Teal Group Predicts 600,000 Missiles Valued at $103.7 Billion Will Be Built Throughout the World in the 2006-2015 Decade
cant we all just get along General?
February 21, 2006 00:01:32 (ET)
SINGAPORE, Feb 21, 2006 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- An estimated 600,000 missiles of virtually all types valued at $103.7 billion are expected to be built throughout the world in the 2006-2015 decade, predict Teal Group analysts in their latest world missile market production forecast released at a major international trade show.
Teal analysts released their forecast at Asian Aerospace 2006, the international aerospace exhibition for the Far East and Pacific regions. Asian Aerospace 2006 is taking place Feb. 21- 26, 2006, at the Changi Exhibition Centre in Singapore.
"We believe that declines in world defense spending in the 1990s have bottomed out in the past few years so far as missiles are concerned," said Steve Zaloga, lead analyst for Teal Group's World Missiles & UAVs Briefing, the 1,400-page, monthly-updated competitive intelligence service, in which this and seven other missile, UAV and smart munitions market forecasts and 156 individual missile system reports are published and regularly updated.
"In budget-strapped times, it is more cost effective to add a new generation of dogfight missiles to an older aircraft than to buy a new aircraft," said Zaloga. "Likewise, ships and many other weapons categories. Missiles offer to increase the combat capabilities of many weapons platforms without the need for the expense of replacing the system itself."
Market Share Forecasts Produce Some Surprises
Air defense missiles still constitute the largest single missile market with the expected production of 48,194 missiles, valued at $24.3 billion, or 23.4% of the total $103.7 billion world missile market during the 2006-2015 decade. Then, 41,610 air-to-surface missiles valued at $16.3 billion, or 15.7%, rank second by forecasted value in the same period.
When Teal analysts produced their first world missile market production forecast some nine years ago at IDEX 97 near Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, smart munitions were not much of a factor. Today, Teal analysts report that 312,250 smart munitions (i.e., 273,635 guided bombs and 38,615 smart AT munitions) rank third largest worldwide with a combined value of $13.8 billion, or 13.3%.
And unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's), which comprised only 5,382 forecasted units valued at $2.9 billion, or 2.5%, in 1997, now rank fourth largest with 17,976 projected units valued at $12.5 billion, or 12.l%. Surface-to-surface missiles number 6,206 forecasted units valued at $9.8 billion, or 9.4%, followed by 140,759 anti-tank missiles valued at $10.9 billion, or 10.6%; then, 41,470 air-to-air missiles valued at $9.6 billion, or 9.3%. And, finally, 5,050 forecasted anti-ship missiles valued at $6.4 billion, or 6.2% of the total world missile market are expected to be produced in the 2006-2015 decade.
Teal Analysts To Release Individual Missile Market Forecasts at ILA 2006
"We'll continue at ILA 2006 in Berlin, Germany our practice of providing detailed market forecasts at major international trade shows," said Zaloga. "Probably at the opening of the Berlin Air Show on May 16, 2006, we'll break out our individual missile, UAV and smart munition market forecast data." This means providing forecast numbers on all 156 individual missile, UAV and smart munition programs that Teal analysts track throughout the year.
The Teal Group is a defense and aerospace market analysis firm based in Fairfax, Virginia, USA. It provides competitive intelligence to industry and government at tealgroup.com.
SOURCE The Teal Group
Steve Zaloga, Teal Group Senior Missiles Analyst, +1-410-676- 7698,
s.zaloga1@comcast.net, or Doug Cornell, +1-703-573-5374, dcornell@tealgroup.com, both
of The Teal Group
sipri.org
As you can see General - we still spend A LOT on the WEAPONS.
But these guys think our spending is going down:
fpri.org
E-Notes
The Economics of Defense Spending
by Murray Weidenbaum
February 14, 2006
Murray Weidenbaum, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, is the Honorary Chairman of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy at the Washington University, where he is also the Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professor.
The expanding array of threats to U.S. national security contrasts dramatically with the declining share of national resources being devoted to our armed forces.
Introduction
Challenges to the United States and its friends and allies are constantly in the news and receive great attention in the national public policy arena. The most obvious examples include the danger of organized terrorism posed by the Al Qaeda network, the conflict in Iraq and the continued violence in Afghanistan, the nuclear dangers posed by the buildups in Iran and North Korea, and the bitter struggles involving Israel, the Palestinians, and others in the Middle East. In addition, the rising economic and military strength of China underscores the possible dangers of hostilities arising in such areas as the Taiwan straits either by design or even accident.
Simultaneously, however, a virtually silent long-term decline has been occurring in the portion of American national resources allocated to national defenses. A straightforward examination of publicly available economic and fiscal data demonstrates this quite clearly. Nevertheless, this downward trend has escaped serious public attention.
Yet, when we use a variety of statistical measurements, it becomes readily clear that the United States is increasingly devoting its economic, fiscal, technological, and manpower resources to civilian purposes. However, this statistical analysis, by itself, does not constitute a case for altering the allocation between military and civilian purposes.
Similarly, this report does not attempt to evaluate the military strategy being followed by the Department of Defense. Neither does it judge the worthiness of the specific weapon systems, physical facilities, or manpower allocations that currently comprise the force structure of the U.S. military establishment.
Rather, the author’s personal analysis of the ongoing debates on national security policy leads to the uneasy conclusion that the strategic shift in resources identified here has been made by default rather than by deliberate design. Thus, the purpose is to focus some attention to an unappreciated aspect of national security decisionmaking.
.....The record shows that, at its World War II peak, military outlays equaled about 35 percent of GDP; during the Korean War, approximately 15 percent; Vietnam, 10 percent; and the Gulf War, six percent. The current ratio (as of late 2005) is less than 5 percent. None of these numbers provides any solace to the Americans and our allies who have been wounded in Iraq or to the families of the servicemen and women killed. Keep in mind, though, that the purpose of this study is neither to justify nor attack the conduct of the U.S. involvement in Iraq — or Afghanistan or elsewhere. Rather, it is the mere contribution of an economist trying to measure an important and often misunderstood aspect of the American economy.
There is a special fiscal arrangement, which encourages this shift from guns to butter. The major entitlements — and some other large items, notably interest on the public debt — are shielded from annual budget review. They do not even appear in the appropriation bills voted on by Congress. Rather, these activities are financed by means of “permanent indefinite” appropriations. They are called “permanent” because they remain in effect without yearly action. They are labeled “indefinite” because there is no limit on the level of annual spending for these items. The Treasury pays whatever amounts are necessary to cover the interest on the national debt. Likewise, it also pays out all of the pensions that Social Security recipients qualify for.
In striking contrast, most defense appropriations are voted on by Congress on an annual basis, as is the case for many civilian programs. As a result, some analysts focus on the remainder of the budget — the so-called “controllable” portion, which is subject to detailed annual review by the president and Congress through the appropriations process. Defense spending remains by far the largest single element in controllable Federal outlays, making it especially vulnerable to the pressures for economy in government. |
