procurement of weapons
systems for its own military forces. So the potential exists for policy differences
between the United States and major West European supplying states over
conventional weapons transfers to specific countries. A recent example of such a
conflict was the effort led by France and Germany to lift the arms embargo on arms
sales to China currently adhered to by members of the European Union. The United
5 For detailed background on the MTCR and proliferation control regimes and related policy
issues see CRS Report RL31559, Proliferation Control Regimes: Background and Status,
and CRS Report RL31848, Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and International
Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC): Background and Issues for
Congress.
6 For background on China’s actions and motivations for increased activities in Africa see
CRS Report RL33055, China and Sub-Saharan Africa. For background on U.S. policy
concerns regarding small arms and light weapons transfers see CRS Report RS20958,
International Small Arms and Light Weapons Transfers: U.S. Policy.
States viewed this as a misguided effort, and vigorously opposed it. The proposal to
lift the embargo was ultimately not adopted, but it proved to be a source of
significant tension between the U.S. and the European Union. Thus, arms sales
activities of major European suppliers continue to be of interest to U.S.
policymakers, given their capability to make sales of advanced military equipment
to countries of concern to U.S. national security policy.7
The four major West European suppliers (France, the United Kingdom,
Germany, and Italy), as a group, registered a significant increase in their collective
share of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations between 2004 and
2005. This group’s share rose from 22.3% in 2004 to 34.1% in 2005. The collective
value of this group’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations in 2005 was
$10.3 billion compared with a total of about $5.9 billion in 2004. Of these four
nations, France was the leading supplier with $6.3 billion in agreements in 2005, a
substantial increase from $1 billion in agreements in 2004. A portion of France’s
total in 2005 was attributable to a $3.5 billion agreement with India for 6 Scorpene
diesel attack submarines. The United Kingdom registered $2.8 billion in arms
agreements in 2005, a significant portion reflects orders placed under the Al
Yamamah military procurement arrangement with Saudi Arabia. Germany registered
$700 million in arms agreements in 2005 based on a number of smaller contracts for
a variety of naval and ground forces equipment, increasing its agreements’ total
notably from $100 million in 2004. Italy registered $500 million in arms transfer
agreements in 2005, based primarily on sales of helicopters to several established
clients (charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A and 1B).
The four major West European suppliers collectively held a 34.1% share of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations during 2005. For several years
after 1998, the major West European suppliers generally lost a share of arms transfer
agreements. More recently this decline was halted, and the 2005 market share of
arms agreements (34.1%) is the highest share the four major West European suppliers
have held since 1998, when they held 41.4% of all arms agreements with developing
nations. During the 2002-2005 period, they collectively held 20.1% of all arms
transfer agreements with developing nations ($18.8 billion). Individual suppliers
within the major West European group have had notable years for arms agreements,
especially France in 1998 and 2005 ($6.7 billion and $6.3 billion respectively). The
United Kingdom also had large agreement years in 2004 ($4.1 billion), and $2.8
billion in 2005. Germany concluded arms agreements totaling $1.7 billion in 1998,
with its highest total at $1.9 billion in 1999. For each of these three nations, large
agreement totals in one year have usually reflected the conclusion of very large arms
contracts with one or more major purchasers in that particular year (table 1A and
7 For detailed background see CRS Report RL32870, European Union’s Arms Embargo on
China: Implications and Options for U.S. Policy. It should be noted that members of the
European Union, and others, have agreed to a common effort to attempt some degree of
control on the transfer of certain weapons systems, but the principal vehicle for this
cooperation–the Wassenaar Arrangement--lacks a mechanism to enforce its rules. For
detailed background see CRS Report RS20517, Military Technology and Conventional
Weapons Exports Controls: The Wassenaar Arrangement.
Major West European suppliers have had their competitive position in weapons
exports strengthened over the years through strong government marketing support for
their foreign arms sales. Since they can produce both advanced and basic air, ground,
and naval weapons systems, the four major West European suppliers have competed
successfully for arms sales contracts with developing nations against both the United
States, which has tended to sell to several of the same clients, and with Russia, which
has sold to nations not traditional customers of either the West Europeans or the U.S.
However, the demand for U.S. weapons in the global arms marketplace, from a large
established client base, has created a more difficult environment for individual West
European suppliers to secure large new contracts with developing nations on a
sustained basis.
The prospect of continuing strong demand for U.S. defense equipment as well
as concern for maintaining their market share of the arms trade has led European
Union (EU) member states to adopt a new code of conduct for defense procurement
practices. This code was agreed to on November 21, 2005 at the European Defense
Agency’s (EA) steering board meeting. Currently voluntary, the EU hopes it will
become mandatory, and through its mechanisms foster greater competition within the
European defense equipment sector in the awarding of contracts for defense items.
The larger hope is that by fostering greater intra-European cooperation and
collaboration in defense contracting, and the resulting programs, that the defense
industrial bases of individual EU states will be preserved, and the ability of European
defense firms to compete for arms sales in the international arms marketplace will
be substantially enhanced.
This development coincides with a period when some European arms suppliers
have begun to phase out production of certain types of weapons systems. Such
suppliers have increasingly engaged in joint production ventures with other key
European weapons suppliers or even client countries in an effort to sustain major
sectors of their individual defense industrial bases--even if a substantial portion of
the weapons produced are for their own armed forces. The Eurofighter project is one
example; Eurocopter is another. Other European suppliers have also adopted the
strategy of cooperating in defense production ventures with the United States such
as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), rather than attempting to compete directly, thereby
meeting their own requirements for advanced combat aircraft, while positioning
themselves to share in profits resulting from future sales of this new fighter aircraft.8
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements
The markets for arms in regions of the developing world have traditionally been
dominated by the Near East and by Asia. Nations in the Latin America and Africa
regions, by contrast, have not been major purchasers of weapons. The regional arms
agreement data tables in this report demonstrate this. United States policymakers
have placed emphasis on helping to maintain stability throughout the regions of the
developing world. Thus, the U.S. has made and supported arms sales and transfers
it has believed would advance that goal, while discouraging significant sales by other
8 For detailed background on issues relating to the Joint Strike Fighter program see CRS
Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status, and Issues.
suppliers to states and regions where military threats to nations in the area are
minimal. Other arms suppliers do not necessarily share the U.S. perspective on what
constitutes an appropriate arms sale. For in some instances the financial benefit of the
sale to the supplier trumps other considerations. The regional and country specific
arms transfer data in this report provide an indication of where various arms suppliers
are focusing their attention, and who their principal clients are. By reviewing these
data, policymakers can identify potential developments which may be of concern, and
use this information to assist their review of options they may choose to consider
given the circumstances. What follows below is a review of data on arms transfer
agreement activities in the two regions that lead in arms acquisitions, the Near East
and Asia. This is followed, in turn, by a review of data regarding the leading arms
purchasers in the developing world.
Near East.9
The principal catalyst for new weapons procurements in the Near East region
in the last decade was the Persian Gulf crisis of August 1990-February 1991. This
crisis, culminating in a war to expel Iraq from Kuwait, created new demands by key
purchasers such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and other
members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), for a variety of advanced weapons
systems. Egypt and Israel continued their modernization and increased their weapons
purchases from the United States. The Gulf states’ arms purchase demands were not
only a response to Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait, but a reflection of concerns
regarding perceived threats from a potentially hostile Iran. Since the fall of Saddam
Hussein, for many the conventional ground threat from Iraq has diminished and the
perceived threat from Iran has increased. This has led the GCC states to emphasize10
acquisition of air and naval defense capabilities over major ground combat systems.
In recent years, the position of Saudi Arabia as principal arms purchaser in the
Persian Gulf region has declined from the extraordinarily high levels of the late
1980s and early 1990s. In the period from 1998-2001, Saudi Arabia’s total arms
agreements were valued at $5.7 billion (in current dollars), less than the levels of the
U.A.E., Egypt and Israel. For the period from 2002-2005, Saudi Arabia’s total arms
agreements were $8.9 billion (in current dollars), making it the leading Near East
purchaser once again.
The Near East has historically been the largest arms market in the developing
world. In 1998-2001, it accounted for 45.8% of the total value of all developing
nations arms transfer agreements (about $40.4 billion in current dollars), ranking it
first ahead of Asia which was second with about 39% of these agreements. However,
during 2002-2005, the Asia region accounted for 48.4% of all such agreements
(about $43.6 billion in current dollars), placing it first in arms agreements with the
9 In this report the Near East region includes the following nations: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt,
Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. The countries included in the other
geographic regions are listed at the end of the report.
10 For detailed background see CRS Report RL31533, The Persian Gulf States: Issues for
U.S. Policy, 2006.
developing world. The Near East region ranked second with $35.1 billion in
agreements or 39% (tables 1C and 1D).
The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East
during the 1998-2001 period with 64.8% of their total value ($26.2 billion in current
dollars). France was second during these years with 14.6% ($5.9 billion in current
dollars). Recently, from 2002-2005, the United States accounted for 50.2% of arms
agreements with this region ($17.6 billion in current dollars), while the United
Kingdom accounted for 14% of the region’s agreements ($4.9 billion in current
dollars). Russia accounted for 12.2% of the region’s agreements in the most recent
period ($4.3 billion in current dollars) (chart 5)(tables 1C and 1E).
Asia.
In Asia, efforts in several developing nations have been focused on
upgrading and modernizing defense forces, and this has led to new conventional
weapons sales in that region. Since the mid-1990s, Russia has become the principal
supplier of advanced conventional weaponry to China — selling fighters,
submarines, destroyers, and missiles — while maintaining its position as principal
arms supplier to India. Russia has also made progress in expanding its client base in
Asia, receiving aircraft orders from Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. India has also
expanded its weapons supplier base, purchasing the Phalcon early warning defense
system aircraft in 2004 from Israel for $1.1 billion, and a myriad of items from
France in 2005, in particular 6 Scorpene diesel attack submarines for $3.5 billion.
The data on regional arms transfer agreements from 1998-2005 continue to reflect
that Near East and Asian nations are the primary sources of orders for conventional
weaponry in the developing world.
Asia has historically been the second largest developing world arms market.
Yet in 2002-2005, Asia ranked first, accounting for 48.4% of the total value of all
arms transfer agreements with developing nations ($43.6 billion in current dollars).
In the earlier period, 1998-2001, the region accounted for 39% of all such agreements
($34.4 billion in current dollars), ranking second. (tables 1C and 1D).
In the earlier period (1998-2001), Russia ranked first in the value of arms
transfer agreements with Asia with 38.1% ($13.1 billion in current dollars). The
United States ranked second with 23.5% ($8.1 billion in current dollars). The major
West European suppliers, as a group, made 20.1% of this region’s agreements in
1998-2001. In the later period (2002-2005), Russia ranked first in Asian agreements
with 36.7% ($16 billion in current dollars), primarily due to major combat aircraft,
and naval system sales to India and China. The United States ranked second with
26.5% ($11.6 billion in current dollars). The major West European suppliers, as a
group, made 18.4% of this region’s agreements in 2002-2005. (Chart 6)(table 1E).
Leading Developing Nations Arms Purchasers
India was the leading developing world arms purchaser from 1998-2005,
making arms transfer agreements totaling $20.7 billion during these years (in current
dollars). In the 1998-2001 period, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ranked first in
arms transfer agreements at $13.8 billion (in current dollars). In 2002-2005 India
ranked first in arms transfer agreements, with a substantial increase to $12.9 billion
from $7.8 billion in the earlier 1998-2001 period (in current dollars). This increase
reflects the continuation of a military modernization effort by India, underway since
the 1990s, and based primarily on major arms agreements with Russia. The total
value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from 1998-2005 was
$177.8 billion in current dollars. Thus India alone accounted for 11.6% of all
developing world arms transfer agreements during these eight years. In the most
recent period, 2002-2005, India made $12.9 billion in arms transfer agreements (in
current dollars). This total constituted 14.4% of all arm transfer agreements with
developing nations during these four years ($89.8 billion in current dollars). China
ranked second in arms transfer agreements during 2002-2005 with $10.2 billion (in
current dollars), or 11.4% of the value of all developing world arms transfer
agreements (tables 1, 1I and 1J).
During 1998-2001, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 69% of all
developing world arms transfer agreements. During 2002-2005, the top ten recipients
collectively accounted for 67.1% of all such agreements. Arms transfer agreements
with the top ten developing world recipients, as a group, totaled $21.9 billion in 2005
or 72.6% of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations in that year. These
percentages reflect the continued concentration of major arms purchases by
developing nations among a few countries (tables 1, 1I and 1J).
India ranked first among all developing world recipients in the value of arms
transfer agreements in 2005, concluding $5.4 billion in such agreements. Saudi
Arabia ranked second in agreements at $3.4 billion. China ranked third with $2.8
billion in agreements. Four of the top ten recipients were in the Near East region;
three were in the Asian region; two were in the Latin American region (table 1J).11
Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries among developing
world recipients in 2005, receiving $3.5 billion in such deliveries. Israel ranked
second in arms deliveries in 2005 with $1.7 billion. India ranked third with $1.6
billion (table 2J).
