Progressive defense

The largest military-industrial complexes, as a rule, are owned by the states with the largest military budgets.

Own military industry remains one of the main conditions for maintaining the material and technical equipment of the armed forces in a state that meets external challenges (despite the fact that the importance of international trade weapons here everything is weightier). It is also an important source of innovation for civilian sectors of the economy. Worldwide, developed national MICs have a multiplier effect on industrial production, employment, and high-tech exports.

In Western countries, one worker in the military-industrial complex provides employment to two or three workers in related industries, therefore the real scale of the influence of defense on the labor market is several times more than the numbers in the table. In absolute terms, China is the undisputed leader: 1,6 million employed in the military-industrial complex. The leader in relative terms, the United States, where 0,65% of the economically active population is employed in the military industrial complex, has long since transferred its defense sector to post-industrial rails. According to this model, the military industry generates breakthrough technologies of universal application, and itself creates the final product through extensive cooperation with high-tech sectors of the economy.

Existing data on military R & D is assessed and incomplete. Systematic work on the analysis of military research is carried out by the OECD, outside of which due to the closed nature of the information remain China, Israel and Russia. According to rough estimates, the annual total volume of military research and development in the world is $ 120-130 billion, at least 40% of which are spent by the United States. It is estimated that the US, UK, France, Germany and China provide about 90% of global defense research funding. As the table shows, considerable attention to military R & D is accompanied by the presence of a large national military-industrial sector and a developed economy.

The top ranks of arms exporters are traditionally occupied by opponents of the Cold War era - Russia and the United States (the cumulative share is more than 50%). Main news In recent years, the first Asian country, China, has appeared in the top 5 exporters. Over the past five years, exports of Chinese weapons have grown by 162%, primarily due to large-scale deliveries to Pakistan. It is noteworthy that the APR countries account for almost half of world arms imports (47%).

Comments

[NickitaDembelnulsa]

There are no significant expenditures on military developments in Russia, but at the same time we are the second largest exporter ... And those countries that are investing billions in promising developments occupy from 2 to 5% of the export market (Except the USA). An interesting trend. Maybe because our production is debugged and put on stream? Or we are not sufficiently developing modern weapons. Paradox.

[kris]

Quote: NickitaDembelnulsa

Maybe because our production is debugged and put on stream?

Because the USSR has left an enormous margin of safety!
And Russia is now selling developments from the time of the Great Country or modernizing them.
New developments, a drop in the bucket!

[ovgorskiy]

And Russia is now selling developments from the time of the Great Country or modernizing them.

Russia is the rightholder of the USSR, so there is no contradiction. The developments of ALL countries are based on old developments in a specific area and / or their modernization. "New developments are a drop in the ocean!" - this applies to all countries and the drop is not so small.
Or do you think that Russia should abandon the accumulated experience of the USSR and begin to develop everything in a new way? And it’s absolutely utter stupidity to say that Russia is trading in old weapons in the modern arms market, given modern competition, Russia would not have survived the market for 5 years and slipped below Ukraine. Before writing stupidity, it would be nice to ask about the subject.

[T-100]

The OECD conducts systematic work on the analysis of military research, beyond the scope of which China, Israel and Russia remain due to the closed nature of information.

Read the article not blindly, and then you will understand)))

[aksakal]

Quote: kris

New developments, a drop in the bucket!

- honestly, new developments - a drop in the ocean not only in Russia, but in everyone in this world. Why? Yes, because in fundamental science since the 60s there has not been a single fundamental discovery. The current development of science is fueled by only a few areas of fundamental science, created in the 60s and early 70s. These are discoveries in the field of information processing (the work of Shannon, Kolmogorov, Turing, von Neumann) and discoveries in the field of optics (work of Prokhorov-Basov-Upatnieks, a slightly different field of optics - the work of Denisov). As a matter of fact, applied science and its branch - technologies - are still developing on this fundamental basis. There are also some fundamental discoveries in the same years that still fuel applied science in the field of materials, in particular, in the field of materials with extreme properties - such as ultrahigh-strength, heat-resistant, or some other. This is a compromise and material science, solid state physics and others. In other areas, there are no new developments. The jet movement in aviation and astronautics has not been replaced, and so far it is not even clear what will be replaced. This is pure water physics. The tracked mover on armored vehicles is the same. This is the theory of machines and mechanisms.
So you are in vain blaming Russia for a small number of new developments. All countries have few of them - there simply is no basis on which these latest developments will be based, and only fundamental science creates the basis.

[evgenii67]

Hello everyone!

Quote: NickitaDembelnulsa

Significant spending on military development in Russia - no

I want to believe that Russia simply did not provide information about "spending on military development", but they exist, even if the foundation for many projects was laid back in the USSR. S-400, S-500 ... funded by enthusiasts, Su-35, MiG-35, PAK-FA, Ka-52, Mi-28N ...- funded by amateur aviators, Yars, Bulava, Iskander .. .- for the money of tennis players, they need new "rackets", PL "Ash" and "Borey" .... well, Armata, and a lot of things to know about now is not necessary, although it may really all this for the money of enthusiasts.

[dustycat]

For spending on R&D, research institutes of an appropriate profile are needed.
And we have only scientific research institutes of statistical and accounting defense profile.
Well, maybe scientific scientists will give out something.
Although looking at the belly of a comrade of something, I doubt about that.
Yes, and it seems to me that these companies are purely for showing off at the exercises - so that the recruits do not stupidly poke at computers and new equipment, but these could show the "cool specialists" of the first half-year.

[Rus2012]

Quote: dustycat

For spending on R&D, research institutes of an appropriate profile are needed.

in the west, search research works are carried out by universities ... OCD and pilot production are commercial firms (lockheed, Boeing). Research institutes and our ex. p / I need to somehow bring it closer to our universities. It used to be. Fortunately, many research institutes simply do not exist ...

[NickitaDembelnulsa]

No, of course, we have multibillion expenses. Most likely, the notorious Soviet secrecy still operates. End justifies the means.

[T-100]

NickitaDembelnulsa - do you even read the article ??? Here is a quote for you below, this is not a paradox. China, by the way, is not there either)))

The OECD conducts systematic work on the analysis of military research, beyond the scope of which China, Israel and Russia remain due to the closed nature of information.

[Rus2012]

Quote: NickitaDembelnulsa

There are no significant expenditures on military development in Russia, but at the same time we are second in export ...

... from the old Soviet backlogs and the strength of the created reserves. Alas, they are already drying up ... If we do not urgently take up infrastructure and training, we can permanently lose all achievements ...

[papss]

Analysis

The research is conducted by the OECD, beyond the scope of which China, Israel and Russia remain due to the closed nature of information.

here ... our numbers, 1,5 times higher for sure ... except for export ... The absence of Russia in the top 10 countries of military development seemed strange ... On what new equipment is being developed - a 5th generation aircraft, the development of new missiles ... s-500 and so on?

[dustycat]

What on what ...
On the achievements of the USSR in the 1970s-1980s.
Well, how advanced was military technology and science in the USSR?

[serge-68-68]

Russia has a good combination of "price + quality". And most countries in the rest of the world do not need all these fancy tank-cannons running for beer in between firing and brewing coffee for the crew. But how long will it last? China, however, is running out ...

[Smersh]

The main news of recent years was the appearance in the top 5 exporters of the first Asian country - China, it took the place of Great Britain

sell copies of our weapons and rejoice now

[pensioner]

The fact that scientific research on military subjects are the locomotive of the development of science and technology as a whole has long been known. For the first time, Andropov openly said this. Unfortunately, the mania to secret everything that is necessary and not necessary did not allow the USSR to massively turn military developments into civilian technologies. But on the other hand, the nest egg remained! Not all pockets have turned out yet. It's time to put these nest egg in business.

[dustycat]

And who will earn new ones?
The hurt is gone.
The same Redoubt P166 (P161) to take - there is nothing fundamentally new since the 1960s.
No one will give new technologies for free.
Nobody is lucky to bring new high-tech industries, like to the same China or India - no one will invest in the country whose authorities invest the stabilization fund in foreign assets and allow banks to eat up the enterprises that barely survived the 1990s and the beginning of zero.
So that's it - the box is empty.

[KazaK Bo]

Quote: retired

Unfortunately, the mania to secret everything that is necessary and not necessary did not allow the USSR to massively turn military developments into civilian technologies.

I agree. After 10-12 years, the technologies applied in the development of Shuttles in the United States and implemented in the civilian sectors of the economy, more than a third recouped the costs of these Shuttles. Breakthrough technologies of our BURANA from the first flight to 2000 were introduced only by 2 - 3% ...
In the days of the USSR, serious civilian production did not start unless the military plan of the wartime economy was worked out. In the USA, military production was launched, provided that new technologies should be reflected in the civilian economy of peacetime. Therefore, their economic returns on military production are many times higher than ours. Here it is necessary to learn from amerov ... but so far it does not work out in the volume as I wanted.

[Rus2012]

Quote: KazaK Bo

Breakthrough technologies of our BURANA from the first flight to 2000. were implemented only on 2 - 3% ...

I would not say that ... But this is close, although the main reason here is rather that the collapse of our economy fell on these years.
Otherwise, automatic landing would have been used in aviation long ago.

By the way, they told me - in Obninsk, where they made ceramic tile-plates for a glider, after the closing of the Buran program - there were mountains of illiquid assets ...
Wait, they are not there - managed to apply! :)))
Move DO-DU also in business along with production technology ... and much more. But in general, not all technologies are a fact!

[Algor73]

You look at the numbers, how many people are occupied in the defense industry in the United States, China and Russia. Compare. Russia has remained hurt since the days of the USSR, and if it is not necessary to establish new research, invite new people, expand military research institutes, in 10-20 years Russia will not be one of the 5 largest suppliers. Military products are a path of long trial and error in creation. And most importantly, the connection between generations is lost - in the military-industrial complex mainly elderly people work.

[knn54]

The USSR was once the first in a series of “critical technologies”, including nuclear, laser, microwave, aviation ...
Today, in ANY NEW technology, more than 40% (!) Of imported equipment. And NOBODY is in a hurry to sell the latest technologies to the Russian Federation.
-Nikita: There are no significant expenditures on military developments in Russia ...
As a result, specialized institutes die, test sites fall apart, topics are closed. And the development of ALL industry is the BASIS for the development of the defense industry. The US clearly shows that there is NO production of civilian aircraft, automobiles ... separately from the military. And as an example, when, after World War II, Germany and Japan were banned from producing combat aircraft, the civilian died immediately. The positions of Germany and Japan in world aviation are far from leading ...
A progressive defense turns into a screwdriver assembly.