Top 15 countries with the highest military expenditure

[Damian]

Another thing I look for is actual expeditionary capability, if you can't operate a full spectrum force outside your borders, you aren't much of a power.

It depends on armed forces profile, some are more focused on expeditionary operations, some are more focused on defending own borders.

One thing that is often overlooked is the capability of the domestic MIC. How much do you rely on imports to arm your military?

The problem is that arms market is so much interconnected these days it is hard to make any decisive conclusions, even superpowers are importing some products or purchase licences for foreign products of lesser importance to save money and time on R&D phase.

World is not so simple.

 

[Armand2REP]

It depends on armed forces profile, some are more focused on expeditionary operations, some are more focused on defending own borders.

That is like saying the Maginot line made pre-war France on par with Germany. If you can't move to where you need to be, you will lose. We learned this the hard way. A defencive military is one that cannot use its armed forces to assert or protect its national interests or sovereignty anywhere outside its border.

The problem is that arms market is so much interconnected these days it is hard to make any decisive conclusions, even superpowers are importing some products or purchase licences for foreign products of lesser importance to save money and time on R&D phase.

There is only one Super Power and its domestic share is still in the 90+ percentile. Not to mention it retains the tech and capacity to replace any foreign supplier. The point is to be sanction proof so you can commit your forces without physical or political impairments anywhere your national interest dictates.

World is not so simple.

If you can't assert influence in the world, then you are merely a spectator, not a power.

 

[Damian]

That is like saying the Maginot line made pre-war France on par with Germany. If you can't move to where you need to be, you will lose. We learned this the hard way. A defencive military is one that cannot use its armed forces to assert or protect its national interests or sovereignty anywhere outside its border.

First you should sit and think what you mean by talking about expeditionary forces? The ones that can act globaly? or ones that can move in to nearest foreing territory. Not every armed forces need to have capability to project power over Africa.

There is only one Super Power and its domestic share is still in the 90+ percentile. Not to mention it retains the tech and capacity to replace any foreign supplier. The point is to be sanction proof so you can commit your forces without physical or political impairments anywhere your national interest dictates.

It is not so easy, not for everyone, even Russia or China needs to import some technologies or whole products.

If you can't assert influence in the world, then you are merely a spectator, not a power.

Not everyone is predenting to be a power, because many countries have bigger problems to solve than a prestige title of being "power".

 

[hello_10]

The easiest way to rank armed forces is based on real defence spending and is probably the closest you will get to actual capability as it includes qualitative and quantitative numbers. One thing that is often overlooked is the capability of the domestic MIC. How much do you rely on imports to arm your military? Another thing I look for is actual expeditionary capability, if you can't operate a full spectrum force outside your borders, you aren't much of a power. All these things are subjective so you should also look at recent history and how well those forces have conducted themselves in combat ops.

its a very mature statement, "higher you spend on military, more strength you will have this way." and thats the reason why name of this thread is to rank countries with Military Expenditure on PPP, considering the fact that salaries/ cost of products, labor cost etc varies significantly between Developed and Developing countries. hence military expenditure based on exchange rate also has little meaning this way :thumb:

and then i try to compare the main four countries on the different aspects in this thread, based on aircraft/ tanks/ missiles/ naval arms etc :ranger:

 

[Armand2REP]

its a very mature statement, "higher you spend on military, more strength you will have this way." and thats the reason why name of this thread is to rank countries with Military Expenditure on PPP, considering the fact that salaries/ cost of products, labor cost etc varies significantly between Developed and Developing countries. hence military expenditure based on exchange rate also has little meaning this way :thumb:

and then i try to compare the main four countries on the different aspects in this thread, based on aircraft/ tanks/ missiles/ naval arms etc :ranger:

The PPP argument is a false assumption that doesn't relate to military spending. India still pays international rates for its weapons, materials, fuel, some food, R&D, maintenance, training... the only cost savings are wages. Then you have quality issues of products you make cheaper out of OFB that doesn't meet IA standards that has to be thrown away. Most of R&D spending by DRDO is tossed. Then India still buys 77% of its arms abroad. Then the wages spent don't translate to quality because they are well below government standard. The percentage spent on wages is well over 50% while the procurement expenditure is under 30%. India retains a poor teeth to tail ratio. in relation to France that spends well over 50% on procurement.