Arms deliveries to the top ten developing nation recipients, as a group, were
valued at $13.8 billion, or 77.9% of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2005.
Six of these top ten recipients were in Asia; four were in the Near East (tables 2 and
Weapons Types Recently Delivered to Near East Nations
Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply and type
of conventional weaponry actually transferred to developing nations. Even though
the United States, Russia, and the four major West European suppliers dominate in
the delivery of the fourteen classes of weapons examined, it is also evident that the
other European suppliers and some non-European suppliers, including China, are
11 For countries included in the Asia region and the Latin American region see the listings
of nations by regions given at the end of this report.
capable of being leading suppliers of selected types of conventional armaments to
developing nations (tables 3-7) (pages 72-76).
Weapons deliveries to the Near East, historically the largest purchasing region
in the developing world, reflect the substantial quantities and types delivered by both
major and lesser suppliers. The following is an illustrative summary of weapons
deliveries to this region for the period 2001-2005 from table 5 (page 74):
United States.
!375 tanks and self-propelled guns
!34 APCs and armored cars
!2 major surface combatants
!4 minor surface combatants
!65 supersonic combat aircraft
!20 helicopters
!519 surface-to-air missiles
!132 anti-ship missiles
Russia.
!10 tanks and self-propelled guns
!120 APCs and armored cars
!30 supersonic combat aircraft
!40 helicopters
!1,170 surface-to-air missiles
China.
!20 artillery pieces
!5 minor surface combatants
!60 anti-ship missiles
Major West European Suppliers.
!140 tanks and self-propelled guns
!60 APCs and armored cars
!5 major surface combatants
!35 minor surface combatants
!11 guided missile boats
!30 supersonic combat aircraft
!30 helicopters
!40 anti-ship missiles
All Other European Suppliers.
!320 tanks and self-propelled guns
!270 APCs and armored cars
!1 major surface combatant
!32 minor surface combatants
!10 supersonic combat aircraft
!20 helicopters
!260 surface-to-air missiles
All Other Suppliers.
!500 APCs and armored cars
!116 minor surface combatants
!20 helicopters
!40 surface-to-surface missiles
!20 anti-ship missiles
Large numbers of major combat systems were delivered to the Near East region
from 2002-2005, specifically, tanks and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, major
and minor surface combatants, supersonic combat aircraft, helicopters, air defense
and anti-ship missiles. The United States and Russia made significant deliveries of
supersonic combat aircraft and anti-ship missiles to the region. The United States,
Russia, and European suppliers in general were principal suppliers of tanks and self-
propelled guns, APCs and armored cars, surface-to-air missiles, as well as
helicopters. Three of these weapons categories — supersonic combat aircraft,
helicopters, and tanks and self-propelled guns — are especially costly and are a large
portion of the dollar values of arms deliveries by the United States, Russia, and
European suppliers to the Near East region during the 2002-2005 period.
The cost of naval combatants is also generally high, and the suppliers of such
systems during this period had their delivery value totals notably increased due to
these transfers. Some of the less expensive weapons systems delivered to the Near
East are deadly and can create important security threats within the region. In
particular, from 2002-2005, the United States delivered 132 anti-ship missiles to the
Near East region, China delivered 60, and the four major West European suppliers
delivered 40. The United States delivered two major surface combatants and four
minor surface combatants to the Near East, while the major West European suppliers
collectively delivered 5 major surface combatants, 35 minor surface combatants and
11 guided missile boats. Other non-European suppliers collectively delivered 116
minor surface combatants, as well as 40 surface-to-surface missiles, a weapons
category not delivered by any of the other major weapons suppliers during this period
to any region.
UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL ARMS EXPORTS
United States commercially licensed arms deliveries data are not included in
this report. The United States is the only major arms supplier that has two distinct
systems for the export of weapons: the government-to-government Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) system, and the licensed commercial export system. It
should be noted that data maintained on U.S. commercial sales agreements and
deliveries are incomplete, and are not collected or revised on an on-going basis,
making them significantly less precise than those for the U.S. FMS program —
which accounts for the overwhelming portion of U.S. conventional arms transfer
agreements and deliveries involving weapons systems. There are no official
compilations of commercial agreement data comparable to that for the FMS
program maintained on an annual basis. Once an exporter receives from the State
Department a commercial license authorization to sell — valid for four years —
there is no current requirement that the exporter provide to the State Department,
on a systematic and on-going basis, comprehensive details regarding any sales
contract that results from the license authorization, including if any such contract
is reduced in scope or cancelled. Nor is the exporter required to report that no
contract with the prospective buyer resulted.
Annual commercially licensed arms deliveries data are obtained from
shipper’s export documents and completed licenses from ports of exit by the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Agency which are then provided to the U.S.
Census Bureau. The Census Bureau takes these arms export data, and, following
a minimal review of them, submits them to the Directorate of Defense Trade
Controls in the Politico-Military Bureau (PM/DDTC) of the State Department,
which makes the final compilation of such data — details of which are not
publicly available. Once compiled by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
at the State Department, these commercially licensed arms deliveries data are not
revised. By contrast, the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program data, for
both agreements and deliveries, maintained by the Defense Department, are
systematically collected, reviewed for accuracy on an on-going basis, and are
revised from year-to-year as needed to reflect any changes or to correct any errors
in the information. This report includes all FMS deliveries data. By excluding
U.S. commercial licensed arms deliveries data, the U.S. arms delivery totals will
be understated.
Some have suggested that a systematic data collection and reporting system
for commercial licensed exports, comparable to the one which exists now in the
Department of Defense, should be established by the Department of State. Having
current and comprehensive agreement and delivery data on commercially licensed
exports would provide a more complete picture of the U.S. arms export trade, and
thus facilitate Congressional oversight of this sector of U.S. exports.
Summary of Data Trends, 1998-2005
Tables 1 through 1J (pages 47-57) present data on arms transfer agreements
with developing nations by major suppliers from 1998-2005. These data show the
most recent trends in arms contract activity by major suppliers. Delivery data, which
reflect implementation of sales decisions taken earlier, are shown in tables 2
through 2J (pages 58-68). Tables 8, 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D (pages 79-83) provide data
on worldwide arms transfer agreements from 1998-2005, while tables 9, 9A, 9B, 9C
and 9D (pages 84-88) provide data on worldwide arms deliveries during this period.
To use these data regarding agreements for purposes other than assessing general
trends in seller/buyer activity is to risk drawing conclusions that can be readily
invalidated by future events — precise values and comparisons, for example, may
change due to cancellations or modifications of major arms transfer agreements.
These data sets reflect the comparative magnitude of arms transactions by arms
suppliers with recipient nations expressed in constant dollar terms, unless otherwise
noted.
What follows is a detailed summary of data trends from the tables in the report.
The summary statements also reference tables and/or charts pertinent to the point(s)
noted. Where graphic representations of some major points are made in individual
charts, their underlying data are taken from the pertinent tables of this report.
Total Developing Nations Arms Transfer Agreement Values
Table 1 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements with
developing nations. Since these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation, they
are, by themselves, of somewhat limited use. They provide, however, the data from
which table 1A (constant dollars) and table 1B (supplier percentages) are derived.
Some of the more noteworthy facts reflected by these data are summarized below.
!The value of all arms transfer agreements with developing nations
in 2005 was $30.2 billion. This was a substantial increase over
2004, and the highest total, in real terms, for arms transfer
agreements with developing nations during the 1998-2005 period
(tables 1 and 1A)(chart 1).
!The total value of United States agreements with developing nations
fell significantly from $9.4 billion in 2004 to $6.2 billion in 2005.
The United States’ share of all developing world arms transfer
agreements also fell significantly from 35.5% in 2004 to 20.5% in
!In 2005, the total value, in real terms, of Russian arms transfer
agreements with developing nations increased notably from the
previous year, rising from $5.4 billion in 2004 to $7 billion in 2005.
The Russian share of all such agreements increased from 20.3% in
Chart 1. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide, 1998-2005
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared
In billions of constant
2005 dollars
50
Developed World
45Developing World
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
19 98 1999 2000 2001 2002 20 03 20 04 20 05
Source: U.S. Government
Chart 2. Arms Transfer Agreements Worldwide
(supplier percentage of value)
Chart 3. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations
(supplier percentage of value)
Chart 4. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations by Major Supplier, 1998-2005
(billions of constant 2005 dollars)
RussiaUnited States
14
12
10
8
8
6
6
44
22
00
1998 1999 20 00 2001 2002 2003 2004 20051998 1999 20 00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Major West EuropeanAll Others
14
12
10
88
66
44
22
00
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1998 1999 20 00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Source: U.S. Government
Figure 1. Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements, 1998-2005 and
Suppliers’ Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide AgreementsPercentage of Total with
SupplierValue 1998-2001Developing World
United States51,33580.80
Russia 21,863 90.20
France 19,744 58.60
United Kingdom5,58951.30
China6,35496.60
Germany 13,583 35.90
Italy3,14429.80
All Other European17,33451.80
All Others9,90174.20
TOTAL 148,847 69.30
Worldwide AgreementsPercentage of Total with
SupplierValue 2002-2005Developing World
United States55,88759.50
Russia 23,791 95.60
France 13,511 64.60
United Kingdom10,49773.33
China 3,793 100.00
Germany 5,844 15.60
Italy2,98748.20
All Other European19,76543.50
All Others9,19768.00
TOTAL 145,272 64.30
Worldwide AgreementsPercentage of Total with
SupplierValue 2005Developing World
United States12,75848.50
Russia 7,400 94.60
France 7,900 79.70
United Kingdom2,800100.00
China 2,100 100.00
Germany 1,500 46.70
Italy1,40035.70
All Other European5,90055.90
All Others2,40054.20
TOTAL 44,158 68.40
Source: U.S. Government
!The four major West European suppliers, as a group (France, United
Kingdom, Germany, Italy), registered a significant increase in their
collective share of all arms transfer agreements with developing
nations between 2004 and 2005. This group’s share rose
significantly from 22.3% in 2004 to 34.1% in 2005. The collective
value of this group’s arms transfer agreements with developing
nations in 2005 was $10.3 billion compared with a total of $5.9
billion in 2004 (tables 1A and 1B)(charts 3 and 4).
!France registered a substantial increase in its share of all arms
transfer agreements with developing nations, rising from 3.9% in
2004 to 20.9% in 2005. The value of its agreements with developing
nations rose dramatically from $1 billion in 2004 to $6.3 billion in
!In 2005, Russia ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations at $7 billion. France ranked second at $6.3
billion. The United States ranked third with nearly $6.2 billion
(charts 3 and 4)(tables 1A, 1B and 1G).
Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, 1998-2005
Table 1C gives the values of arms transfer agreements between suppliers and
individual regions of the developing world for the periods 1998-2001 and 2002-2005.
These values are expressed in current U.S. dollars.12 Table 1D, derived from Table
1C, gives the percentage distribution of each supplier’s agreement values within the
regions for the two time periods. Table 1E, also derived from Table 1C, illustrates
what percentage share of each developing world region’s total arms transfer
agreements was held by specific suppliers during the years 1998-2001 and 2002-
Near East.
!The Near East has historically been the largest arms market in the
developing world. In 1998-2001, it accounted for nearly 45.8% of
the total value of all developing nations arms transfer agreements
(about $40.4 billion in current dollars), ranking it first ahead of Asia
which was second with about 39% of these agreements. However,
during 2002-2005, the Asia region accounted for 48.4% of all such
agreements ($43.6 billion in current dollars), placing it first in arms
agreements with the developing world. The Near East region ranked
second with $35.1 billion in agreements or 39% during 2002-2005
(tables 1C and 1D).
!The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near
East during the 1998-2001 period with 64.8% of their total value
12 Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they are
expressed in current dollar terms.
($26.2 billion in current dollars). France was second during these
years with 14.6% ($5.9 billion). Recently, from 2002-2005, the
United States accounted for 50.2% of the value of arms agreements
with this region ($17.6 billion), while the United Kingdom
accounted for 14% of the value of the region’s agreements ($4.9)
billion. Russia accounted for 12.2% of the value of the region’s
arms agreements from 2002-2005 ($4.3 billion)(chart 5)(tables 1C
and 1E).
!For the period 1998-2001, the United States maintained 73.8% of
the value of its developing world arms transfer agreements with the
Near East. In 2002-2005, the U.S. had 55.7% of the value of its
agreements with this region (table 1D).
!For the period 1998-2001, the four major West European suppliers
collectively made 38.2% of the value of their developing world arms
transfer agreements with the Near East. In 2002-2005, the major
West Europeans made 46.5% of their arms agreements with the Near
East (table 1D) .
!For the period 1998-2001, France concluded 60.2% of the value of
its developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East.
In 2002-2005, France made 29.6% of its agreements with the Near
East (table 1D).
!For the period 1998-2001, the United Kingdom concluded 16.7% of
the value of its developing world arms transfer agreements with the
Near East. In 2002-2005, the United Kingdom made 65.3% of its
agreements with the Near East (table 1D).
!For the period 1998-2001, China concluded 19.2% of the value of its
developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East. In
2002-2005, China made 27% of its agreements with the Near East
(table 1D).
!For the period 1998-2001, Russia concluded 14.6% of the value of
its developing world arms transfer agreements with the Near East.
In 2002-2005, Russia made 19.9% of its agreements with the Near
East (table 1D).
!In the earlier period (1998-2001), by value, the United States ranked
first in arms transfer agreements with the Near East with 64.8%.
France ranked second with 14.6%. Russia ranked third with 6.2%.
The major West European suppliers, as a group, made 16.1% of this
region’s agreements in 1998-2001. In the later period (2002-2005),
by value, the United States again ranked first in Near East
agreements with 50.2%. The United Kingdom ranked second with
14%. Russia ranked third with 12.2%. The major West European
suppliers, as a group, made 24.8% of this region’s agreements in
Asia.
!Asia has historically been the second largest market for arms in the
developing world. Yet in 2002-2005, Asia ranked first, with 48.4%
of the total value of all arms transfer agreements with developing
nations ($43.6 billion in current dollars). In the earlier period, 1998-
2001, the region accounted for 39% of all such agreements ($34.4
billion in current dollars), ranking second (tables 1C and 1D).
Chart 5. Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East
(supplier percentage of value)
Chart 6. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in Asia
(supplier percentage of value)
(excludes Japan, Australia, and New Zealand)
!In the earlier period (1998-2001), Russia ranked first in the value of
arms transfer agreements with Asia with 38.1% ($13.1 billion). The
United States ranked second with 23.5% ($8.1 billion). The major
West European suppliers, as a group, made 20.1% of this region’s
agreements in 1998-2001. In the later period (2002-2005), Russia
ranked first in Asian agreements with 36.7% ($16 billion), primarily
due to major combat aircraft and naval craft sales to India and China.
The United States ranked second with 26.5% ($11.6 billion). The
major West European suppliers, as a group, made 18.4% of this
region’s agreements in 2002-2005. (Chart 6)(table 1E).
Latin America.
!In the earlier period, 1998-2001, the United States ranked first in
arms transfer agreements with Latin America with 31.4%. Russia
ranked second with 8.2%. The major West European suppliers, as
a group, made 11% of this region’s agreements in 1998-2001. In the
later period, 2002-2005, the United States ranked first with 31%.
Russia ranked second with 8.1%. All other non-European suppliers
collectively made 40.6% of the region’s agreements in 2002-2005.
Latin America registered an enormous increase in the total value of
its arms transfer agreements from 1998-2001 to 2002-2005 rising
from $3.6 billion in the earlier period to $7.4 billion in the latter,
more than doubling the value of their arms agreements (tables 1C
and 1E).
Africa.
!In the earlier period, 1998-2001, Germany ranked first in agreements
with Africa with 16.3% ($1.6 billion). Russia was second with
12.3% ($1.2 billion). China was third with 10.2%. The non-major
European suppliers, as a group, made 33.7% of the region’s
agreements in 1998-2001. The United States made 1%. In the later
period, 2002-2005, France was first in agreements with 22.7%
($900 million). Russia was second with 17.7% ($700 million).
China ranked third with 15.2% ($600 million). The major West
European suppliers, as a group, made 30.3% of this region’s
agreements in 2002-2005 ($1.2 billion). All other European
suppliers collectively made 20.2% ($800 million). The United
States made 4% ($157 million). Africa registered a notable decline
in the total value of its arms transfer agreements from 1998-2001 to
2002-2005, falling from $9.8 billion in the earlier period to about $4
billion in the latter. This decline is attributable to the completion of
large arms orders of South Africa during 1998-2001, as part of its
defense modernization program (tables 1C and 1E).
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations,
1998-2005: Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1F gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the developing
nations from 1998-2005 by the top eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers
on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective agreements with the
developing world for each of three periods — 1998-2001, 2002-2005 and 1998-2005.
Among the facts reflected in this table are the following:
!The United States ranked first among all suppliers to developing
nations in the value of arms transfer agreements from 2002-2005
($31.6 billion), and first for the entire period from 1998-2005 ($67.1
billion).
!Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in
the value of arms transfer agreements from 2002-2005 ($21.8
billion), and second from 1998-2005 ($38.8 billion).
!France ranked third among all suppliers to developing nations in the
value of arms transfer agreements from 2002-2005 ($8.6 billion),
and third from 1998-2005 ($18.3 billion).
!The United Kingdom ranked fourth among all suppliers to
developing nations in the value of arms transfer agreements from
!China ranked fifth among all suppliers to developing nations in the
value of arms transfer agreements from 2002-2005 ($3.7 million),
and fifth from 1998-2005 ($8.3 billion).
Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 1G ranks and gives for 2005 the values of arms transfer agreements with
developing nations of the top eleven suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
!Russia, France, and the United States, the top three arms suppliers
— ranked by the value of their arms transfer agreements — in 2005
collectively made agreements valued at nearly $19.5 billion, 64.5%
of all arms transfer agreements made with developing nations by all
suppliers in that year ($30.2 billion).
!In 2005, Russia ranked first in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations, making $7 billion in such agreements, or 23.2%
of them.
!France ranked second and the United States third in arms transfer
agreements with developing nations in 2005, making $6.3 billion
and $6.2 billion in such agreements respectively.
!The United Kingdom ranked fourth in arms transfer agreements with
developing nations in 2005, making $2.8 billion in such agreements,
while Spain ranked fifth with $2.2 billion.
Arms Transfer Agreements With Near East 1998-2005:
Suppliers And Recipients
Table 1H gives the values of arms transfer agreements with the Near East
nations by suppliers or categories of suppliers for the periods 1998-2001 and 2002-
2005. These values are expressed in current U.S. dollars. They are a subset of the
data contained in Table 1 and Table 1C. Among the facts reflected by this table are
the following:
!For the most recent period, 2002-2005, the principal purchasers of
U.S. arms in the Near East region, based on the value of agreements
were: Egypt ($5.2 billion), Saudi Arabia ($4.2 billion), and Israel
($2.5 billion). The principal purchasers of Russian arms were: Iran
($1.7 million), Syria ($800 million),Yemen ($500 million), Libya,
and Israel ($300 million each). The principal purchasers of arms
from China were Egypt ($400 million), Iran ($300 million), and
Saudi Arabia ($200 million). The principal purchasers of arms from
the four major West European suppliers, as a group, were: Saudi
Arabia($4.5 billion); the U.A.E. ($2 billion), and Oman ($1.2
billion). The principal purchasers of arms from all other European
suppliers collectively were the Iraq ($500 million) Egypt ($400
million), and Jordan ($300 million). The principal purchasers of
arms from all other suppliers combined were Syria ($500 million),
and Morocco ($200 million).
!For the period from 2002-2005, Saudi Arabia made $8.9 billion in
arms transfer agreements. Its major suppliers were the four major
West European suppliers collectively ($4.5 billion), and the United
States ($4.2 billion). Egypt made $6.1 billion in arms transfer
agreements. Its principal supplier was the United States ($5.2
billion). The U.A.E. made $3.8 billion in arms transfer agreements.
Its principal suppliers were: the four major West European suppliers
collectively ($2 billion) and the United States ($1.3 billion). Israel
made $2.9 billion in arms agreements. Its principal supplier was the
United States ($2.5 billion).
!The total value of arms transfer agreements by Russia with Iran
increased substantially from $300 million in 1998-2001 to $1.7
billion in 2002-2005. The value of China’s arms transfer
agreements with Iran rose from essentially nil in 1998-2001 to $300
million in the 2002-2005 period.
!The value of arms transfer agreements by the United States with
Saudi Arabia fell slightly from the 1998-2001 period to the 2002-
2005 period, declining from $4.4 billion in the earlier period to $4.2
billion in the later period. Saudi Arabia made 47.2% of all its arms
transfer agreements with the United States during 2002-2005.
Meanwhile, arms transfer agreements by the United Arab Emirates
(U.A.E.) with all suppliers collectively decreased by a substantial
degree from 1998-2001 to 2002-2005, falling from $13.8 billion to
$3.8 billion.
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 1I gives the values of arms transfer agreements made by the top ten
recipients of arms in the developing world from 1998-2005 with all suppliers
collectively. The table ranks recipients on the basis of the total current dollar values
of their respective agreements with all suppliers for each of three periods — 1998-
2001, 2002-2005 and 1998-2005. Among the facts reflected in this table are the
following:
!India was the leading developing world arms purchaser from 1998-
2005, making arms transfer agreements totaling $20.7 billion during
these years (in current dollars). In the earlier 1998-2001 period, the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) ranked first in arms transfer
agreements at $13.8 billion (in current dollars). In 2002-2005, India
ranked first in arms transfer agreements, with a substantial increase
to $12.9 billion from $7.8 billion in the earlier period (in current
dollars). This increase reflects the continuation of a military
modernization effort of India, beginning in the 1990s, and based
primarily on major arms agreements with Russia. The total value of
all arms transfer agreements with developing nations from 1998-
2005 was $177.8 billion in current dollars. Thus India alone
accounted for 11.6% of all developing world arms transfer
agreements during these eight years. In the most recent period,
2002-2005, India made $12.9 billion in arms transfer agreements (in
current dollars). This total constituted 14.4% of all arm transfer
agreements with developing nations during 2002-2005, which
totaled $89.8 billion. China ranked second in arms transfer
agreements during 2002-2005 with $10.2 billion (in current dollars),
or 11.4% of the value of all developing world arms transfer
agreements (tables 1, 1H, 1I and 1J).
!During 1998-2001, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for
69% of all developing world arms transfer agreements. During
of all such agreements (tables 1 and 1I).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2005:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 1J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2005. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2005. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
!India ranked first among all developing nations recipients in the
value of arms transfer agreements in 2005, concluding $5.4 billion
in such agreements. Saudi Arabia ranked second with $3.4 billion.
China ranked third with $2.8 billion.
!Four of the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2005 were in the Near East. Three were in Asia. Two
were in Latin America.
!Arms transfer agreements with the top ten developing world
recipients, as a group, in 2005 totaled $21.9 billion or 72.6% of all
such agreements with the developing world,. These percentages
reflect the continuing concentration of arms purchases by developing
world states in a few such states (tables 1 and 1J).
Developing Nations Arms Delivery Values
Table 2 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items
actually transferred) to developing nations by major suppliers from 1998-2005. The
utility of these particular data is that they reflect transfers that have occurred. They
provide the data from which Tables 2A (constant dollars) and Table 2B (supplier
percentages) are derived. Some of the more notable facts illustrated by these data are
summarized below.
!In 2005 the value of all arms deliveries to developing nations ($17.7
billion) was a notable decrease in deliveries values from the previous
year, ($23.6 billion), and the lowest annual deliveries total for the
entire period from 1998-2005 (charts 7 and 8)(table 2A).
!The U.S. share of all deliveries to developing nations in 2005 was
45.8%, a substantial increase from 31.4% in 2004. In 2005, the
United States, for the eighth year in a row, ranked first in the value
of arms deliveries to developing nations ($8.16 billion). The second
leading supplier in 2005 was Russia at $2.7 billion. Russia’s share
of all deliveries to developing nations in 2005 was 15.2%, a notable
decline from 22.7% in 2004. The United Kingdom, the third leading
supplier in 2005, made $2.4 billion in deliveries. The United
Kingdom’s share of all arms deliveries to developing nations in 2005
was 13.6%, up from 10.1% in 2004. The share of major West
European suppliers deliveries to developing nations in 2005 was
!The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers to developing
nations from 2002-2005 ($84.1 billion in constant 2005 dollars) was
dramatically lower than the value of arms deliveries by all suppliers
to developing nations from 1998-2001 ($111.3 billion in constant
!During the years 1998-2005, arms deliveries to developing nations
comprised 68.2% of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2005, the
percentage of arms deliveries to developing nations was 69.9% of all
arms deliveries worldwide (tables 2A and 9A)(figure 2).
Chart 7. Arms Deliveries Worldwide 1998-2005
Developed and Developing Worlds Compared
In billions of constant
2005 dollars
50
Developed World
45Developing World
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Source: U.S. Government
Chart 8. Arms Deliveries to Developing Countries by Major Supplier, 1998-2005
(in billions of constant 2005 dollars)
United StatesRussia
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
All OthersMajor West European
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20051998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
.S. Government
Figure 2. Worldwide Arms Deliveries, 1998-2005 and Suppliers’
Share with Developing World
(in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars)
Worldwide DeliveriesPercentage of Total to
Value Developing World
Suppl i e r 1998-2001
United States63,99365.60
Russia 16,891 86.20
France 19,514 81.40
United Kingdom22,36781.80
China3,50383.40
Germany 6,616 26.70
Italy1,98459.40
All Other European16,82657.90
All Others10,63747.20
TOTAL 162,331 68.60
Worldwide DeliveriesPercentage of Total to
Value Developing World
Suppl i e r 2002-2005
United States45,35063.60
Russia 16,787 96.90
France 11,844 85.70
United Kingdom16,88175.60
China3,45693.90
Germany 5,480 28.60
Italy1,27933.50
All Other European11,71745.10
All Others11,33149.00
TOTAL 124,125 67.80
Worldwide DeliveriesPercentage of Total to
SupplierValue 2005Developing World
United States11,55270.20
Russia 2,800 96.40
France 1,600 81.20
United Kingdom3,10077.40
China90088.90
Germany60033.30
Italy200 0.00
All Other European2,10047.60
All Others2,50048.00
TOTAL 25,352 69.90
Source: U.S. Government
Regional Arms Delivery Values, 1998-2005
Table 2C gives the values of arms deliveries by suppliers to individual regions
of the developing world for the periods 1998-2001 and 2002-2005. These values are
expressed in current U.S. dollars.13 Table 2D, derived from table 2C, gives the
percentage distribution of each supplier’s deliveries values within the regions for the
two time periods. Table 2E, also derived from table 2C, illustrates what percentage
share of each developing world region’s total arms delivery values was held by
specific suppliers during the years 1998-2001 and 2002-2005. Among the facts
reflected in these tables are the following:
Near East.
!The Near East has generally led in the value of arms deliveries
received by the developing world. In 1998-2001, it accounted for
55.4% of the total value of all developing nations deliveries ($52.3
billion in current dollars). During 2002-2005 the region accounted
for 54.5% of all such deliveries ($43.8 billion in current dollars)
(tables 2C and 2D).
!For the period 1998-2001, the United States made 62.4% of its
developing world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 2002-
2005, the United States made 61.6% of its developing world arms
deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).
!For the period 1998-2001, the United Kingdom made 85.9% of its
developing world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 2002-
2005, the United Kingdom made 97.5 of its developing world arms
deliveries to the Near East region (table 2D).
!For the period 1998-2001, 52.6% of France’s arms deliveries to the
developing world were to the Near East region. In the more recent
period, 2002-2005, 84.5% of France’s developing world deliveries
were to nations of the Near East region (table 2D).
!For the period 1998-2001, Russia made 16.7% of its developing
world arms deliveries to the Near East region. In 2002-2005, Russia
made 10.9% of such deliveries to the Near East (table 2D).
!In the earlier period, 1998-2001, the United States ranked first in the
value of arms deliveries to the Near East with 42.4% ($22.2 billion).
The United Kingdom ranked second with 25.6% ($13.4 billion).
France ranked third with 13.4% ($7 billion). The major West
European suppliers, as a group, held 41.1% of this region’s delivery
values in 1998-2001. In the later period (2002-2005), the United
States ranked first in Near East delivery values with 38.84% ($17
13 Because these regional data are composed of four-year aggregate dollar totals, they are
expressed in current dollar terms.
billion). The United Kingdom ranked second with 27.2% ($11.9
billion). France ranked third with 18.7% ($8.2 billion).The major
West European suppliers, as a group, held 46.3% of this region’s
delivery values in 2002-2005 (tables 2C and 2E).
Asia.
!The Asia region has historically ranked second in the value of arms
deliveries. In the earlier period, 1998-2001, 37.1% of all arms
deliveries to developing nations were to those in Asia ($35 billion).
In the later period, 2002-2005, Asia accounted for 38.1% of such
arms deliveries ($30.7 billion). For the period 2002-2005, Russia
made 84.6% of its developing world arms deliveries to Asia. China
made 56.7% of its developing world deliveries to Asia. Germany
made 46.7% of its developing world deliveries to Asia., while the
United States made 33.6% (tables 2C and 2D).
!In the period from 1998-2001, the United States ranked first in the
value of arms deliveries to Asia with 34.5% ($12.1 billion). Russia
ranked second with 26.6% ($9.3 billion in current dollars). France
ranked third with 17.4% ($6.1 billion in current dollars). The major
West European suppliers, as a group, held 25.7% of this region’s
delivery values in 1998-2001 ($9 billion). In the period from 2002-
2005, Russia ranked first in Asian delivery values with 43% ($13.2
billion). The United States ranked second with 30.2% ($9.3 billion)
(tables 2C and 2E).
Latin America.
!In the earlier period, 1998-2001, the value of all arms deliveries to
Latin America was $3.1 billion. The United States ranked first in
the value of arms deliveries to Latin America with 39.2% ($1.2
billion). Germany was second with 9.6% ($300 million). The major
West European suppliers, as a group, held 19.2% of this region’s
delivery values in 1998-2001. In the later period, 2002-2005, the
United States ranked first in Latin American delivery values with
The major West European suppliers, as a group, held 15.5% of this
region’s delivery values in 2002-2005. All other non-European
suppliers combined held 24.8% ($800 million). During 2002-2005,
the value of all arms deliveries to Latin America was $3.2 billion,
nearly the same as the $3.1 billion deliveries total for 1998-2001
(tables 2C and 2E).
Africa.
!In the earlier period, 1998-2001, the value of all arms deliveries to
Africa was nearly $4 billion. Russia ranked first in the value of arms
deliveries to Africa with 25.1% ($1 billion). China ranked second
with 15.1% ($600 million). The non-major West European
suppliers, as a group, held 35.1% of this region’s delivery values in
1998-2001 ($1.4 billion). The United States held 2.1%. In the later
period, 2002-2005, Germany ranked first in African delivery values
with 22% ($600 million). Russia and China tied for second with
18.4% each ($500 million each). The United States held 4.9% in
this later period. The major West European suppliers collectively
held 29.4% ($800 million). All other European suppliers
collectively held 18.4% ($500 million). During the 2002-2005
period, the value of all arms deliveries to Africa decreased notably
from $4 billion in 1998-2001 to $2.7 billion (Tables 2C and 2E).
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2F gives the values of arms deliveries to developing nations from 1998-
2005 by the top eleven suppliers. The table ranks these suppliers on the basis of the
total current dollar values of their respective deliveries to the developing world for
each of three periods — 1998-2001, 2002-2005 and 1998-2005. Among the facts
reflected in this table are the following:
!The United States ranked first among all suppliers to developing
nations in the value of arms deliveries from 2002-2005 ($27.6
billion), and first for the entire period from 1998-2005 ($63.2
billion).
!Russia ranked second among all suppliers to developing nations in
the value of arms deliveries from 2002-2005 ($15.5 billion), and
fourth for the entire period from 1996-2003 ($28 billion).
!The United Kingdom ranked third among all suppliers to developing
nations in the value of arms deliveries from 2002-2005 ($12.1
billion), and third for the entire period from 1998-2005 ($27.7
billion).
Arms Deliveries With Developing Nations in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared
Table 2G ranks and gives for 2005 the values of arms deliveries to developing
nations of the top ten suppliers in current U.S. dollars. Among the facts reflected in
this table are the following:
!The United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom — 2005’s top
three arms suppliers — ranked by the value of their arms deliveries
— collectively made deliveries in 2005 valued at $13.2 billion,
74.6% of all arms deliveries made to developing nations by all
suppliers.
!In 2005, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries
to developing nations, making $8.1 billion in such deliveries, or
!Russia ranked second and the United Kingdom third in deliveries to
developing nations in 2005, making $2.7 billion and $2.4 billion in
such deliveries respectively.
! France ranked fourth in arms deliveries to developing nations in
2005, making $1.3 billion in such deliveries, while China ranked
fifth with $800 million in deliveries.
Arms Deliveries to Near East, 1998-2005:
Suppliers and Recipients
Table 2H gives the values of arms delivered to Near East nations by suppliers
or categories of suppliers for the periods 1998-2001 and 2002-2005. These values
are expressed in current U.S. dollars. They are a subset of the data contained in table
!For the most recent period, 2002-2005, the principal arms recipients
of the United States in the Near East region, based on the value of
their arms deliveries were Egypt ($5.8 billion) Saudi Arabia ($4.4
billion), Israel ($4.4 billion), and Kuwait ($800 million). The
principal arms recipients of Russia were Yemen ($600), Syria, and
the U.A.E. ($300 million each). The principal arms recipients of
China were Egypt ($400 million) and Kuwait ($200 million). The
principal arms recipients of the four major West European suppliers,
as a group, were Saudi Arabia ($13.7 billion) and the U.A.E. ($5.9
billion). The principal arms recipient of all other European suppliers
collectively was Saudi Arabia ($1.5 billion). The principal arms
recipients of all other suppliers, as a group, were Iraq, Kuwait, and
Libya ($200 million each).
!For the period 2002-2005, Saudi Arabia received $19.7 billion in
arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers were the four major West
Europeans, as a group ($13.7 billion), and the United States ($4.4
billion). The U.A.E. received $7.1 billion in arms deliveries. Its
principal suppliers were the four major West Europeans, as a group
($5.9 billion), and the United States ($500 million). Egypt received
$6.5 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was the United
States ($5.8 billion). Israel received $4.5 billion in arms deliveries.
Its principal supplier was the United States ($4.4 billion). Kuwait
received $1.3 billion in arms deliveries. Its principal supplier was
the United States ($800 million). Yemen received $900 million in
arms deliveries. Its principal suppliers was Russia ($600 million
each), and all other non-major European suppliers collectively ($200
million).
!The value of United States arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia declined
dramatically from $12.6 billion in 1998-2001 to $4.4 billion in
2002-2005, as implementation of major orders placed during the
Persian Gulf war era were essentially concluded.
!The value of Russian arms deliveries to Iran declined notably from
the 1998-2001 period to the 2002-2005 period. Russian arms
deliveries fell from $600 million to $100 million.
Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
The Leading Recipients
Table 2I gives the values of arms deliveries made to the top ten recipients of
arms in the developing world from 1998-2005 by all suppliers collectively. The table
ranks recipients on the basis of the total current dollar values of their respective
deliveries from all suppliers for each of three periods — 1998-2001, 2002-2005 and
!Saudi Arabia and China were the top two developing world
recipients of arms from 1998-2005, receiving deliveries valued at
$50.1 billion and $14.3 billion, respectively, during these years. The
total value of all arms deliveries to developing nations from 1998-
Saudi Arabia and Taiwan accounted for 28.7% and 8.2%,
respectively, of all developing world deliveries during these eight
years — together 36.8% of the total. In the most recent period —
2002-2005 — Saudi Arabia and China ranked first and second in the
value of arms received by developing nations ($19.7 billion and $7.7
billion, respectively, in current dollars). Together, Saudi Arabia and
China accounted for 34.2% of all developing world arms deliveries
($27.4 billion out of $80.2 billion — the value of all deliveries to
developing nations in 2002-2005 (in current dollars).
!For the 2002-2005 period, Saudi Arabia alone received $19.7 billion
in arms deliveries (in current dollars), or 24.6% of all deliveries to
developing nations during this period.
!During 1998-2001, the top ten recipients collectively accounted for
the top ten recipients collectively accounted for 79% of all such
deliveries (tables 2 and 2I).
Arms Transfers to Developing Nations in 2005:
Agreements With Leading Recipients
Table 2J names the top ten developing world recipients of arms transfer
agreements in 2005. The table ranks these recipients on the basis of the total current
dollar values of their respective agreements with all suppliers in 2005. Among the
facts reflected in this table are the following:
!Saudi Arabia was the leading recipient of arms deliveries in 2005
among developing nations, receiving $3.5 billion in such deliveries.
Israel ranked second with $1.7 billion. India ranked third with $1.6
billion (tables 2 and 2J).
!Arms deliveries in 2005 to the top ten developing nation recipients,
collectively, constituted $13.8 billion, or 77.9% of all developing
nations deliveries. Six of the top ten arms recipients in the
developing world in 2005 were in the Near East region; four were in
the Asia region (tables 2 and 2J).
CRS-47
Table 1. Arms Transfer Agreements With Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1998-2005
6,504 8,814 12,731 7,413 9,362 6,988 9,097 6,182 67,091
1,800 3,600 6,300 5,300 5,300 4,300 5,200 7,000 38,800
ance 5,500 1,100 2,200 900 400 900 1,000 6,300 18,300
dom 1,000 1,200 0 200 700 0 4,000 2,800 9,900
iki/CRS-RL33696500 2,500 500 1,100 400 500 700 2,100 8,300
g/w
s.or1,400 1,600 1,000 100 100 0 100 700 5,000
leak0 500 100 200 0 300 600 500 2,200
://wiki1,400 4,000 1,200 1,000 1,400 1,200 2,400 3,300 15,900
http
1,000 1,700 1,900 1,700 1,100 1,100 2,500 1,300 12,300
19,104 25,014 25,931 17,913 18,762 15,288 25,597 30,182 177,791
e: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data are for the calendar year given except for U. S.
P (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military Education and Training), and Excess Defense Article data which are included for the particular
ear. All amounts given include the values of all categories of weapons, spare parts, construction, all associated services, military assistance, excess defense
programs. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The
mercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates for 80 F-16 aircraft.
.S. Government
CRS-48
Table 1A. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1998-2005
7,918 10,480 14,745 8,340 10,245 7,440 9,398 6,182 74,748
2,191 4,281 7,297 5,962 5,800 4,578 5,372 7,000 42,481
rance 6,696 1,308 2,548 1,012 438 958 1,033 6,300 20,293
iki/CRS-RL33696dom 1,217 1,427 0 225 766 0 4,132 2,800 10,567
g/w
s.or609 2,973 579 1,237 438 532 723 2,100 9,191
leak1,704 1,902 1,158 112 109 0 103 700 5,788
://wikit aly 0 595 116 225 0 319 620 500 2,375
http
1,704 4,756 1,390 1,125 1,532 1,278 2,479 3,300 17,564
1,217 2,021 2,201 1,912 1,204 1,171 2,583 1,300 13,609
23,258 29,743 30,034 20,152 20,532 16,276 26,443 30,182 196,616
ollar inflation
0.8214 0.8410 0.8634 0.8889 0.9138 0.9393 0.9680 1
ent of Defense Price Deflator.
.S. Government
CRS-49
Table 1B. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
dom 5.23% 4.80% 0.00% 1.12% 3.73% 0.00% 15.63% 9.28%
iki/CRS-RL33696
g/w7.33% 6.40% 3.86% 0.56% 0.53% 0.00% 0.39% 2.32%
s.or0.00% 2.00% 0.39% 1.12% 0.00% 1.96% 2.34% 1.66%
leak
://wiki
http5.23% 6.80% 7.33% 9.49% 5.86% 7.20% 9.77% 4.31%
est 41.35% 17.59% 12.73% 7.82% 6.40% 7.85% 22.27% 34.13%]
or West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
.S. Government
CRS-50
Table 1C. Regional Arms Transfer Agreements, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
AsiaNear EastLatin AmericaAfrica
1998-01 2002-051998-01 2002-051998-01 2002-051998-012002-05
8,066 11,562 26,156 17,623 1,146 2,288 94 157
13,100 16,000 2,500 4,300 300 600 1,200 700
ance 3,100 5,000 5,900 2,600 200 300 600 900
dom 1,300 2,200 400 4,900 0 400 700 0
iki/CRS-RL33696
g/w 2,700 2,000 900 1,000 100 100 1,000 600
s.or 2,400 500 100 500 0 0 1,600 0
leak
100 300 100 700 200 100 300 300
://wiki
http 1,100 2,600 2,600 1,900 600 3,000 3,300 800
2,500 3,400 1,700 1,600 1,100 600 1,000 500
est 6,900 8,000 6,500 8,700 400 800 3,200 1,200]
34,366 43,562 40,356 35,123 3,646 7,388 9,794 3,957
e: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The United States total for Near East in 1998-2001 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial
ent with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.
or West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
.S. Government
CRS-51
Table 1D. Percentage of Each Supplier’s Agreements Value by Region, 1998-2005
AsiaNear EastLatin AmericaAfricaTOTAL
1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05
ited 54.17% 29.33% 16.67% 65.33% 0.00% 5.33% 29.17% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00%
iki/CRS-RL33696i ngdom
g/w57.45% 54.05% 19.15% 27.03% 2.13% 2.70% 21.28% 16.22% 100.00% 100.00%
s.or
leakany 58.54% 50.00% 2.44% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 39.02% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00%
://wiki14.29% 21.43% 14.29% 50.00% 28.57% 7.14% 42.86% 21.43% 100.00% 100.00%
httpt her 14.47% 31.33% 34.21% 22.89% 7.89% 36.14% 43.42% 9.64% 100.00% 100.00%
est 40.59% 42.78% 38.24% 46.52% 2.35% 4.28% 18.82% 6.42%] 100.00% 100.00%
or West European category included France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
.S. Government
CRS-52
Table 1E. Percentage of Total Agreements Value by Supplier to Regions, 1998-2005
AsiaNear EastLatin AmericaAfrica
1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05
ance 9.02% 11.48% 14.62% 7.40% 5.49% 4.06% 6.13% 22.74%
dom 3.78% 5.05% 0.99% 13.95% 0.00% 5.41% 7.15% 0.00%
iki/CRS-RL33696
g/w 7.86% 4.59% 2.23% 2.85% 2.74% 1.35% 10.21% 15.16%
s.or 6.98% 1.15% 0.25% 1.42% 0.00% 0.00% 16.34% 0.00%
leak
://wiki
httpr 3.20% 5.97% 6.44% 5.41% 16.46% 40.61% 33.69% 20.22%
est 20.08% 18.36% 16.11% 24.77% 10.97% 10.83% 32.67% 30.33%]
or West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
.S. Government
Table 1F. Arms Transfer Agreements with Developing Nations,
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierAgreements Value 1998-2001
1United States*35,462
2Russia17,000
3France9,700
4China4,600
5Germany4,100
6United Kingdom2,400
7Israel2,200
8Sweden2,100
9Ukraine1,100
10Belarus1,000
11North Korea1,000
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2002-2005
1United States31,629
2Russia21,800
3France8,600
4United Kingdom7,500
5China3,700
6Israel2,500
7Spain2,300
8Ukraine 1,700
9Italy 1,400
10Netherlands 1,400
11Poland 1,000
RankSupplierAgreements Value 1998-2005
1United States*67,091
2Russia38,800
3France18,300
4United Kingdom9,900
5China8,300
6Germany5,000
7Israel4,700
8Ukraine2,800
9Spain2,700
10Italy2,200
11Sweden2,200
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are
the same, the rank order is maintained. *The United States total includes a $6.432 billion
licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 1G. Arms Transfer Agreements with
Developing Nations in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2005
1Russia7,000
2France6,300
3United States6,182
4United Kingdom2,800
5Spain2,200
6China2,100
7Germany700
8Italy500
9Turkey300
10Brazil300
11 Netherlands 200
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Where rounded data totals are the same, the rank order is maintained.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 1H. Arms Transfer Agreements with Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RecipientU.S.RussiaChinaMajor WestAll OtherAllTotal
Count ry European* Eur o pe an Others
1998-2001
Alge ria 0 400 100 0 500 0 1,000
Bahrain 700 0 0 0 0 0 700
Egyp t 6,400 400 500 100 100 0 7,500
Ir an 0 300 0 0 0 700 1,000
Ir aq 0 0 0 0 200 100 300
Is rael 6,600 0 0 0 0 0 6,600
J ordan 300 0 0 300 0 100 700
K uwait 700 100 200 0 0 200 1,200
Lebanon0000000
Libya 0 100 0 0 100 500 700
Morocco 0 0 0 0 200 0 200
Oman00000100100
Qatar0000000
Saudi Arabia4,4000050080005,700
Syria 0 200 0 100 100 0 400
Tunisia0000000
U.A.E. 7,000 800 0 5,500 300 200 13,800
Yeme n 0 200 100 0 100 100 500
2002-2005
Alge ria 0 200 100 0 0 0 300
Bahrain 300 0 0 100 0 0 400
Egyp t 5,200 100 400 0 400 0 6,100
Ir an 0 1,700 300 0 100 100 2,200
Ir aq 100 100 0 300 500 100 1,100
Is rael 2,500 300 0 0 100 0 2,900
J ordan 900 100 0 0 300 100 1,400
K uwait 2,000 0 0 0 0 100 2,100
Lebanon0000000
Libya 0 300 0 100 100 100 600
Morocco 0 200 0 400 0 200 800
Oman 1,000 0 0 1,200 0 100 2,300
Qatar0000000
Saudi Arabia4,20002004,500008,900
Syria 0 800 0 0 0 500 1,300
Tunisia0000000
U.A.E.** 1,300 100 0 2,000 200 200 3,800
Yeme n 0 500 0 0 200 100 800
Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100 million. *Major West
European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. **The United
States total for 1998-2001 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with the United Arab
Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 1I. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
Agreements by the Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankRecipientAgreements Value 1998-2001
1U.A.E.*13,800
2India7,800
3Egypt7,500
4Israel6,600
5China6,500
6Saudi Arabia5,700
7South Africa5,100
8Taiwan4,000
9South Korea3,700
10 Singapore 3,200
RankRecipientAgreements Value 2002-2005
1India12,900
2China10,200
3Saudi Arabia8,900
4Egypt6,100
5Taiwan4,900
6U.A.E.3,800
7Pakistan3,300
8South Korea3,200
9Israel2,900
10Malaysia2,800
RankRecipientAgreements Value 1998-2005
1India20,700
2U.A.E.*17,600
3China16,700
4Saudi Arabia14,600
5Egypt13,600
6Israel9,500
7Taiwan8,900
8South Korea 6,900
9South Africa6,100
10Pakistan5,900
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained. *The U.A.E. total includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement with
the United States in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 1J. Arms Transfer Agreements of Developing Nations in 2005:
Agreements by Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankRecipientAgreements Value
2005
1India5,400
2Saudi Arabia3,400
3China2,800
4U.A.E. 2,200
5Venezuela 1,900
6Pakistan 1,700
7Iran 1,500
8Egypt 1,300
9Brazil 900
10South Africa 800
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same, the
rank order is maintained.
Source: U.S. Government
CRS-58
Table 2. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1998-2005
10,395 11,657 8,049 5,453 6,535 5,798 7,181 8,111 63,179
2,200 2,700 3,500 4,100 3,400 4,200 5,200 2,700 28,000
ance 7,000 3,500 1,900 900 1,500 2,500 4,400 1,300 23,000
dom 3,300 4,600 4,300 3,400 3,400 4,000 2,300 2,400 27,700
iki/CRS-RL33696
g/w 600 400 800 700 800 700 800 800 5,600
s.or 200 700 500 100 0 800 500 200 3,000
leak
200 500 100 200 200 100 100 0 1,400
://wiki
http 2,100 2,300 2,100 1,800 1,800 1,500 700 1,000 13,300
1,000 800 1,100 1,400 1,500 900 1,700 1,200 9,600
26,995 27,157 22,349 18,053 19,135 20,498 22,881 17,711 174,779
e: Developing nations category excludes the United States, Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. All data are for the calendar year given,
.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military Education and Training), excess defense articles, which are included for the
ear. Licensed commercial exports are excluded. All amounts given include the values of all categories of weapons and ammunition, military spare
ilitary construction, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling
ll foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
.S. Government
CRS-59
Table 2A. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1998-2005
12,655 13,861 9,322 6,135 7,151 6,173 7,418 8,111 70,826
2,678 3,210 4,054 4,612 3,721 4,471 5,372 2,700 30,818
ance 8,522 4,162 2,201 1,012 1,641 2,662 4,545 1,300 26,045
iki/CRS-RL33696dom 4,018 5,470 4,980 3,825 3,721 4,258 2,376 2,400 31,048
g/w
s.or 730 476 927 787 875 745 826 800 6,166
leak 243 832 579 112 0 852 517 200 3,335
://wiki 243 595 116 225 219 106 103 0 1,607
http
2,557 2,735 2,432 2,025 1,970 1,597 723 1,000 15,039
1,217 951 1,274 1,575 1,641 958 1,756 1,200 10,572
32,865 32,291 25,885 20,309 20,940 21,823 23,637 17,711 195,456
llar inflation index:0.82140.84100.86340.88890.91380.93930.96801
ent of Defense Price Deflator.
.S. Government
CRS-60
Table 2B. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
ance 25.93% 12.89% 8.50% 4.99% 7.84% 12.20% 19.23% 7.34%
dom 12.22% 16.94% 19.24% 18.83% 17.77% 19.51% 10.05% 13.55%
iki/CRS-RL336962.22% 1.47% 3.58% 3.88% 4.18% 3.41% 3.50% 4.52%
g/w
s.or0.74% 2.58% 2.24% 0.55% 0.00% 3.90% 2.19% 1.13%
leak0.74% 1.84% 0.45% 1.11% 1.05% 0.49% 0.44% 0.00%
://wiki7.78% 8.47% 9.40% 9.97% 9.41% 7.32% 3.06% 5.65%
http
est 39.64% 34.25% 30.43% 25.48% 26.65% 36.10% 31.90% 22.02%]
or West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
.S. Government
CRS-61
Table 2C. Regional Arms Deliveries by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
AsiaNear EastLatin AmericaAfrica
1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05
12,061 9,270 22,185 17,012 1,224 1,220 85 122
9,300 13,200 2,100 1,700 200 200 1,000 500
ance 6,100 1,100 7,000 8,200 200 300 0 100
iki/CRS-RL33696dom 2,100 300 13,400 11,900 0 0 100 0
g/w
s.or 1,300 1,700 600 800 0 0 600 500
leak 200 700 1,000 200 300 0 0 600
://wiki 600 100 100 0 100 200 0 100
http
1,300 1,300 4,800 2,700 800 500 1,400 500
2,000 3,000 1,100 1,300 300 800 800 300
est European* 9,0002,20021,50020,300600500100800]
34,961 30,670 52,285 43,812 3,124 3,220 3,985 2,722
e: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
or West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
.S. Government
CRS-62
Table 2D. Percentage of Supplier Deliveries Value by Region, 1998-2005
AsiaNear EastLatin AmericaAfricaTOTALTOTAL
1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05
United States33.92%33.56%62.40%61.58%3.44%4.42%0.24%0.44%100.00%100.00%
Russia 73.81% 84.62% 16.67% 10.90% 1.59% 1.28% 7.94% 3.21% 100.00% 100.00%
France 45.86% 11.34% 52.63% 84.54% 1.50% 3.09% 0.00% 1.03% 100.00% 100.00%
United 13.46% 2.46% 85.90% 97.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00%
iki/CRS-RL33696Kingdom
g/w
s.orChina 52.00% 56.67% 24.00% 26.67% 0.00% 0.00% 24.00% 16.67% 100.00% 100.00%
leakGermany 13.33% 46.67% 66.67% 13.33% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 100.00% 100.00%
://wikiIt aly 75.00% 25.00% 12.50% 0.00% 12.50% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 100.00% 100.00%
http
All Other15.66%26.00%57.83%54.00%9.64%10.00%16.87%10.00%100.00%100.00%
European
All Others47.62%55.56%26.19%24.07%7.14%14.81%19.05%5.56%100.00%100.00%
[Major West28.85%9.24%68.91%85.29%1.92%2.10%0.32%3.36%]100.00%100.00%
European*
TOTAL 37.05% 38.14% 55.41% 54.48% 3.31% 4.00% 4.22% 3.38% 100.00% 100.00%
or West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
.S. Government
CRS-63
Table 2E. Percentage of Total Deliveries Value by Supplier to Regions, 1998-2005
AsiaNear EastLatin AmericaAfrica
1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05 1998-01 2002-05
United States34.50%30.22%42.43%38.83%39.18%37.89%2.13%4.48%
Russia 26.60% 43.04% 4.02% 3.88% 6.40% 6.21% 25.09% 18.37%
France 17.45% 3.59% 13.39% 18.72% 6.40% 9.32% 0.00% 3.67%
iki/CRS-RL33696United Kingdom6.01%0.98%25.63%27.16%0.00%0.00%2.51%0.00%
g/w
s.orChina 3.72% 5.54% 1.15% 1.83% 0.00% 0.00% 15.06% 18.37%
leak
://wikiGermany 0.57% 2.28% 1.91% 0.46% 9.60% 0.00% 0.00% 22.04%
httpIt aly 1.72% 0.33% 0.19% 0.00% 3.20% 6.21% 0.00% 3.67%
All Other European3.72%4.24%9.18%6.16%25.61%15.53%35.13%18.37%
All Others5.72%9.78%2.10%2.97%9.60%24.84%20.08%11.02%
[Major West European* 25.74%7.17%41.12%46.33%19.21%15.53%2.51%29.39%]
TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
or West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
.S. Government
Table 2F. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1998-2005
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 1998-2001
1United States35,554
2United Kingdom15,600
3France13,300
4Russia12,500
5Sweden2,800
6China2,500
7Ukraine1,600
8Germany1,500
9Israel1,300
10Belarus1,000
11Italy1,000
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 2002-2005
1United States27,625
2Russia15,500
3United Kingdom12,100
4France9,700
5China3,100
6Israel1,900
7Germany1,500
8Sweden1,400
9Ukraine1,000
10Brazil700
11Spain500
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 1998-2005
1United States63,179
2Russia28,000
3United Kingdom27,700
4France23,000
5China5,600
6Sweden4,200
7Israel3,200
8Germany3,000
9Ukraine2,600
10Italy1,400
11Belarus1,100
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the
same, the rank order is maintained.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 2G. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierDeliveries Value
2005
1United States8,111
2Russia2,700
3United Kingdom2,400
4France1,300
5China800
6Israel400
7Germany200
8Brazil200
9Ukraine200
10Poland200
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals
are the same, the rank order is maintained.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 2H. Arms Deliveries to Near East, by Supplier
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RecipientU.S.RussiaChinaMajor West All OtherAllTotal
Count ry European* Eur o pe an Others
1998-2001
Alge ria 0 500 100 0 500 100 1,200
Bahrain 500 0 0 0 0 0 500
Egyp t 3,300 200 100 100 100 0 3,800
Ir an 0 600 100 100 200 300 1,300
Iraq00001000100
Is rael 3,700 0 0 900 0 100 4,700
J ordan 200 0 0 100 0 100 400
K uwait 1,500 100 200 600 0 0 2,400
Lebanon0000000
Libya 0 0 0 0 200 100 300
Morocco 0 0 0 0 200 200 400
Oman00000100100
Qatar 0 0 0 1,200 0 0 1,200
Saudi Arabia12,6000015,0002,70010030,400
Syria 0 300 0 100 100 0 500
Tunisia0000000
U.A.E. 200 300 0 3,100 500 200 4,300
Yeme n 0 0 100 200 200 0 500
2002-2005
Alge ria 0 200 100 0 0 100 400
Bahrain 300 0 0 0 0 0 300
Egyp t 5,800 100 400 0 100 100 6,500
Ir an 0 100 100 0 100 100 400
Ir aq 0 0 0 0 100 200 300
Is rael 4,400 0 0 0 100 0 4,500
J ordan 400 0 0 0 100 100 600
K uwait 800 0 200 100 0 200 1,300
Lebanon0000000
Libya 0 100 0 0 100 100 300
Morocco 0 0 0 100 0 200 300
Oman 300 0 0 200 0 100 600
Qatar0000000
Saudi Arabia4,4000013,7001,50010019,700
Syria 0 300 0 0 100 100 500
T unisia 0 0 0 100 0 0 100
U.A.E. 500 300 0 5,900 300 100 7,100
Yeme n 0 600 0 0 200 100 900
Note: 0=data less than $50 million or nil. All data are rounded to nearest $100 million.
*Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 2I. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations, 1998-2005:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankRecipientDeliveries Value 1998-2001
1Saudi Arabia30,400
2Taiwan9,800
3China6,600
4South Korea5,200
5Israel4,700
6U.A.E.4,300
7Egypt3,800
8Pakistan 2,900
9Kuwait2,400
10Malaysia2,100
RankRecipientDeliveries Value 2002-2005
1Saudi Arabia19,700
2China7,700
3India7,500
4U.A.E.7,100
5Egypt6,500
6Israel4,500
7Taiwan4,100
8Pakistan2,500
9South Korea2,400
10Malaysia1,400
RankRecipientDeliveries Value 1998-2005
1Saudi Arabia50,100
2China14,300
3Taiwan13,900
4U.A.E.11,400
5Egypt10,300
6India9,500
7Israel9,200
8South Korea7,600
9Pakistan5,400
10Malaysia3,400
e: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the same,
order is maintained.
.S. Government
Table 2J. Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations in 2005:
The Leading Recipients
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankRecipientDeliveries Value
2005
1Saudi Arabia3,500
2Israel1,700
3India1,600
4Egypt1,500
5China1,400
6Taiwan 1,300
7U.A.E. 1,200
8South Korea 600
9Pakistan 500
10Afghanistan 500
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals
are the same, the rank order is maintained.
Source: U.S. Government
Selected Weapons Deliveries to
Developing Nations, 1998-2005
Other useful data for assessing arms transfers are those that indicate who has
actually delivered specific numbers of specific classes of military items to a region.
These data are relatively “hard” in that they reflect actual transfers of military
equipment. They have the limitation of not giving detailed information regarding
either the sophistication or the specific name of the equipment delivered. However,
these data show relative trends in the delivery of important classes of military
equipment and indicate who the leading suppliers are from region to region over
time. Data in the following tables set out actual deliveries of fourteen categories of
weaponry to developing nations from 1998-2005 by the United States, Russia, China,
the four major West European suppliers as a group, all other European suppliers as
a group, and all other suppliers as a group (tables 3-7).
Caution is warranted in using the quantitative data within these specific
tables. Aggregate data on weapons categories delivered by suppliers do not provide
precise indices of the quality and/or quantity of the weaponry delivered. The history
of recent conventional conflicts suggests that quality and/or sophistication of
weapons can offset quantitative advantage. Further, these data do not provide an
indication of the relative capabilities of the recipient nations to use effectively the
weapons delivered to them. Superior training — coupled with good equipment,
tactical and operational proficiency, and sound logistics — may, in the last analysis,
be a more important factor in a nation’s ability to engage successfully in conventional
warfare than the size of its weapons inventory.
Regional Weapons Deliveries Summary, 2002-2005
!The regional weapons delivery data collectively show that the
United States was a leading supplier of several major classes of
conventional weaponry from 2002-2005. Russia also transferred
significant quantities of certain weapons classes during these years.
!The major West European suppliers were serious competitors in
weapons deliveries from 2002-2005 making notable deliveries of
certain categories of armaments to every region of the developing
world — most particularly to the Near East, Asia, and to Latin
America. In Africa, all European suppliers, China and all other non-
European suppliers were major sources of weapons delivered.
!Regional weapons delivery data reflect the diverse sources of supply
of conventional weaponry available to developing nations. Even
though the United States, Russia, and the four major West European
suppliers tend to dominate the delivery of the fourteen classes of
weapons examined, it is also evident that the other European
suppliers, and non-European suppliers, including China, are fully
capable of providing specific classes of conventional armaments,
such as tanks, missiles, armored vehicles, aircraft, artillery pieces,
and the various missile categories, surface-to-surface, surface-to-air,
and anti-ship, to developing nations, should their systems prove
attractive to prospective purchasers.
Noteworthy deliveries of specific categories of weapons to regions of the developing
world by specific suppliers from 2002-2005 included the following:
Asia.
Russia delivered 290 tanks and self-propelled guns, 180 APCs and armored
cars, 3 major surface combatants, 4 minor surface combatants, 5 submarines, 180
supersonic combat aircraft, 90 helicopters, 410 surface-to-air missiles, and 180 anti-
ship missiles. The United States delivered 105 artillery pieces, 6 major surface
combatants, 6 minor surface combatants; 8 supersonic combat aircraft, 38
helicopters, 1,558 surface-to-air missiles, and 182 anti-ship missiles. China
delivered 150 tanks and self-propelled guns, 270 artillery pieces, 9 minor surface
combatants, 40 supersonic combat aircraft, and 510 surface-to-air missiles, and 20
anti-ship missiles. The four major West European suppliers as a group delivered
1 major surface combatant, 7 minor surface combatants, 20 supersonic combat
aircraft; and 20 helicopters. All other European suppliers collectively delivered 80
tanks and self-propelled guns, 290 APCs and armored cars, 140 artillery pieces, 1
major surface combatant, 25 minor surface combatants, 3 submarines, and 100
surface-to-air missiles. All other non-European suppliers collectively delivered
70 artillery pieces, 30 APCs and armored cars, 23 minor surface combatants, 20
supersonic combat aircraft, and 580 surface-to-air missiles.
Near East.
Russia delivered 120 APCs and armored cars, 30 supersonic combat aircraft,
40 helicopters, and 1,170 surface-to-air missiles. The United States delivered 375
tanks and self-propelled guns, 34 APCs and armored cars, 2 major surface
combatants, 4 minor surface combatants,65 supersonic combat aircraft, 20
helicopters, 519 surface-to-air missiles, and 132 anti-ship missiles. China delivered
20 artillery pieces, 5 minor surface combatants, and 60 anti-ship missiles. The four
major West European suppliers collectively delivered 140 tanks and self-propelled
guns, 60 APCs and armored cars; 5 major surface combatants, 35 minor surface
combatants, 11 guided missile boats, 30 supersonic combat aircraft, 30 helicopters,
and 40 anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers as a group delivered 320
tanks and self-propelled guns, 270 APCs and armored cars, 1 major surface
combatant, 32 minor surface combatants, 10 supersonic combat aircraft, 20
helicopters, and 260 surface-to-air missiles. All other suppliers collectively
delivered 500 APCs and armored cars, 116 minor surface combatants, 20 helicopters,
Latin America.
Russia delivered 10 helicopters, and 30 surface-to-air missiles. The United
States delivered 2 major surface combatants, 9 minor surface combatants; 8
supersonic combat aircraft, 22 surface-to-air missiles, and 24 anti-ship missiles.
China delivered 6 minor surface combatants. The four major West European
suppliers collectively delivered 3 major surface combatants, 1 submarine, 10
helicopters, and 10 anti-ship missiles. All other European suppliers collectively
delivered 2 minor surface combatants, and 1 submarine. All other non-European
suppliers as a group delivered 20 tanks and self-propelled guns, 2 minor surface
combatants, 10 supersonic combat aircraft, 10 helicopters, 40 surface-to-air missiles,
and 30 anti-ship missiles.
Africa.
Russia delivered 20 artillery pieces, 60 APCs and armored cars; 2 minor
surface combatants, 30 supersonic combat aircraft, 40 helicopters, and 20 surface-to-
air missiles. China delivered 150 artillery pieces, 30 APCs and armored cars, and
33 minor surface combatants. The four major West European suppliers
collectively delivered 60 APCs and armored cars; 4 major surface combatants, 3
minor surface combatants, 20 helicopters, and 10 anti-ship missiles. All other
European suppliers collectively delivered 120 tanks and self-propelled guns, 1,180
artillery pieces, 320 APCs and armored cars, 5 minor surface combatants, 20
supersonic combat aircraft, 20 helicopters, and 20 surface-to-air missiles. All other
non-European suppliers as a group delivered 40 tanks and self-propelled guns, 50
artillery pieces, 220 APCs and armored cars, 1 major surface combatant; 6 minor
surface combatants, 10 supersonic combat aircraft, and 60 helicopters.
Table 3. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Developing Nations
Weapons CategoryU.S.RussiaChinaMajor WestAll OtherAll
European* Eur o pe an Others
1998-2001
Tanks and Self-Propelled4623602904801,560160
Guns
Ar tillery 229 540 460 50 670 1,010
APCs and Armored Cars439870400250960700
Major Surface Combatants630794
Minor Surface Combatants22373412473
Guided Missile Boats0011400
Submarines 0 4 0 8 1 3
Supersonic Combat Aircraft32822060709090
Subsonic Combat Aircraft2100401020
Other Aircraft47408016015090
Helicopters 152 330 0 70 140 50
Surface-to-Air Missiles1,5061,3804301,7401,240820
Surface-to-Surface Missiles0000020
Anti-Ship Missiles301180120320010
2002-2005
Tanks and Self-Propelled37530015014052060
Guns
Ar tillery 177 20 450 80 1,370 160
APCs and Armored Cars3436040120880750
Major Surface Combatants10301321
Minor Surface Combatants196534564147
Guided Missile Boats0001100
Submarines 0 5 0 1 4 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft8124040503040
Subsonic Combat Aircraft1700000
Other Aircraft37011040120180
Helicopters 58 180 0 80 40 90
Surface-to-Air Missiles2,0991,6305100380620
Surface-to-Surface Missiles0000040
Anti-Ship Missiles33818080701050
Note: Developing nations category excludes the U.S., Russia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All
data are for calendar years given. *Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals
as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based
on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons delivery
categories are not necessarily definitive.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 4. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Asia and the Pacific
Weapons CategoryU.S.RussiaChinaMajorAll OtherAll
West Eur o pe an Others
European*
1998-2001
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns2808090026020
Ar tillery 193 10 220 0 50 540
APCs and Armored Cars482603605050170
Major Surface Combatants630504
Minor Surface Combatants021631443
Guided Missile Boats000000
Submarines 0 4 0 3 1 3
Supersonic Combat Aircraft23015040601070
Subsonic Combat Aircraft0004000
Other Aircraft42040104030
Helicopters 74 210 0 20 10 10
Surface-to-Air Missiles1,2281,3402201,65013050
Surface-to-Surface Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles23515020130010
2002-2005
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns02901500800
Ar tillery 105 0 270 10 140 70
APCs and Armored Cars018010029030
Major Surface Combatants630110
Minor Surface Combatants64972523
Guided Missile Boats000000
Submarines 0 5 0 0 3 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft81804020020
Subsonic Combat Aircraft1700000
Other Aircraft11010103060
Helicopters 38 90 0 20 0 0
Surface-to-Air Missiles1,5584105100100580
Surface-to-Surface Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles182180201000
Note: Asia and Pacific category excludes Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All data are for calendar years given. *Major
West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to
surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide
range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 5. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Near East
Weapons CategoryU.S.RussiaChinaMajor WestAll OtherAll
European* Eur o pe an Others
1998-2001
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns182240038030030
Artillery 6 20 80 30 0 0
APCs and Armored Cars376390407033030
Major Surface Combatants000010
Minor Surface Combatants0001358
Guided Missile Boats0011000
Submarines 0 0 0 3 0 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft9830010400
Subsonic Combat Aircraft000000
Other Aircraft211020804010
Helicopters 42 30 0 40 20 10
Surface-to-Air Missiles2782017002800
Surface-to-Surface Missiles0000020
Anti-Ship Missiles573010016000
2002-2005
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns3751001403200
Ar tillery 72 0 20 50 50 40
APCs and Armored Cars34120060270500
Major Surface Combatants200510
Minor Surface Combatants4053532116
Guided Missile Boats0001100
Submarines 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft6530030100
Subsonic Combat Aircraft000000
Other Aircraft25070205080
Helicopters 20 40 0 30 20 20
Surface-to-Air Missiles5191,170002600
Surface-to-Surface Missiles0000040
Anti-Ship Missiles132060401020
Note: All data for calendar years given. *Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy
totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates
based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses two weapons
delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 6. Numbers of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Latin America
Weapons CategoryU.S.RussiaChinaMajorAll OtherAll
West Eur o pe an Others
European*
1998-2001
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns0001003700
Ar tillery 30 0 0 20 90 50
APCs and Armored Cars1500120400
Major Surface Combatants000280
Minor Surface Combatants0043850
Guided Missile Boats000400
Submarines 0 0 0 2 0 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft000000
Subsonic Combat Aircraft2000020
Other Aircraft14100605030
Helicopters 36 30 0 10 50 0
Surface-to-Air Missiles0040904600
Surface-to-Surface Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles9003000
2002-2005
Tanks and Self-Propelled Guns0000020
Ar tillery 0 0 10 0 0 0
APCs and Armored Cars000000
Major Surface Combatants200300
Minor Surface Combatants906022
Guided Missile Boats000000
Submarines 0 0 0 1 1 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft8000010
Subsonic Combat Aircraft000000
Other Aircraft10002030
Helicopters 0 10 0 10 0 10
Surface-to-Air Missiles223000040
Surface-to-Surface Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles240010030
Note: All data for calendar years given. *Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy
totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are estimates
based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in theses two weapons
delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 7. Number of Weapons Delivered by Major Suppliers
to Africa
Weapons CategoryU.S.RussiaChinaMajor WestAll OtherAll Others
European* Eur o pe an
1998-2001
Tanks and Self-Propelled0402000630110
Guns
Ar tillery 0 510 160 0 530 420
APCs and Armored Cars0220010540500
Major Surface Combatants000000
Minor Surface Combatants2017152022
Guided Missile Boats000000
Submarines 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft0402004020
Subsonic Combat Aircraft01000100
Other Aircraft8020102020
Helicopters 0 60 0 0 60 30
Surface-to-Air Missiles02000370770
Surface-to-Surface Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles000000
2002-2005
Tanks and Self-Propelled000012040
Guns
Ar tillery 0 20 150 20 1,180 50
APCs and Armored Cars0603060320220
Major Surface Combatants000401
Minor Surface Combatants0233356
Guided Missile Boats000000
Submarines 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supersonic Combat Aircraft030002010
Subsonic Combat Aircraft000000
Other Aircraft0030102010
Helicopters 0 40 0 20 20 60
Surface-to-Air Missiles02000200
Surface-to-Surface Missiles000000
Anti-Ship Missiles0001000
Note: All data are for calendar years given. *Major West European includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, and
Italy totals as an aggregate figure. Data relating to surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles by foreign suppliers are
estimates based on a variety of sources having a wide range of accuracy. As such, individual data entries in these two
weapons delivery categories are not necessarily definitive.
Source: U.S. Government
Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements and Deliveries Values,
1998-2005
Ten tables follow. Tables 8, 8A, and 8B and tables 9, 9A and 9B, provide the total dollar
values for arms transfer agreements and arms deliveries worldwide for the years 1998-2005 in the
same format and detail as do tables 1, 1A and 1B and tables 2, 2A and 2B for arms transfer
agreements with and arms deliveries to developing nations. Tables 8C, 8D, 9C and 9D provide a list
of the top eleven arms suppliers to the world based on the total values (in current dollars) of their
arms transfer agreements and arms deliveries worldwide during calendar years 1998-2001, 2002-
2005, and 2005. These tables are set out in the same format and detail as tables 1F and 1G for arms
transfer agreements with, and tables 2F and 2G for arms deliveries to developing nations,
respectively.
Total Worldwide Arms Transfer Agreements Values, 1998-2005
Table 8 shows the annual current dollar values of arms transfer agreements worldwide. Since
these figures do not allow for the effects of inflation, they are, by themselves, of limited use. They
provide, however, the data from which tables 8A (constant dollars) and 8B (supplier percentages)
are derived. Some of the more notable facts reflected by these data are summarized below. Unless
otherwise noted, dollar values are expressed in constant 2005 U.S. dollars.
!The United States ranked first among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms
transfer agreements from 2002-2005, and first for the entire period from 1998-2005
(figure 1) (table 8C).
!Russia ranked second among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 2002-2005, and second from 1998-2005.
!France ranked third among all suppliers to the world in the value of arms transfer
agreements from 2002-2005, and third from 1998-2005.
!In 2005, the value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide was nearly $44.2
billion. This is the highest total for worldwide arms transfer agreements, in real
terms, for the entire period from 1998-2005.
!In 2005, the United States was the leader in arms transfer agreements with the world,
making $12.8 billion in such agreements, or 28.9% of all arms transfer agreements.
France ranked second with $7.9 billion in arms transfer agreements, or 17.9% of all
arms transfer agreements. Russia ranked third with $7.4 billion. United States arms
transfer agreements fell from $13.2 billion in 2004 to $12.8 billion in 2005. The U.S.
share of agreements fell from 32.9% to 28.9%, the lowest U.S. worldwide arms
market share for the entire period from 1998-2005. Russia’s worldwide arms transfer
agreements rose from $5.6 billion in 2004 to $7.4 billion in 2005 (table 8A)(table
!The United States, France and Russia, — the top three arms suppliers to the world
in 2005 — respectively (ranked by the value of their arms transfer agreements)
collectively made agreements in 2005 valued at nearly $28.1 billion, 63.5% of all
arms transfer agreements made with the world by all suppliers (table 8D).
!The total value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide from 2002-2005 ($145.3
billion) was lower than the value of arms transfer agreements by all suppliers
worldwide from 1998-2001 ($148.8 billion), a nominal decline of 2.4% (figure 1).
!During the period from 1998-2001, developing world nations accounted for 69.3%
of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide. During 2002-2005, developing
world nations accounted for 64.3% of all agreements made worldwide (figure 1).
!In 2005, developing nations were recipients of 68.4% of all arms transfer agreements
made worldwide (figure 1).
Total Worldwide Delivery Values 1998-2005
Table 9 shows the annual current dollar values of arms deliveries (items actually transferred)
worldwide by major suppliers from 1998-2005. The utility of these data is that they reflect transfers
that have occurred. They provide the data from which tables 9A (constant dollars) and 9B (supplier
percentages) are derived. Some of the more notable facts illustrated by these data are summarized
below. Unless otherwise noted the dollar values are expressed in constant 2005 U.S. dollars.
!In 2005, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries worldwide,
making nearly $11.6 billion in such deliveries. This is the eighth year in a row that
United States has led in such deliveries (figure 2) (table 9A)(table 9D).
!The United Kingdom ranked second in arms deliveries worldwide in 2005, making
$3.1 billion in such deliveries.
!Russia ranked third in arms deliveries worldwide in 2005, making $2.8 billion in
such deliveries.
!In 2005, the top three suppliers of arms to the world, the United States, the United
Kingdom and Russia collectively delivered $17.5 billion, 68.8% of all arms
deliveries made worldwide by all suppliers (table 9D).
!The U.S. share of all arms deliveries worldwide in 2005 was 45.6%, up significantly
from its 36.2% share in 2004, and the largest percentage share of global arms
deliveries for the entire period from 1998-2005. The United Kingdom’s share in
2005 was 12.2%, up from 9.8% in 2004. Russia’s share of world arms deliveries in
!In 2005, the value of all arms deliveries worldwide was $25.4 billion, a significant
decline in the total value of deliveries from 2004 ($32.7 billion in constant 2005
dollars). (chart 7) (table 9A).
!During the period from 1998-2001, developing world nations accounted for 68.6%
of all arms deliveries received worldwide. During 2002-2005, developing world
nations accounted for 67.8% of all deliveries worldwide (figure 2).
!In 2005, developing nations as recipients of arms accounted for 69.9% of all arms
deliveries received worldwide (figure 2).
!The total value of all arms deliveries by all suppliers worldwide from 2002-2005
($124.1 billion) was a significant decrease from the value of arms deliveries by all
suppliers worldwide from 1998-2001 ($162.3 billion in constant 2005 dollars), a
decline of 23.5% (figure 2)(table 9A).
CRS-79
Table 8. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1998-2005
United States9,45711,67311,15811,57313,12914,57612,82012,75897,144
Russia 2,200 4,600 6,500 5,500 5,600 4,400 5,400 7,400 41,600
France 6,300 1,700 4,600 4,200 1,200 2,000 2,100 7,900 30,000
United Kingdom2,0001,5006006007003006,4002,80014,900
iki/CRS-RL33696China 700 3,100 500 1,100 400 500 700 2,100 9,100
g/wGermany 5,000 4,000 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,500 1,600 1,500 17,000
s.or
leakIt aly 600 700 200 1,200 300 600 600 1,400 5,600
://wikiAll Other European1,9005,8004,1003,0004,4002,0006,7005,90033,800
httpAll Others1,3002,1002,5002,6002,2001,6002,6002,40017,300
TOTAL 29,457 35,173 31,358 30,973 28,929 27,476 38,920 44,158 266,444
e: All data are for the calendar year given, except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program) and IMET (International Military Education and Training), excess
year. All amounts given include the values of all categories of weapons and ammunition, military spare
ilitary construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign countries are based
ated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. The U.S. total in 2000 includes a $6.432 billion licensed commercial agreement
irates for 80 F-16 aircraft.
.S. Government
CRS-80
Table 8A. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1998-2005
United States11,51313,88012,92313,01914,36715,51813,24412,758107,222
Russia 2,678 5,470 7,528 6,187 6,128 4,684 5,579 7,400 45,654
France 7,670 2,021 5,328 4,725 1,313 2,129 2,169 7,900 33,255
iki/CRS-RL33696United Kingdom2,4351,7846956757663196,6122,80016,086
g/wChina 852 3,686 579 1,237 438 532 723 2,100 10,147
s.or
leakGermany 6,087 4,756 1,390 1,350 1,094 1,597 1,653 1,500 19,427
://wikiIt aly 730 832 232 1,350 328 639 620 1,400 6,131
httpAll Other European2,3136,8974,7493,3754,8152,1296,9215,90037,099
All Others1,5832,4972,8962,9252,4081,7032,6862,40019,098
TOTAL 35,862 41,823 36,319 34,844 31,658 29,252 40,207 44,158 294,119
Dollar inflation index:
(2005=1.00)* 0.8214 0.841 0.8634 0.8889 0.9138 0.9393 0.968 1
*Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.
.S. Government
CRS-81
Table 8B. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
ance 21.39% 4.83% 14.67% 13.56% 4.15% 7.28% 5.40% 17.89%
dom 6.79% 4.26% 1.91% 1.94% 2.42% 1.09% 16.44% 6.34%
iki/CRS-RL33696 2.38% 8.81% 1.59% 3.55% 1.38% 1.82% 1.80% 4.76%
g/w 16.97% 11.37% 3.83% 3.87% 3.46% 5.46% 4.11% 3.40%
s.or
leak 2.04% 1.99% 0.64% 3.87% 1.04% 2.18% 1.54% 3.17%
://wiki 6.45% 16.49% 13.07% 9.69% 15.21% 7.28% 17.21% 13.36%
http 4.41% 5.97% 7.97% 8.39% 7.60% 5.82% 6.68% 5.44%
est European*47.19%22.46%21.05%23.25%11.06%16.01%27.49%30.80%]
te: Columns may not total due to rounding.
or West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
.S. Government
Table 8C. Arms Transfer Agreements with the World, 1998-
2005: Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierAgreements Value 1998-2001
1United States*43,861
2Russia18,800
3France16,800
4Germany11,400
5China5,400
6United Kingdom4,700
7Sweden4,100
8Israel2,900
9Italy2,700
10Spain2,200
11Ukraine2,100
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2002-2005
1United States53,283
2Russia22,800
3France13,200
4United Kingdom10,200
5Germany5,600
6Israel5,000
7China3,700
8Spain3,500
9Ukraine3,400
10Italy2,900
11Sweden2,700
RankSupplierAgreements Value 1998-2005
1United States*97,144
2Russia41,600
3France30,000
4Germany17,000
5United Kingdom14,900
6China9,100
7Israel7,900
8Sweden6,800
9Spain5,700
10Italy5,600
11Ukraine5,500
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals
are the same, the rank order is maintained. *The U.S. total includes a $6.432 billion licensed
commercial agreement with the United Arab Emirates in 2000 for 80 F-16 aircraft.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 8D. Arms Transfer Agreements with
the World in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierAgreements Value 2005
1United States12,758
2France7,900
3Russia7,400
4United Kingdom2,800
5Spain2,200
6China2,100
7Austria2,000
8Germany1,500
9Italy1,400
10Israel1,100
11 Netherlands 300
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Where rounded data totals are the same, the rank order is maintained.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 9. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1998-2005
United States15,57817,01312,6479,0239,84810,52311,44011,55297,624
Russia 2,400 3,400 4,200 4,500 3,500 4,300 5,400 2,800 30,500
France 7,700 4,200 2,500 2,000 2,100 3,000 4,600 1,600 27,700
United Kingdom3,8005,2005,9004,2004,9004,9003,1003,10035,100
China 700 500 900 900 900 700 800 900 6,300
Germany 1,500 2,100 1,300 700 1,000 2,100 1,500 600 10,800
It aly 200 700 300 500 600 300 100 200 2,900
iki/CRS-RL33696All Other European3,3003,4003,1004,6003,0004,3001,7002,10025,500
g/wAll Others1,9002,3002,3002,6003,0002,3003,0002,50019,900
s.or
leak
TOTAL 37,078 38,813 33,147 29,023 28,848 32,423 31,640 25,352 256,324
://wiki
http
Note: All data are for the calendar year given, except for U.S. MAP (Military Assistance Program), IMET (International Military
Education and Training), excess defense articles, which are included for the particular fiscal year. Licensed commercial exports are
excluded. All amounts given include the values of all categories of weapons and ammunition, military spare parts, military
construction, excess defense articles, military assistance and training programs, and all associated services. Statistics for foreign
countries are based upon estimated selling prices. All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 9A. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier, 1998-2005
(in millions of constant 2005 U.S. dollars)
TOTAL
199819992000200120022003200420051998- 2005
United States18,96520,22914,64810,15110,77711,20311,81811,552109,343
Russia 2,922 4,043 4,864 5,062 3,830 4,578 5,579 2,800 33,678
France 9,374 4,994 2,896 2,250 2,298 3,194 4,752 1,600 31,358
United Kingdom4,6266,1836,8334,7255,3625,2173,2023,10039,248
China 852 595 1,042 1,012 985 745 826 900 6,957
Germany 1,826 2,497 1,506 787 1,094 2,236 1,550 600 12,096
It aly 243 832 347 562 657 319 103 200 3,263
iki/CRS-RL33696All Other European4,0184,0433,5905,1753,2834,5781,7562,10028,543
g/wAll Others2,3132,7352,6642,9253,2832,4493,0992,50021,968
s.or
leak
TOTAL 45,140 46,151 38,391 32,650 31,569 34,518 32,686 25,352 286,454
://wiki
http
Dollar inflation index:
(2005=1.00)* 0.8214 0.841 0.8634 0.8889 0.9138 0.9393 0.968 1
*Based on Department of Defense Price Deflator.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 9B. Arms Deliveries to the World, by Supplier 1998-2005
(expressed as a percent of total, by year)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
United States42.01%43.83%38.15%31.09%34.14%32.46%36.16%45.57%
Russia 6.47% 8.76% 12.67% 15.50% 12.13% 13.26% 17.07% 11.04%
France 20.77% 10.82% 7.54% 6.89% 7.28% 9.25% 14.54% 6.31%
United Kingdom10.25%13.40%17.80%14.47%16.99%15.11%9.80%12.23%
China 1.89% 1.29% 2.72% 3.10% 3.12% 2.16% 2.53% 3.55%
Germany 4.05% 5.41% 3.92% 2.41% 3.47% 6.48% 4.74% 2.37%
It aly 0.54% 1.80% 0.91% 1.72% 2.08% 0.93% 0.32% 0.79%
All Other European8.90%8.76%9.35%15.85%10.40%13.26%5.37%8.28%
iki/CRS-RL33696All Others5.12%5.93%6.94%8.96%10.40%7.09%9.48%9.86%
g/w
s.or[Major West European*35.60%31.43%30.17%25.50%29.81%31.77%29.39%21.69%]
leak
://wikiTOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
http
*Major West European category includes France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 9C. Arms Deliveries to the World, 1998-2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 1998-2001
1United States54,261
2United Kingdom19,100
3France16,400
4Russia14,500
5Germany5,600
6Sweden5,500
7China3,000
8Israel2,300
9Canada2,200
10Ukraine2,200
11Italy1,700
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 2002-2005
1United States43,363
2United Kingdom16,000
3Russia16,000
4France11,300
5Germany5,200
6China3,300
7Israel3,300
8Canada2,700
9Ukraine2,700
10Sweden2,600
11Italy1,200
RankSupplierDeliveries Value 1998-2005
1United States97,624
2United Kingdom35,100
3Russia30,500
4France27,700
5Germany10,800
6Sweden8,100
7China6,300
8Israel5,600
9Canada4,900
10Ukraine4,900
11Italy2,900
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals are the
same, the rank order is maintained.
Source: U.S. Government
Table 9D. Arms Deliveries to the World in 2005:
Leading Suppliers Compared
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
RankSupplierDeliveries Value
2005
1United States11,552
2United Kingdom3,100
3Russia2,800
4France1,600
5China900
6Germany600
7Israel600
8Canada500
9Sweden400
10Spain400
11Brazil200
Note: All foreign data are rounded to the nearest $100 million. Where rounded data totals
are the same, the rank order is maintained.
Source: U.S. Government
Description of Items Counted in
Weapons Categories, 1998-2005
Tanks and Self-propelled Guns: This category includes light, medium, and heavy
tanks; self-propelled artillery; self-propelled assault guns.
Artillery: This category includes field and air defense artillery, mortars, rocket
launchers and recoilless rifles — 100 mm and over; FROG launchers — 100mm and
over.
Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Armored Cars: This category includes
personnel carriers, armored and amphibious; armored infantry fighting vehicles;
armored reconnaissance and command vehicles.
Major Surface Combatants: This category includes aircraft carriers, cruisers,
destroyers, frigates.
Minor Surface Combatants: This category includes minesweepers, subchasers,
motor torpedo boats, patrol craft, motor gunboats.
Submarines: This category includes all submarines, including midget submarines.
Guided Missile Patrol Boats: This category includes all boats in this class.
Supersonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraft
designed to function operationally at speeds above Mach 1.
Subsonic Combat Aircraft: This category includes all fighter and bomber aircraft
designed to function operationally at speeds below Mach 1.
Other Aircraft: This category includes all other fixed-wing aircraft, including
trainers, transports, reconnaissance aircraft, and communications/utility aircraft.
Helicopters: This category includes all helicopters, including combat and transport.
Surface-to-air Missiles: This category includes all ground-based air defense
missiles.
Surface-to-surface Missiles: This category includes all surface-surface missiles
without regard to range, such as Scuds and CSS-2s. It excludes all anti-tank missiles.
It also excludes all anti-ship missiles, which are counted in a separate listing.
Anti-ship Missiles: This category includes all missiles in this class such as the
Harpoon, Silkworm, Styx and Exocet.
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and
Charts
ASIANEAR EASTEUROPE
Af ghanistan Al ge r i a Albania
Australia Bahrain Arme nia
Bangladesh E gyp t Aus t r i a
Brunei Ir a n Azerbaij an
Burma (Myanmar)IraqBelarus
Chi n a Is r a e l Bosnia/Herzegovi na
Fi j i Jordan Bulgaria
India Kuwait Belgium
Indonesia Lebanon Canada
J a pan Libya Cr oatia
Cambodia Morocco C z e c h o s l o va ki a /
KazakhstanOmanCzech Republic
K yr gyzs t a n Qa t a r Cyprus
LaosSaudi ArabiaDenmark
Malaysia Syr i a Estonia
Nepal T unisia Finland
New ZealandUnited Arab EmiratesFrance
North KoreaYemenFYR/Macedonia
PakistanGeorgia
Papua New GuineaGermany
Philippines Gr eece
PitcairnHungary
Singapore Iceland
South KoreaIreland
Sri LankaItaly
TaiwanLatvia
Taj ikistan Li echtenstein
Thailand Lithuania
Turkmenistan Luxembourg
UzbekistanMalta
VietnamMoldova
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Yugoslavia/Federal
Republic(Serbia/Monte
negro.)
Regions Identified in Arms Transfer Tables and Charts
(Cont.)
AFRICALATIN AMERICA
AngolaAntigua
BeninArgentina
BotswanaBahamas
Burkina FasoBarbados
BurundiBelize
CameroonBermuda
Cape VerdeBolivia
Central African RepublicBrazil
ChadBritish Virgin Islands
CongoCayman Islands
Côte d’IvoireChile
Dj ibouti Colombia
Equatorial GuineaCosta Rica
EthiopiaCuba
GabonDominica
GambiaDominican Republic
GhanaEcuador
GuineaEl Salvador
Guinea-BissauFrench Guiana
KenyaGrenada
Lesot ho Guadeloupe
Liberia Guatemala
Madaga scar Guya na
MalawiHaiti
MaliHonduras
Mauritania Jamaica
Mauritius Martinique
Moza mbique Mexico
Nami bia Montserrat
NigerNetherlands Antilles
Ni ge r i a Ni c a r a gu a
Réunion Panama
RwandaParaguay
SenegalPeru
SeychellesSt. Kitts & Nevis
Sierra LeoneSt. Lucia
SomaliaSt. Pierre & Miquelon
South AfricaSt. Vincent
SudanSuriname
Swaziland Trinidad
TanzaniaTurks & Caicos
Togo V enezuela
Uganda
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe