Defense News made the top 100 of the largest weapons manufacturers

13 September 2016

Defense News Weekly has compiled a rating (TOP-100) of the largest arms manufacturers in the world, the newspaper reported Look.

Defense News made the top 100 of the largest weapons manufacturers

First place was taken by Lockheed Martin, which last year received revenues of $ 40,6 billion.

In second place is the American corporation Boeing with revenue for 2015 g in $ 30,38 billion.

Three leaders closes BAE Systems (UK), which sold last year weapons worth $ 25,27 billion.

The Russian Almaz-Antey is on the 11 site. Its revenue in 2015 amounted to $ 7 billion (first place among the enterprises of the Russian defense industry).

According to the newspaper, in addition to Almaz-Antey, the top 100 also includes 6 Russian enterprises, including "United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) with revenues of 4,64 billion dollars, Russian Helicopters JSC - 3,19 billion dollars, Tactical Missile Weapons Corporation - 2,38 billion dollars and others."

The magazine makes such ratings from 2000 of the year and is one of the most respected in the world.

Photos used:: Peter Nicholls / Reuters

Military Reviewin Yandex News

Military Reviewin Yandex Zen

Muvka 13 September 2016 12: 11
+12

12

0
Still, with such US spending on weapons (remember the F-35), they will be in first place in terms of money earned. It would be better if the top billions from arms exports ...
1. cniza 13 September 2016 12: 21
  +15
  
  15
  
  0
  Let them amuse themselves, weapons are measured not by money, but by efficiency.
  1. Thirteenth 13 September 2016 12: 27
    
    +11
    
    11
    
    0
    
    Let them have fun
    
    That's it. Indeed, many countries buy a fair share of American weapons only because the "big brother" holds their governments by the balls and they are simply forced to buy their products. It has been proven that Russian weapons are an order of magnitude cheaper and no less, and sometimes even more effective than their foreign counterparts.
    1. Muvka 13 September 2016 12: 41
      
      +2
      
      2
      
      0
      
      The problem is that 80 percent falls on domestic consumption, so to speak. The figure is my feelings, it may be wrong)
2. with 13 September 2016 12: 27
  +3
  
  3
  
  0
  The rating (TOP-100) of Defense News is similar to the rating on "sawing the bubble" - the exhaust from Lockheed Martin at a cost of 1,6 trillion. American rubles is equal to the intimidating only rebels of the F-35 fighter.
  Boeing is supported by the good old lobbying (or, more simply, unfair competition).
  This does not mean that their weapons are the best in the world, just the most expensive.
  And all "free democratic countries" (and Ukraine, which joined them), plus Arab despotism, buy it voluntarily and compulsorily.
  Although the Arab despotism in recent years are increasingly looking towards the good old Russian weapons ....
  1. weksha50 13 September 2016 14: 30
    
    +1
    
    1
    
    0
    
    with
    "And all the" free democratic countries "buy it voluntarily and compulsorily (and Ukraine that joined them) plus Arab despotism "...
    
    And what did she do, could this little bead buy?
    1. with 13 September 2016 20: 33
      
      +1
      
      1
      
      0
      
      It was a banter at the Central European neighbors, who (in their minds) joined those "free" countries, exchanging the tit in their hand for mirage in the sky. “Seeing is more important than being” is about “democratic” Ukraine, with the support of its devastating “policy” by the “entire civilized world”. In this case - "and who joined them ..." still is a meme, not a fact.
Gormenghast 13 September 2016 12: 11
+4

4

0
Where "honest" capitalism with honest competition?

If you are a NATO member - please buy am-yerskoye, if you are a young NATO member - the old a-mer. And if the Ukrainian - you have expired rations. , Soviet uncommunized cartridges and civil night-vision devices; Of course - Amer.

And so it turns out 1 and 2 second place in a-measures, and the third? - Oh, yes - the Anglo-Saxons.
1. Muvka 13 September 2016 12: 14
  +4
  
  4
  
  0
  So the United States has a military budget of about $ 600 billion, and therefore such figures. We have 70 or something.
  1. andj61 13 September 2016 12: 26
    
    +2
    
    2
    
    0
    
    Quote: Muvka
    So the United States has a military budget of about $ 600 billion, and therefore such figures. We have 70 or something.
    
    About 70 we had in 2014, and now, for obvious reasons, somewhere in half ... And in rubles they allocate almost the same amount, and the dollar exchange rate doubled.
mvg 13 September 2016 12: 12
0

0

0
The miracle of gwin-pin, all the same ...))) Or the photo is so biased.
nik-karata 13 September 2016 12: 23
+1

1

0
A miracle is not a miracle, but they know how to trade (or push old stuff) in a good way! We still have to learn. Two companies with sales for 70 lard greens! Although the fools say that our weapons are the best in the world. Why buy it so little? Somewhere a catch!
1. Thirteenth 13 September 2016 12: 32
  +5
  
  5
  
  0
  Quote: nik-karata
  A miracle is not a miracle, but they know how to trade (or push old stuff) in a good way!
  
  Aha, here in the market they will put a pistol to your temple and will whisper in your ear affectionately "buy potatoes from me, buy from me." I think you will not be able to refuse such a "tempting" offer, buy it and say thank you))) Here, too, there is often a similar situation.
2. with 13 September 2016 12: 34
  +5
  
  5
  
  0
  The catch lies in the expression of the Godfather known to all, expressing the essence of Anglo-Saxon cooperation:
  "I made him an offer that he could not refuse!"
  And it seems uncomfortable to render foreigners, even General de Gaulle tried:
  
  Putin: - And we have gas in Russia! And you?
  
  Yanukovych: - And we have a coup, here.
  
  Lukashenko: - And we have one potato,
  But we have her so much
  What do we care about your gas.
  No coup
  Our people will not allow it!
  
  Putin: - And we have the Olympics.
  What else is necessary for happiness?
  And all the people rejoice. Here!
  
  Yanukovych: - And we have a coup, here ...
  
  Lukashenko: - But in our country
  Thanks of course to me
  There are neither poor nor rich
  All live only on a salary.
  
  Putin: - And we are skiing in Sochi
  Everyone will be able to relax.
  Both the official and the worker.
  Here is such a grace!
  
  Yanukovych: - And we have a coup, here!
  
  Obama: - Well, I generally all countries
  They send potatoes, gas, bananas.
  Who will not send bananas -
  That coup. Here.
3. Muvka 13 September 2016 12: 43
  +3
  
  3
  
  0
  What does it have to do with trading? They themselves produce and buy for themselves and for themselves. From the military budget seen? What does export have to do with it? These are not export earnings, but simply revenues. Develop a thinker.
  1. Muvka 13 September 2016 13: 28
    
    +2
    
    2
    
    0
    
    No need to go far. He took the tablet with production plans for the F-35. In total, 3176 aircraft are going to be released. Of these, only 724 are exported. And this is only 22% of the total. And so not in everything. For example, they produce rockets only for themselves, most likely. So 80-90% is the income from domestic demand.
4. katalonec2014 13 September 2016 13: 28
  +1
  
  1
  
  0
  Excuse me, Nikolay, but somehow you are not respectful to your colleagues on the sofa, the armament as a whole is really the best, and for some types it is far ahead (the same S-400).
  I agree with others that they mostly buy weapons themselves, they promote the rest with very aggressive methods, in all countries of the West they have their own people who, with all desire, will not be able to purchase on the side.
  All of their proposed weapons, very technological, and therefore not only expensive (remember the same f-35), but also expensive to maintain.
5. weksha50 13 September 2016 14: 36
  +3
  
  3
  
  0
  nik-karata
  "Although the fools say that our weapons are the best in the world. Why buy it so little? Somewhere a catch! "...
  
  Yes, there’s no catch ... During the breakup years, we left the arms market, and now it’s tight, we’re coming back with a creak ... It’s not bread and oil that we need every day, so it’s very difficult to move someone on the arms market ...
  Well and further - after all, our production capacities and financial capabilities do not allow our army to quickly rearm, saturate its needs ...
  And so - those who want to eat, and they want ships, and submarines (this is from the largest orders), and other weapons ... But where can I get so much of it? How and how to build-produce, so that it’s enough for itself, and for export?
  1. katalonec2014 13 September 2016 14: 44
    
    +2
    
    2
    
    0
    
    All that remains for us is to have patience and seriously take up the development of industry, its re-equipment (no one will deny that we still have a lot of machine tools in the 1900 year), and of course the personnel have reached the point that we cannot build large ships.
  2. Muvka 13 September 2016 14: 51
    
    +2
    
    2
    
    0
    
    If you compare income from exports, I’m not sure that Amer corporations will be ahead.
  3. mav1971 13 September 2016 20: 54
    
    +1
    
    1
    
    0
    
    Quote: weksha50
    nik-karata
    "Although the fools say that our weapons are the best in the world. Why buy it so little? Somewhere a catch! "...
    
    Yes, no catch ... During the breakup years, we left the arms market, and now, tightly, with a creak, we are returning there ...
    
    Do not smack nonsense.
    Russia has never left the arms market.
    And the supply of weapons has always given the Russian Federation 2-3 a place in the table of sellers.
    What is in 90, what is in zero. what now.
    1. weksha50 14 September 2016 09: 12
      
      0
      
      0
      
      0
      
      mav1971 Yesterday, 20:54 ↑
      Quote: weksha50
      nik-karata
      "Although uryakalka say that our weapons are the best in the world. Why don't they buy it like that? There is a catch somewhere!" ...
      
      Yes, no catch ... During the breakup years, we left the arms market, and now, tightly, with a creak, we are returning there ...
      
      Do not smack nonsense.
      Russia has never left the arms market.
      And the supply of weapons has always given the Russian Federation 2-3 a place in the table of sellers.
      What is in 90, what is in zero. what now.
      
      That's it - don’t break the rubbish, dear ... I tell you - about the hotter, you tell me - about the green ...
      The fact that Russia all these years occupied the 2-3rd place in the world in arms trade is clear ...
      And now I’ll try to show you not in percentage places, but in dollar terms ...
      I put it bluntly, "Russia has left the arms market," I should have said it sharply reduced its participation in this market ... For this reason, you reacted so sharply ...
      
      Here are the calculations for VOLUMES of trade in billions of dollars:
      In 1995-2001, Russian arms exports amounted to about $ 3 billion annually. Then it began to grow, exceeding in 2002 $ 4,5 billion, in 2004 - $ 5,5 billion, in 2006 - $ 6,4 billion, in 2009 - $ 7,8 billion, ... .. in 2014 - $ 47 billion. . 2015 - $ 56 billion ..
      
      Feel the difference between the 90s and the beginning of zero, and in recent years ??? Dozens (!!!) times !!!
      Do not be lazy, google on the Internet ...
Mountain shooter 13 September 2016 12: 42
+1

1

0
Considering that all of the above enterprises are part of Rostec, then ... it’s not yet clear who is in what place.
501 Legion 13 September 2016 12: 48
+2

2

0
Well, if one plane costs hundreds of millions, naturally there will be such proceeds, only here and the waste will also be high. from here I conclude that the rating is not entirely objective. and it is necessary to make a rating of the proceeds of enterprises in relation to costs.
Olegovi4 13 September 2016 16: 22
+1

1

0
statistics, such statistics. for example. If the Americans buy 10 tanks of 5 Llamas, the manufacturer's revenue is 50 Llamas. and if we are the same 10 tanks of 2, it turns out 20 lyamas. here is actually the first thing that "catches the eye" when looking at these ratings. by what criteria the assessment is made is not clear. but it is clear that there are many more quotes similar to the one I have cited. and a hero throwing "uryakalkas" and "uryakpatriots" himself should turn on his head. until it turned into a pumpkin.