 

[hello_10]

The PPP argument is a false assumption that doesn't relate to military spending. India still pays international rates for its weapons, materials, fuel, some food, R&D, maintenance, training... the only cost savings are wages. Then you have quality issues of products you make cheaper out of OFB that doesn't meet IA standards that has to be thrown away. Most of R&D spending by DRDO is tossed. Then India still buys 77% of its arms abroad. Then the wages spent don't translate to quality because they are well below government standard. The percentage spent on wages is well over 50% while the procurement expenditure is under 30%. India retains a poor teeth to tail ratio. in relation to France that spends well over 50% on procurement.

check post#67, its discussed there :thumb:

im trying to bring more and more info in this thread, please come with some good arguments only, thanks

 

[LalTopi]

The US doesn't use its budget only for protecting itself. Some of it goes into NATO and Japan. They are a completely offensive force, expeditionary if you want to call it so. Their defence budget is quite justified in that respect.

India's Defence Budget 2012-13 | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

Capital expenditure is Rs 80000 crores this year. That roughly comes up to $15Billion today. Out of which 70% is used for import. That makes it around $10Billion. So, our PPP calculations can directly be used for the rest of the budget.

However, a significant aspect of our capital expenditure involves license production within India. So, quite a bit of that amount directly comes back to India to HAL, BEML, OFB, HVF and other manufacturers. Eg are T-90, MKI, Hawk etc which are big ticket deals. So, this is again calculated in PPP. Apart from that, offset clause implies a significant amount of the capital expenditure, at least 30%, comes back to India in the form of investment.

So, even if we consider half the amount comes back to India in some form or the other (actually much more), we can calculate PPP figures for at least 85%, if not 90%+, of our Defence budget.

Considering that, the table is pretty okay. Maybe we can say it is a little above Russia's budget.

I have always wondered where SIPRI and there like get their numbers from when they make statements like India is the world's largest importer and imports 70% of her military equipment. do these people even bother to try to make adjustments for JVs and licensed production. how do they treat for example the production of T90s - do they take only the royalty payments and imports (which is the logical method) or do they take the lazy way and take the whole capital figure for T90s even though much of that is for local production/assembly. also how do they account for JVs such as Brahmos?

I know that there is a lot of criticism from DFI members over the level of imports. but if the above adjustments are made, I wonder whether the import picture may not look so bad, and in fact India is following a smart strategy of spending selectively to import the best technology and hence not needing to spend as much overall as China.

 

[Armand2REP]

check post#67, its discussed there :thumb:

im trying to bring more and more info in this thread, please come with some good arguments only, thanks

see post #85, your perception of imports being as low as 50% is complete fallacy as it is 77% today and will only grow with the massive purchases to come.

im trying to bring truth and reality into this thread. please come when you have some good arguments that deal with the real world.

 

[TrueSpirit]

The easiest way to rank armed forces is based on real defence spending and is probably the closest you will get to actual capability as it includes qualitative and quantitative numbers. One thing that is often overlooked is the capability of the domestic MIC. How much do you rely on imports to arm your military? Another thing I look for is actual expeditionary capability, if you can't operate a full spectrum force outside your borders, you aren't much of a power. All these things are subjective so you should also look at recent history and how well those forces have conducted themselves in combat ops.

If capability of the domestic MIC & expeditionary capability are the main criterion, then India would not figure in top 20...

 

[TrueSpirit]

see post #85, your perception of imports being as low as 50% is complete fallacy as it is 77% today and will only grow with the massive purchases to come.

im trying to bring truth and reality into this thread. please come when you have some good arguments that deal with the real world.

50% import figure is BS....

 

[p2prada]

I have always wondered where SIPRI and there like get their numbers from when they make statements like India is the world's largest importer and imports 70% of her military equipment. do these people even bother to try to make adjustments for JVs and licensed production. how do they treat for example the production of T90s - do they take only the royalty payments and imports (which is the logical method) or do they take the lazy way and take the whole capital figure for T90s even though much of that is for local production/assembly. also how do they account for JVs such as Brahmos?

I think they are going by the size of the deal instead of where the money is distributed.

A $20 Billion aircraft Indian deal is bigger than a $6 Billion Japanese deal even though the money that is actually going to France is less than the $6 Billion that US will be taking as a whole from Japan. Meaning most of the money is spent in India itself while Japan will be importing finished products.

I know that there is a lot of criticism from DFI members over the level of imports. but if the above adjustments are made, I wonder whether the import picture may not look so bad, and in fact India is following a smart strategy of spending selectively to import the best technology and hence not needing to spend as much overall as China.

Yes, this is why I support "sensible" imports and also why I claimed T-90 and MKI are more indigenous, where critical equipment is made in India, than Arjun and LCA, where even the most critical components have to be imported as full builds from sanction-slapping countries like US and Germany.

 

[no smoking]

Yes, this is why I support "sensible" imports and also why I claimed T-90 and MKI are more indigenous, where critical equipment is made in India, than Arjun and LCA, where even the most critical components have to be imported as full builds from sanction-slapping countries like US and Germany.

If you can "make" critical components of T-90 and MKI in india, why can't you "make" the similar part in LCA and Arjun?

If you mean "make" it with the material imported from Russia based on the blue print provided by Russia, then it means nothing! Russia can stop your production in anytime by cutting the material and parts.

 

[p2prada]

If you can "make" critical components of T-90 and MKI in india, why can't you "make" the similar part in LCA and Arjun?

Because of different design philosophies used.

MKI uses larger and heavier engines of the 125KN class whereas LCA needs 90-100KN class engines.

Arjun needs 1400-1800HP engines while T-90s have 1130HP engines.

Can't simply copy-paste technologies like that. Meaning in your case you designed your aircraft (J-11, J-10, J-20 and J-31) around Russian engines while we designed our equipment around western engines (F-404 and MTU).

If you mean "make" it with the material imported from Russia based on the blue print provided by Russia, then it means nothing! Russia can stop your production in anytime by cutting the material and parts.

Lol. No. They can't. That was the point of the ToT. We can make this stuff here using our own materials and parts. Electronics are imported on T-90, like Catherine. But we can upgrade the T-90 unilaterally through Arjun tech if Russia places sanctions (impossible anyway).

As for MKI, everything is made here except for landing carriage and ejection seat. Landing carriage is not made here because HAL could not deliver it at a cheaper rate than Russia could. Same for the seat. These are not things that cannot be reverse engineered here.

 

[no smoking]

I know that there is a lot of criticism from DFI members over the level of imports. but if the above adjustments are made, I wonder whether the import picture may not look so bad, and in fact India is following a smart strategy of spending selectively to import the best technology and hence not needing to spend as much overall as China.

Of course you don't need to spend as much as Chinese: developing your own technology/product is always more expensive than importing them!

 

[hello_10]

Of course you don't need to spend as much as Chinese: developing your own technology/product is always more expensive than importing them!

its true and also we have news that China generally doesn't disclose expanses on those research on new defence technologies, hence this way we find its military expenditure may be at a much higher side......

i think China would come close to US military strength soon, hopefully by the end of this decade, sometimes when J20 and 5-6 new Aircraft Carriers of china will be operational :thumb:

 

[no smoking]

its true and also we have news that China generally doesn't disclose expanses on those research on new defence technologies, hence this way we find its military expenditure may be at a much higher side......

Because most of the reserch institutions are not part of military system. They get their money from civilian departments.

i think China would come close to US military strength soon, hopefully by the end of this decade, sometimes when J20 and 5-6 new Aircraft Carriers of china will be operational :thumb:

Not a chance before 2050!
But if we want to balance US navy power within western pacific in China's neighbourhood (south china sea for example), we may reach that after 2030 if the current trend continues.

 

[hello_10]

Because most of the reserch institutions are not part of military system. They get their money from civilian departments.



Not a chance before 2050!
But if we want to balance US navy power within western pacific in China's neighbourhood (south china sea for example), we may reach that after 2030 if the current trend continues.

in fact, the best way to compare military strength is based on the amount you spend on it, and here we find China already close to $300 billion on PPP while US is on downside with a set pace..... i think Chinese Military Expenditure on PPP would well surpass US within next 5-6 years :ranger:

http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/Top 15 table 2012.pdf

.

 

[hello_10]

India's new Navy chief pilots 'blue-water' strategy
2012-09-27

India's new Navy chief sits at the helm of an emergent, "blue-water navy" strategically positioning the country's stated aspirations to command a dominant role in the Indian Ocean.

Admiral Devendra Kumar Joshi, 58, replaced retiring Navy chief Admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma on Aug. 31. India's Navy has 123 ships and 11 submarines.

Blue-water navy refers to the ability to exercise sea control at wide ranges. Specifically, the term describes a "maritime force capable of sustained operation across open oceans, project power from the home country and usually includes one or more aircraft carriers," according to U.S. Defense Security.

Naval build up expected

A total of 46 new war ships and submarines are under construction and about 15 are expected to be added to the fleet during Joshi's three-year tenure. :thumb:

Projects slated for the next three years include a Russian-built aircraft carrier, U.S.-built long-range reconnaissance planes, an indigenous nuclear-powered submarine under construction, and a dedicated naval satellite.

The new ships and submarines will add to India's presence as a maritime power and reinforce its capabilities on the high seas.

India's maritime activity is gaining world recognition, marking the period as the country's biggest naval power increase since independence from Britain in 1947.

Visiting India in June, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta said, "In terms of regional security, our vision is a peaceful Indian Ocean region supported by growing Indian capabilities.

"India is one of the largest and most dynamic countries in the region. "¦ India is at the crossroads of Asia, the crossroads of the new global economy, and at the crossroads of regional security. We will stand with India at those crossroads."

Developments during Joshi's tenure will be watched from both sides of the Pacific Ocean.

Anti-submarine warfare specialist at the helm

Joshi, who was commissioned in 1974, is the 21st chief of the Navy since the country's independence. He is a specialist in anti-submarine warfare and has served in command, staff and instructional appointments.

His experience includes a stint in warship production and acquisition as the assistant controller of the Aircraft Carrier Program [ACCP]. He then worked at the "Operations Branch," first as an assistant chief of naval staff [Information Warfare and Operations] and then as deputy chief of naval staff. Notably, Joshi has been the commander-in-chief of the Andaman and Nicobar Command, the only tri-service integrated command in India.

He went on to serve as the chief of Integrated Defence Staff and was the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Western Naval Command at Mumbai. He served as the defense adviser in the Indian High Commission at Singapore from 1996 to 1999.

A native of Dehradun in the northern state of Uttarakhand, Joshi studied at Hansraj College in New Delhi. He graduated from the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island and attended the National Defense College in New Delhi.

Joshi is requesting not only changes to hardware, but infrastructure as well, saying, "We would need to professionally re-audit, train and consolidate preparedness."

Overall expansion plan

In addition to the 46 ships under construction, "acceptance of necessity" for 49 more ships and submarines has been approved by the Indian government. The vessels under construction include an aircraft carrier to be constructed in India along with destroyers, corvettes and six submarines to be constructed in France.

The first to be added to the fleet will be new warships of the existing "Delhi Class" destroyers, starting early next year. The ships feature improved stealth features and weapons. Also under construction are eight new landing craft utility [LCUs] vessels, used in amphibious warfare to augment the fleet in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Bay of Bengal.

The Navy commissioned 15 ships in the past three years, including four stealth frigates, two fleet tankers and eight water jet fast attack craft [WJFAC]. Future plans include a deep submergence and rescue vessel [DSRV], six additional submarines, four Landing Platform Docks and 16 shallow-water anti-submarine warfare [ASW] ships. :thumb:

Last month the Navy issued a request for proposals [RFP] to acquire 56 naval utility helicopters customized for surveillance, anti-submarine warfare, anti-terror, electronic intelligence gathering and search-and-rescue operations. The RFP, which may result in U.S. $1 billion in purchases, has been sent to leading U.S., European and Russian helicopter makers. The Navy has more than 100 helicopters.

Another aircraft carrier on sea trial

India is set to be a two-carrier Navy at the end of the year. [China will catch up soon with one aircraft carrier constructed in Ukraine and undergoing sea trials.] India's new carrier is a refitted Russian craft previously named Admiral Gorshkov. Renamed Indian Naval Ship [INS] Vikramaditya, the vessel has gone through a U.S. $2.35 billion refit program and will have Russian-built MiG 29K fighters flying off its deck. The 49,130-ton carrier started a four-month sea trial in June in the Barents Sea and is slated to join the fleet by the end of the year.

The other carrier, the INS Viraat, is set to be phased out by 2017 and replaced by another carrier being built at a state-owned shipyard in Kochi, Kerala, on India's western seaboard.

Meanwhile, India says the INS Arihant, "the slayer of enemies," will be sea-launched soon. The 6,614-ton nuclear submarine will provide second-strike capability in response to a potential initial enemy nuclear strike. Modeled on the Russian Akula class submarine design, the Arihant is being constructed at Vishakapatnam on the east coast of India.

At an August news conference, Verma, the then-navy chief, said: "Arihant is steadily progressing towards operationalization, and we hope to commence sea trials in the coming months. "¦ Navy is poised to complete the [nuclear] triad, and our maritime and nuclear doctrines will then be aligned to ensure our nuclear insurance comes from the sea."

Long-range reconnaissance aircraft

In November 2008 terrorists used the sea route to reach Mumbai on India's west coast to launch an attack, killing 166 people. In response, the Indian government approved the purchase of 12 long-range reconnaissance planes, the P-8I, produced by Boeing. The first is slated to arrive in January 2013. India operates the Russian origin IL-38 and the Tupelov-142 for long-range reconnaissance at sea.

The P-8I will provide real-time information and can be deployed in locations such as the Indian Naval Air Station, INS Baaz also known as "the Hawk." The P-8I will provide constant updates on the Strait of Malacca and also the "six degree channel" – the main shipping channel between the Indian and Pacific oceans.

The Strait is an important link between European markets and oil in the Gulf on one side, and China, Japan and Korea on the other side. Nearly 70,000 vessels pass through the Strait annually – about 40 percent of all global trade. :ranger:

In conjunction with the Indian Space Research Organization, the Navy is slated to launch a communications satellite that will provide communications among all its warships, helicopters, aircraft and submarines.

INDIA'S NEW NAVY CHIEF PILOTS 'BLUE-WATER' STRATEGY - Asia Pacific Defense Forum in English

Eye on future, India mulls options for nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
Aug 1, 2013

NEW DELHI: Nothing projects raw power like an aircraft carrier prowling on the high seas, capable of unleashing strike fighters against an adversary in a jiffy. A nuclear-powered carrier can make the punch even deadlier with much longer operational endurance.

With its first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) set to be "launched" at Cochin Shipyard on August 12, and sea trials of the first nuclear submarine INS Arihant to begin shortly after, India is now examining the possibility of having a nuclear-powered 65,000-tonne carrier in the future.

Navy vice-chief Vice Admiral RK Dhowan on Thursday said a "detailed study" was underway on the "size, type of aircraft and their launch and recovery systems, propulsion" and the like for the IAC-II project. "Yes, we are also considering nuclear propulsion. All options are being studied. No final decision has been taken," he said.

There are huge cost issues with nuclear-powered carriers, which can easily take upwards of $10 billion to build. The Royal British Navy is reverting to carriers propelled by gas turbines/diesel-electric systems from nuclear ones.

However, the US has 11 Nimitz-class "super-carriers" â€" each an over 94,000-tonne behemoth powered by two nuclear reactors and capable of carrying 80-90 fighters - to project power around the globe. China, too, is now looking at nuclear-powered carriers after inducting its first conventional carrier â€" the 65,000-tonne Liaoning â€" last September.

So, while Navy may want a nuclear-powered carrier, it will ultimately have to be a considered political decision. The force, however, is firm about its long-term plan to operate three carrier-battle groups (CBGs). "One carrier for each (western and eastern) seaboard and one in maintenance," said Vice Admiral Dhowan.

But, even two CBGs will be possible only by 2019. The 40,000-tonne IAC, to be christened INS Vikrant, will be ready for induction only by December 2018, as was first reported by TOI.

"Design and construction of a carrier has many challenges. Around 75% of the IAC structure has now been erected. India joins only four countries â€" the US, Russia, the UK and France - capable of building a carrier over 40,000-tonne," he said.

The 44,570-tonne INS Vikramaditya - or the Admiral Gorshkov carrier now undergoing sea trials after a $2.33-billion refit in Russia - in turn will be ready by end-2013 instead of the original August 2008 deadline. :thumb:

Vice Admiral Dhowan admitted India's solitary carrier, the 28,000-tonne INS Viraat, will soldier on till 2018 due to these long delays. The 54-year-old INS Viraat is left with just 11 Sea Harrier jump-jets to operate from its deck. The 45 MiG-29K naval fighters, being procured from Russia for over $2 billion, can operate only from Vikramaditya and IAC.

The 260-metre-long IAC, whose construction finally began in November 2006, will be able to carry 12 MiG-29Ks, eight Tejas light combat aircraft and 10 early-warning and anti-submarine helicopters on its 2.5-acre flight deck and hangars. It will have a crew of 160 officers and 1,400 sailors. Powered by four American LM2500 gas turbines, the IAC will have an endurance of around 7,500 nautical miles at a speed of 18 knots. :ranger:

Eye on future, India mulls options for nuclear-powered aircraft carrier - Times Of India

 

[hello_10]

double post

 

[hello_10]

India's elusive nuclear triad will be operational soon: Navy chief

NEW DELHI: India's nuclear triad - the ability to fire nukes from land, air and sea - will soon be in place. After some delays and hiccups, the country's first nuclear submarine INS Arihant is getting ready "to go to sea" within the next few months. :thumb:

"INS Arihant is steadily progressing towards becoming operational...we are pretty close to putting it to sea (for extensive trials and missile firings)," announced Navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma on Tuesday.

"Navy is poised to complete the triad, and our maritime and nuclear doctrines will then be aligned to ensure our nuclear insurance comes from the sea. Given our unequivocal 'no first-use commitment', a retaliatory strike capability that is credible and invulnerable is an imperative," he added.

The Navy chief's emphatic statement comes a week after DRDO officially declared the country's first-ever SLBM (submarine-launched ballistic missile) or the K-15 missile, with a strike range of 750-km, was "ready for induction".

India has for some time possessed the Agni series of ballistic missiles as well as fighter-bombers to constitute the land and air-based legs of the triad. The long-elusive underwater leg, considered the most effective for both pre-emptive as well as retaliatory strikes, now finally seems to be taking shape with INS Arihant and its two follow-on SSBNs (nuclear-powered submarines armed with ballistic nuclear-tipped missiles).

The 6,000-tonne submarine, which has four missile silos on its hump to carry either 12 K-15s or four of the under-development 3,500-km range K-4 missiles :thumb:, will head for sea only after its 83 MW pressurized light-water reactor goes "critical". So far, it has been undergoing systematic checks of all its sub-systems as well as "harbour-acceptance trials" on shore-based steam at Vizag.

With 46 warships and submarines being constructed, and another 49 in the pipeline under overall plans worth Rs 2.73 lakh crore, Admiral Verma said, "Today, I am confident we do not suffer asymmetries with anyone. We have the wherewithal to defend our maritime interests." :thumb:

Brushing aside questions on the new US strategy to "rebalance" forces towards the Asia-Pacific as well as China's growing maritime might and assertiveness, the Navy chief said India's "primary" area of strategic interest lay between the Gulf and Malacca Strait, extending "down south to the Cape of Good Hope".

While India is not going to "actively deploy" in the contentious South China Sea, where China is enmeshed in territorial disputes with Vietnam, the Philippines and others, he said "all the players" there should ensure hostilities do not erupt in the region and hit global shipping and trade.

Turning to maritime terrorism, Admiral Verma said both the Navy and Coast Guard were now much better prepared and equipped to tackle 26/11-like attacks from outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba. "Even before Abu Jundal (key 26/11 handler) said it, we had factored in such possibilities," he said.

"Terrorism from the sea and terrorism at sea are now realities of our times. In our external environment, one of our core concerns is the coalescing of the 'state' with 'non-state' entities," he added.

India's elusive nuclear triad will be operational soon: Navy chief - Times Of India

A Nuclear Triad refers to a nuclear arsenal which consists of three components, traditionally strategic bombers, ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles ( SLBMs). The purpose of having a three-branched nuclear capability is to significantly reduce the possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack; this, in turn, ensures a credible threat of a second strike, and thus increases a nation's nuclear deterrence.[1][2][3]

Triad nuclear powers

The following nations are considered triad nuclear powers. They possess nuclear forces consisting of land-based missiles, ballistic or long-range cruise missile submarines, and strategic bombers or long-range tactical aircraft.

United States[1][3][4]
The US operates Minuteman ICBMs from underground hardened silos, Trident SLBMs carried by Ohio-class submarines, it also operates B-1, B-52, B-2 strategic bombers, as well as land- and carrier-based tactical aircraft, some capable of carrying strategic and tactical B61 and large strategic B83 gravity bombs, AGM-86 ALCM, and AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles. While the US no longer keeps nuclear armed bombers on airborne alert it has the ability to do so along with the airborne nuclear command and control aircraft with its fleet of KC-10 and KC-135 aerial refueling planes. The US Navy also retains reserve stocks of undeployed nuclear warheads to equip existing Tomahawk ship or submarine-launched cruise missiles. Previous to development of submarine-launched ballistic missiles the US Navy strategic nuclear role was provided by aircraft carrier–based bombers and for a short time submarine-launched cruise missiles. With the end of the cold war, the US never deployed the rail mobile version of the Peacekeeper ICBM or the road mobile Midgetman small ICBM. The US destroyed its stock of road mobile Pershing II IRBMs and ground-launched cruise missiles in accordance with the INF treaty. The US also has shared strategic nuclear weapons and still deploys shared tactical nuclear weapons to some NATO countries.

Russia
Also a nuclear power,[5] Russia inherited the arsenal of all of the former Soviet states; this consists of silo-based as well as rail and road mobile ICBMs, sea-based SLBMs, strategic bombers, strategic aerial refueling aircraft, and long-range tactical aircraft capable of carrying gravity bombs, standoff missiles, and cruise missiles. The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces have ICBMs able to deliver nuclear warheads[citation needed], silo-based R-36M2 (SS-18), silo-based UR-100N (SS-19), mobile RT-2PM "Topol" (SS-25), silo-based RT-2UTTH "Topol M" (SS-27), mobile RT-2UTTH "Topol M" (SS-27), mobile RS-24 "Yars" (SS-29) (Future replacement for R-36 & UR-100N missiles). Russian strategic nuclear submarine forces are equipped with the following SLBM's, R-29R "Vysota", NATO name SS-N-18 "Stingray", RSM-54 R-29RMU "Sineva", NATO name SS-N-23 "Skiff" and the R-29RMU2.1 "Liner" are in use with the Delta class submarine, but the RSM-56 R-30 "Bulava", NATO name SS-NX-32 is under development for the Borei class submarine. The Russian Air Force operates supersonic Tupolev Tu-22M, and Tupolev Tu-160 bombers and the long range turboprop powered Tupolev Tu-95, they are all mostly armed with strategic stand off missiles or cruise missiles such as the KH-15 and the KH-55. These bombers and nuclear capable strike aircraft such as the Sukhoi Su-24 are supported by Ilyushin Il-78 aerial refuelling aircraft. The USSR was required to destroy its stock of IRBMs in accordance with the INF treaty.

People's Republic of China
Unlike the US and Russia where strategic nuclear forces are enumerated by treaty limits and subject to verification, China, a nuclear power since 1964, is not subject to these requirements but may have a triad structure of some sort. China's nuclear force is much smaller than the US or Russia and is closer in number and capability to that of France or the UK. This force is mainly land-based missiles including ICBMs, IRBMs, and tactical ballistic missiles as well as cruise missiles. Unlike the US and Russia, China stores many of its missiles in huge underground tunnel complexes; US Representative Michael Turner[6] referring to 2009 Chinese media reports said "This network of tunnels could be in excess of 5,000 kilometers (3,110 miles), and is used to transport nuclear weapons and forces,",[7] the Chinese Army newsletter calls this tunnel system an underground Great Wall of China.[8] China has one inactive Type 092 submarine,[9] after its twin was lost at sea and is working on several new Type 094 submarines carrying SLBMs although the reliability of the new type is also in question[10] in addition the single type 94 boat has not received its SLBM's.[9] There is an aging bomber force consisting of Xian H-6s with an unclear nuclear delivery role as well as several tactical aircraft types that could be equipped with nuclear weapons. The PLAF has a limited capability fleet of H-6 bombers modified for aerial refuelling as well as forthcoming Russian Ilyushin Il-78 aerial refuelling tankers.[11]

India
India maintains a no first use nuclear policy and has been developing a nuclear triad capability as a part of its credible minimum deterrence doctrine.[12] India's nuclear-weapons program possesses surface-to-surface missiles such as the Agni II and Agni III. In addition, the 5,000 km range Agni-V ICBM was also tested on 19 April 2012 which is believed to be having a range of 5,800 km [13] and is expected to enter service by 2014.[14] India's nuclear-weapons program possesses surface-to-air missiles like the Akash. India has nuclear-capable fighter aircraft such as the Dassault Mirage 2000H, Sukhoi Su-30 MKI (a variant of the Su-30MK and comparable to Sukhoi Su-35), MIG-29 and the indigenously built HAL Tejas. With land and air strike capabilities already in place under the control of Strategic Forces Command which is a part of Nuclear Command Authority (India). India has a nuclear propelled submarine INS Chakra but it has not been equipped with strategic nuclear cruise missiles.[15] INS Arihant is designed for strategic deterrence and will carry nuclear-tipped SLBMs, and is expected to enter service by the end of 2012. Indian state-owned defense R&D agency, DRDO, is working on a submarine-launched ballistic missile, known as the K-15 Sagarika. This missile is expected to provide India with a credible sea-based second-strike capability. Also, K-4, part of the K Missile family is being developed.

Nuclear triad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia