Revenues from sales of weapons and military services by the 100 largest global arms-producing companies reached a record $679bn in 2024, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
The Gaza and Ukraine wars, as well as global and regional geopolitical tensions and ever-higher military expenditures, increased revenues generated by the companies from sales of military goods and services to customers domestic and abroad by 5.9 percent compared to the year before, the organisation said in a report published on Monday.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The bulk of the global rise was attributed to companies based in Europe and the United States, but there were year-on-year increases in all regions except for Asia and Oceania, where issues within the Chinese arms industry drove down the regional total.
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics led the pack in the US, where the combined arms revenues of arms companies in the top 100 grew by 3.8 percent in 2024 to reach $334bn, with 30 out of the 39 US companies in the ranking increasing their revenues.
However, SIPRI said widespread delays and budget overruns continue to plague key projects such as the F-35 fighter jet, the Columbia and Virginia-class submarines, and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile.
Soldiers stand guard in front of an IRIS-T SLM air defence system prior to the arrival of former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and top military commanders at the Todendorf military base on September 4, 2024 in Panker, Germany [File: Gregor Fischer/Getty Images]
Elon Musk’s SpaceX appeared in the list of top global military manufacturers for the first time, after its arms revenues more than doubled compared with 2023 to reach $1.8bn.
Excluding Russia, there were 26 arms companies in the top 100 based in Europe, and 23 of them recorded increases in revenues from sales of weapons and equipment. Their aggregate arms revenues grew by 13 percent to $151bn.
After boosting revenues by 193 percent to reach $3.6bn through making artillery shells for Ukraine, Czech company Czechoslovak Group recorded the sharpest percentage increase in arms revenues of any top 100 company in 2024.
As Ukraine faces a relentless Russian offensive in its eastern regions, the country’s JSC Ukrainian Defense Industry increased its arms revenues by 41 percent to $3bn.
European arms companies have been investing in new production capacity to fight off Russia, the SIPRI report said, but it cautioned that sourcing materials – particularly in the case of dependence on critical minerals – could pose a “growing challenge” as China also tightens export controls.
Rostec and United Shipbuilding Corporation are the only two Russian arms companies in the ranking, and they also increased their combined arms revenues by 23 percent to $31.2bn despite being hit by Western-led sanctions over the Ukraine war.
Last year, weapons makers in Asia and Oceania still registered $130bn in revenues after a 1.2 percent decline compared to 2023.
The regional drop was due to a combined 10 percent decline in arms revenues among the eight Chinese arms companies in the ranking, most prominently the 31 percent fall in the arms revenues of NORINCO, China’s primary producer of land systems.
“A host of corruption allegations in Chinese arms procurement led to major arms contracts being postponed or cancelled in 2024,” said Nan Tian, Director of the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. “This deepens uncertainty around the status of China’s military modernisation efforts and when new capabilities will materialise.”
The USS Minnesota (SSN-783) fast-attack submarine sails off the coast of Western Australia on March 16, 2025 [Colin Murty-Pool/Getty Images]
But Japanese and South Korean arms manufacturers’ sales surged on the back of strong demand from European as well as domestic customers amid simmering tensions over Taiwan and North Korea.
Five Japanese companies in the ranking increased their combined arms revenues by 40 percent to $13.3bn, while four South Korean producers saw a 31 percent jump to $14.1bn in revenue. South Korea’s largest arms company, Hanwha Group, recorded a 42 percent surge in 2024, with more than half coming from arms exports.
Israel reaps profits of Gaza genocide
For the first time, nine of the top 100 arms companies were based in the Middle East, according to SIPRI. The nine companies racked up a combined $31bn in revenue in 2024, showing a regional increase of 14 percent.
As the United Arab Emirates continues to face international allegations of arming the devastating war in Sudan, the institute noted its regional figure excludes Emirati-based EDGE Group due to a lack of revenue data for 2023. The UAE rejects the accusations.
The three Israeli arms companies in the ranking increased their combined arms revenues by 16 percent to $16.2bn amid the ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed nearly 70,000 Palestinians and destroyed most of the besieged enclave.
Elbit Systems pocketed $6.28bn in profits, followed by Israel Aerospace Industries with $5.19bn and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems with $4.7bn.
SIPRI said there was an international surge in interest in Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles and counter-drone systems. Rafael’s surge was tied to Iran, as demand for the company’s air defence systems rose to “unprecedented levels” after Iran’s large-scale retaliatory strikes against Israel in April and October 2024 that used ballistic missiles and drones.
Five Turkish companies were in the top 100 – also a record. Their combined arms revenues amounted to $10.1bn, showing an 11 percent increase.
Baykar, which makes, among other things, advanced drones most recently sold to Ukraine, saw 95 percent of its $1.9bn in arms revenue in 2024 come from exports to other countries.
Military companies from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, India, Taiwan, Norway, Canada, Spain, Poland and Indonesia were in the ranking as well.
Young Palestinians in Gaza have used parts and fuel from abandoned Israeli military vehicles to create a pump to supply clean water for their community.
Steve Parker, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space, and Security, provided a general update on the MQ-28 program at a media roundtable ahead of the 2025 Dubai Airshow in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), at which TWZ was in attendance. Boeing officials had said on various occasions earlier this year that the AMRAAM shot could come in late 2025 or early 2026.
A Royal Australian Air Force MQ-28 seen during earlier testing. Australian Department of Defense
At the Avalon Air Show in Australia in March, “I talked about doing a weapons shot off the MQ-28 later this year, or early in 2026. We are on track for next month,” Parker said during his opening remarks. “This weapon shot is something we’re really excited about.”
In addition to being a first for the MQ-28, the planned shot also looks set to be a first for any CCA-type drone, at least that we know about.
“It’s an air-to-air missile, and if you were to guess it was an AMRAAM, AIM-120, you would be correct,” he added later on during the roundtable when asked for more specifics.
A stock picture of an AIM-120 AMRAAM. USAF
The test itself will be carried out over the sprawling Woomera Range Complex (WRC) in southern Australia and reflect “a tactically relevant scenario,” according to Parker. The MQ-28 will attempt to down a real airborne target with the AIM-120.
An MQ-28 at Woomera. Royal Australian Air Force
Parker did not offer any specific details about how the engagement might be prosecuted, including how the drone would find and track the target. The MQ-28 is a highly modular design intended to allow for the ready integration of various munitions, sensors, and other payloads. The entire nose can be swapped out. It is worth noting here that at least two of the RAAF’s initial batch of MQ-28s have been spotted with an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor in the nose, which would be very relevant for this upcoming air-to-air weapons test.
A quartet of MQ-28s, the two in the middle having IRST sensors on top of their noses. Boeing
Broadly speaking, IRST sensors offer a valuable means of spotting and tracking aerial threats, especially stealthy aircraft and missiles, which can be used as an alternative and/or companion to radars. IRSTs have the additional benefit of being immune to electronic warfare attacks and operating passively, meaning they don’t emit signals that could alert an opponent to the fact that they are being stalked.
“I’m not going to get ahead of the customer here, but we’re well positioned for this,” Parker continued in his response to the question about the AIM-120 shot at the roundtable. “We’ve been sort of testing out some of these capability demonstrations. You would know that the Wedgetail [Boeing’s E-7 airborne early warning and control aircraft] has already controlled two live MQ-28s with a digital, virtual MQ-28 in the pattern, as well, [and] with a target. We’ve already been doing this. So, we’ve already been doing a bunch of multi-ship activities.”
Boeing announced the MQ-28/E-7 team testing back in June. This was one of a number of Ghost Bat capability demonstrations that the company conducted in cooperation with the RAAF this year, as you can read more about here.
A rendering of an RAAF E-7 Wedgetail flying together with a pair of MQ-28s. Boeing
“This program is really hitting its stride,” Parker said.
As noted, the RAAF has already acquired eight MQ-28s, all pre-production prototypes, also referred to as Block 1 Ghost Bats. The service has also awarded Boeing a contract to deliver at least three more examples in an improved Block 2 configuration. The Block 2 drones are seen as a pathway to an operational capability, though when that might actually materialize is unclear. Australian officials have also raised the prospect in the past of an expanded family of Ghost Bats, which might include versions that are substantially different from the baseline design. Boeing itself has hinted at the potential for the drones to get significant new capabilities down the road, including the ability to refuel in mid-air.
Regardless of how the MQ-28 itself evolves, Boeing clearly sees potential opportunities for sales beyond the RAAF, as well. The U.S. Air Force has utilized at least one Ghost Bat in the past to support test work related to its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drone program, which is structured around multiple iterative development cycles. Boeing did take part in the initial stages of the first phase of that program, or Increment 1, but was cut last year in a down-select. The company could compete in the next cycle, or Increment 2, with the MQ-28 or another design.
In September, the U.S. Navy announced it had hired Boeing, as well as Anduril, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, to develop conceptual designs for carrier-based CCA-type drones. Boeing has so far declined to share specifics about what it is working on under that contract, but the Navy has said that there is “strong interest” in the Ghost Bat in the past. Boeing has previously pitched a carrier-capable version of the design at least to the United Kingdom, as well.
Yesterday, ahead of the opening of the Dubai Airshow today, Aviation Week reported that Boeing now sees an emerging market for CCA-type drones like the MQ-28 in the Middle East. There is a burgeoning interest in drones in this general category elsewhere globally.
“I think our Ghost Bat is uniquely positioned here, both from an air-to-air [and] air-to-ground perspective, as well as all the things we’ve already talked about, from an EW [electronic warfare] payload, radar, and so forth,” Boeing Defense, Space, and Security CEO Parker said at the roundtable. “The cold, hard facts of the matter are the customers are still trying to determine how they will employ these CCAs, and tactics, and what you need.”
TWZroutinely highlights the many questions that any future CCA operator has to answer when it comes to basic force structure, as well as structured, as well as how the drones are deployed, launched, recovered, supported, and otherwise operated, not to mention employed tactically.
Boeing has also been increasingly touting the MQ-28 as a particularly good uncrewed companion for the F-15EX. The company has reportedly been actively pitching the two aircraft as a paired purchase to Poland. For years now, TWZ has been highlighting how well-suited the two-seat tactical jet is to the airborne drone controller role, in general. At the roundtable, Boeing’s Parker again highlighted the ability to control CCA-type drones as being among the F-15EX’s key features.
Take a peek into the future.
With the F-15EX’s future manned-unmanned teaming capabilities supported by an advanced cockpit system, communication networks and two-seat configuration, the superior fighter could serve as a battle manager and joint all domain command and control. pic.twitter.com/07oRhGdIjV
With the planned AIM-120 shot next month, the MQ-28 is now set to take another important step toward a real operational capability for the RAAF, and potentially other operators.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has ended its financial partnerships with two weapons manufacturers.
On 11 November, the long-running advocacy organisation confirmed to Adalah Justice Project and the Gender Liberation Movement that it had dropped Northrop Grumman and RTX Corporation (formerly Raytheon Technologies) as sponsors.
From 2008 to August 2024, Northrop Grumman Corp held contracts worth over $173 billion with the US Department of Defense.
“Northrop Grumman supplies the Israeli military with a wide variety of weapons, including various missile systems,” the investigative site revealed. “The company’s technologies are also integrated into Israel’s main weapon systems, including its fighter jets, missile ships, and trainer aircraft.”
Based in Arlington County, Virginia, RTX Corporation is the second-largest military company in the world.
Like Northrop Grumman, RTX Corporation has supplied the Israeli government with a range of weapons, including various missiles and bombs, for years, per the Action Center for Corporate Accountability.
In a statement to The Advocate, a spokesperson for the HRC confirmed that the two weapons companies no longer sponsor the organisation.
“What’s happening in Gaza and throughout the region is devastating. The starvation of children and families, the violence to its people and aid workers is horrific,” they told the LGBTQIA+ news outlet.
“And while our focus is on LGBTQ+ equality in the United States, we have spoken out about the crisis, the rising cost of extremism in the United States and around the globe and how Islamaphobia, anti-semitism and anti-LBGTQ hatred are globally linked.
“Our national corporate partners represent companies that have demonstrated a high level of commitment to equality. When it comes to corporate advocacy, our responsibility is to make the places where LGBTQ+ people live and work safer and more inclusive.”
While Northrop Grumman and RTX Corporation no longer serve as sponsors for the HRC, Adalah Justice Project and the Gender Liberation Movement have noted that the advocacy organisation has not committed “to divesting permanently from these or other weapons companies,” and has also “failed to call for an arms embargo on Israel, despite these being the explicit demands from queer and trans organisers.”
“Queer and trans folks in the US and across the world have been at the forefront of the movement to end the Israeli genocide and occupation. We have made it clear that there is no pride in genocide and that LGBTQ people will not be used as cover for violence. The fight for queer and trans liberation is the same fight against the war machine that is killing our communities here at home, in Palestine, and across the world,” the two advocacy organisations said in a statement.
“It is our responsibility to continue to push the organisations and institutions that claim to serve and represent our communities to divest from weapons manufacturers and institutions complicit in genocide, settler colonialism, and apartheid. And it is these organisations’ responsibility, as the leading LGBTQ+ human rights organisation, to heed our demands.”
The echoes of gunfire still haunt Abdullahi Wakili. What he remembers most, however, is the silence that followed — the silence of neighbours fleeing through the night, of homes left smouldering, of fear settling over Lau like harmattan dust.
“We were always expecting a crisis at any moment. We could not sleep with both eyes closed,” the 60-year-old resident said.
Lau, a farming community in Taraba State, northeastern Nigeria, is home to the Yandang people who, for years, were caught in recurring clashes with nomadic herders. In July 2018, violence erupted again, claiming at least 73 lives on both sides. Dozens of houses were torched, farmlands were razed, and families were displaced from communities such as Katibu, Didango, Katara, Sabon Gida, Shomo Sarki, and Nanzo.
“It was the most devastating,” Abdullahi said.
The crisis destroyed livelihoods built over generations. The fertile lands that once yielded yams and rice, supported fishing, and provided pasture for cattle, became battlefields.
Abdullahi, a Yandang indigene married to a Fulani woman, said the two groups had coexisted peacefully for decades before destruction of farms, cattle rustling, and revenge attacks tore them apart. “We used to share everything,” he said. “But the crisis turned us into enemies overnight.”
For generations, Taraba’s plains were a meeting point between settled farmers and herders moving south from the Sahel in search of pasture. These groups lived in relative harmony, guided by informal agreements that allowed seasonal grazing after harvest and mutual access to water. But as population pressures, desertification, and the expansion of farms increased competition for land, old alliances frayed. By the 1990s, the breakdown of traditional mediation systems and the influx of small arms turned ordinary disputes into recurring cycles of revenge.
Political manipulation and the proliferation of small arms after decades of communal unrest in the region further deepened distrust. What were once local disputes over damaged crops or stolen cattle gradually escalated into organised violence involving armed individuals and retaliatory attacks.
By 2018, when violence returned to Lau, the conflict had become part of a larger regional crisis stretching across Adamawa, Benue, Plateau, and Nasarawa states.
When words replace weapons. Illustration: Akila Jibrin/HumAngle
A turning point
Five years later, in 2023, Search for Common Ground (SCFG), a non-profit founded in 1982, launched the second phase of its Contributing to the Mitigation of Conflict over Natural Resources project (COMITAS II), in collaboration with the European Union.
Running from January 2023 to July 2024, the initiative targeted conflict-affected communities in Taraba and Adamawa states. Its aim was simple yet ambitious: to rebuild trust, promote dialogue, and empower communities to prevent disputes before they turned violent.
COMITAS II also reached Taraba’s Lau and Zing local government areas, another hotspot where farming communities along the international cattle route to Cameroon had experienced repeated clashes.
Through stakeholder meetings, training sessions on early warning and conflict sensitivity, and community-produced radio dramas and jingles, the project re-ignited conversations about peace. Over 60 media practitioners and advocates were trained across 32 communities in both states, resulting in the de-escalation of several potential violent incidents through verified reporting and community dialogue in the past year.
Wesley Daniel, a community leader who is part of the initiative, said the tensions and attacks have reduced. “We now have structures that encourage people to talk instead of fight,” he noted.
Before, even a rumour could spark bloodshed. But now, trained youths use social media, radio, and town-hall discussions to dispel misinformation before tensions escalate.
Berry Cletus, a COMITAS II Media Fellow in Lau, remembered one incident where a rumour spread that a cow belonging to a herder had been stolen. “Instead of waiting for violence, trained youths acted fast. They verified the information, shared the truth on local radio, and linked both communities for dialogue,” Berry told HumAngle.
To sustain this new culture of communication, SFCG established Community Security Architecture Dialogues (CSADs) at the local government level and Community Response Networks (CRNs) in villages. These structures identify warning signs early, mediate disputes, and link residents to security agencies.
Some of the CSADS in Taraba State. Photo: Shawanatu Ishaka/HumAngle
In Zing, a potentially violent eviction attempt by locals was averted after intervention by the CRN. “Our awareness campaigns are restoring trust,” said Kauna Mathias David, a CSAD member. “Before, truck drivers feared using our roads because of theft. Now they travel freely.”
Progress and its fragility
While peace is returning, it remains delicate. Decades of mistrust cannot vanish overnight. Violence still flares in other parts of Taraba and across the region.
Sustainability is also a concern. When the two-year COMITAS II project ended, communities like Lau and Zing struggled to keep peace activities running.
Poor transport and communication sometimes delay reports of early warning signs, weakening response efforts. And although the project was formally handed over to the Taraba State Government, only Karim Lamido Local Government has replicated its peace structure. “Other councils are yet to follow,” lamented Wesley.
Still, the lessons are taking root. In Lau and Zing, residents who spoke to HumAngle said farmers and herders are discovering that peace is not the absence of conflict—it is the presence of dialogue, trust, and shared responsibility.
Mamuda Umar, a local herder, said people have realised that violence solves nothing. “We now prefer dialogue,” he said. “It’s not always easy, but it brings lasting peace.”
Mamuda survived one of the clashes in 2018. Photo: Shawanatu Ishaka/HumAngle
He added that many herders have begun farming, and relations between the groups are improving. “Whenever misunderstandings arise, traditional leaders call meetings for both sides to talk. Each meeting brings a better understanding.”
Even intermarriages, once unthinkable, are gradually becoming accepted. “In the past, a farmer could never seek the hand of a herder’s daughter,” Mamuda recalled. “But things are changing now. We even give our daughters to them in marriage.”
For some Taraba communities, once defined by deadly farmer–herder clashes, this is more than a project—it is the slow rewriting of history, from a narrative of loss to one of coexistence and hope.
But peace here is not a finished story. It lives in the conversations held beneath mango trees, in the cautious laughter of children returning to rebuilt schools, and in the quiet courage of people like Abdullahi who still remember the silence after the gunfire — and choose, every day, to break it with dialogue instead.
This story was produced under the HumAngle Foundation’s Advancing Peace and Security through Journalism project, supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
The Los Angeles City Council will consider an ordinance that would prevent the LAPD from using crowd control weapons against peaceful protesters and journalists.
Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, who represents District 13, is pushing for regulations that would prohibit the Los Angeles Police Department from using “kinetic energy projectiles” or “chemical agents” unless officers are threatened with physical violence.
The Public Safety Committee unanimously approved the proposal and forwarded a vote with all council members on Wednesday. The items would be considered by the council in November or December, said Nick Barnes-Batista, a communications director for District 13.
The ordinance would also require officers to give clear, audible warnings about safe exit routes during “kettling,” when crowds are pushed into designated areas by police.
After the first iteration of the “No Kings” protest over the summer that saw multiple journalists shot by nonlethal rounds, tear-gassed and detained, news organizations sued the city and Police Department, arguing officers had engaged in “continuing abuse” of members of the media.
U.S. District Judge Hernan D. Vera granted a temporary restraining order that restricted LAPD officers from using rubber projectiles, chemical irritants and flash bangs against journalists.
Under the court order, officers are allowed to use those weapons “only when the officer reasonably believes that a suspect is violently resisting arrest or poses an immediate threat of violence or physical harm.”
LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell called the definition of journalist “ambiguous” in a news release Monday, raising concerns that the preliminary injunction could prevent the LAPD from addressing “people intent on unlawful and violent behavior.”
“The risk of harm to everyone involved increases substantially,” McDonnell wrote. “LAPD must declare an unlawful assembly, and issue dispersal orders, to ensure the safety of the public and restore order.”
The L.A. Press Club, plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to the injunction, has alleged journalists were detained and assaulted by officers during an immigration protest in August. The Press Club is also involved in a similar lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“This case is about LAPD, but if necessary, we are ready to take similar action to address misconduct toward journalists by other agencies,” the organization wrote in a news release from June.
Vera ruled in September that “any duly authorized representative of any news service, online news service, newspaper, or radio or television station or network” would be classified as a journalist and therefore protected under the court’s orders. Journalists who are impeding or physically interfering with law enforcement are not subject to the protections.
Any ordinance passed by the City Council would apply to the LAPD but not other agencies that could be responding to protests that turn chaotic, such as the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department or California Highway Patrol, thereby complicating operational procedure.
Barnes-Batista, the District 13 spokesman, said the City Council would need to discuss how to craft the rules.
“There are definitely unanswered questions about [how] the city wouldn’t want the city to be liable for other agencies not following policy,” he said. “So that will have to be worked out.”
Last month, the City Council, led by Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, voted unanimously to deny a request by the city attorney, Hydee Feldstein Soto, to push for Vera’s injunction to be lifted.
“Journalism is under attack in this country — from the Trump Administration’s revocation of press access to the Pentagon to corporate consolidation of local newsrooms,” Hernandez said. “The answer cannot be for Los Angeles to join that assault by undermining court-ordered protections for journalists.”
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
Imagery has been published providing a rare look inside the weapons bays of one of the prototypes of Russia’s Su-57 Felon fighter, an aircraft you can read about in more detail here. While internal weapons carriage is a key design feature of the Sukhoi jet, the main weapons bays, at least, haven’t been seen in such detail, with weapons loaded. The footage comes as Moscow embarks on another export drive for the Su-57, which has reportedly so far only been ordered by Algeria.
A recent promotional video from the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), Russia’s aviation manufacturing conglomerate, shows the prototype T-50-9 being put through its paces ahead of its planned appearance at the Dubai Airshow. The event takes place in the United Arab Emirates next week. In the footage, the T-50-9 performs a variety of maneuvers, but of greatest interest is the forward main weapons bay, opened to reveal a pair of Kh-58UShK anti-radiation missiles.
The United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) has released promotional footage of the Su-57 prototype (T-50-9) ahead of its appearance at the 2025 Dubai Airshow. pic.twitter.com/YVl1aQDVB0
While we have previously seen imagery of weapons being released from the aircraft’s main weapons bays, we. The plan to display the T-50-9 at Dubai, with internal weapons exposed, is also new — this hasn’t been done since the aircraft was first flown in prototype form 15 years ago.
The T-50-9 undergoes final preparations at Zhukovsky International Airport ahead of its appearance at the Dubai Airshow.
The Felon carries its main weaponry in a pair of notably large internal weapons bays that are arranged in tandem between the engines. Each of the bays is sized for the carriage of two missiles with a maximum length of just under 14 feet and a cross-section of around 16 by 16 inches.
For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, it was a long time before Sukhoi began to conduct tests of internal weapons from the Felon. Such trials only began in 2016, six years after the initial prototype T-50 had first taken to the air. In March of 2016, a Felon first launched an undisclosed type of missile from one of its main internal weapons bays.
For the air-to-air role, the large tandem weapons bays are intended to carry two types of beyond-visual-range missiles that were specially adapted for internal carriage. These are the medium-range R-77M (izdeliye 180) and the very-long-range izdeliye 810. You can read more about them here.
For offensive missions, the Kh-69 long-range air-to-surface missile was designed specifically for the Felon, again for internal carriage. The Kh-69 is a weapon we have discussed in detail in the past.
Meanwhile, the Kh-58UShK supersonic anti-radiation missile seen in the recent UAC video is a further evolution of the older Kh-58 (known to NATO as the AS-11 Kilter).
Weighing around 1,400 pounds per piece, the Kh-58UShK (in which the K suffix stands for Kompaktnaya, compact) has a missile body that is approximately 24 inches shorter than the baseline weapon. It also has folding fins to fit in the internal bays. The weapon has a reported range of 150 miles when launched from higher altitudes, although this is significantly reduced when launched from lower levels.
A mockup of the Kh-58UShK supersonic anti-radiation missile. Vitaly V. Kuzmin
Other offensive munitions that the fighter can carry internally include the ‘universal’ Kh-38M air-to-ground missile with a range of different guidance types, the Grom (thunder) missile that adds a range-extending wing kit to the Kh-38M, and the 551-pound KAB-250L electro-optically guided bomb.
The UAC footage also shows the aircraft’s ability to carry two additional air-to-air missiles inside the two so-called ‘quick-launch’ bays — these have previously been seen in some detail, unlike the main bays. The quick-launch bays are located in distinctive underwing fairings, and the design ensures the missile can be extended into the slipstream so it can lock onto its target. Each can be located with a single R-74M2 (izdeliye 760) short-range air-to-air missile. This is another weapon that was developed specifically for internal carriage, derived from the well-established R-73 (AA-11 Archer).
A sequence showing the launch of an air-to-air missile from one of the Su-57’s two small wing-root weapons bays. Russian Ministry of Defense screencap
The missile launch clip begins at approximately 1:19 in the runtime of the video below:
Carrying internal ordnance is a prerequisite if it’s paramount that the Su-57 retains its reduced radar signiture characteristics. However, for missions not requiring such a degree of low-observability, the aircraft can carry a heavier weapons load, making use of four pylons under the wing and two under the air intakes. The underwing pylons can also accomodate drop tanks for additional fuel.
Finally, for close-range combat, the aircraft is armed with a 30-millimeter single-barrel cannon within in starboard wing root and provided with 150 rounds of ammunition. You can see it in action here.
The Su-57 fires its onboard GSh-30-1 cannon. YouTube screencap
Showing off the Su-57’s relatively impressive capability to accommodate larger internal weapons will, UAC surely hopes, help to drum up more export interest in its product.
Overall, the Su-57 program has made only very slow progress, hampered by a lack of investment in the form of foreign orders. A significant blow was struck by India’s withdrawal from the program, with that country’s investment having been considered vital to speed development. The same had been true in the late 1990s when India’s purchase of the Su-30MKI Flanker essentially secured the development of the multirole version of this fighter, which was only later acquired by Russia.
In terms of domestic orders, the Russian Aerospace Forces only began to receive series-built Su-57s in 2022, part of an order for 76 aircraft — a notably small production run.
A pair of Russian Aerospace Forces Su-57s depart Novosibirsk, on their way to the flight test center at Lipetsk, in May 2022. NSKPlanes
While at least six aircraft were delivered to the Russian Aerospace Forces in 2022, more than 10 were handed over in 2023 before numbers tailed off again in 2024, when likely only two or three more were received. It’s unclear if any examples of the Su-57 have been delivered to Russia this year.
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent international sanctions against Russia have had the combined effect of slowing down the pace of Su-57 deliveries and limiting export prospects to all but the staunchest Kremlin allies. After all, any country that receives Russian weapons can expect to be on the receiving end of U.S. sanctions. In an effort to counter this, Russia has also offered a degree of local production of the Su-57, specifically with the hope of securing sales from India and the United Arab Emirates. The Dubai Airshow appearance is almost certainly calculated to try and reinvigorate interest from these two nations in particular.
At the same time, while demonstrating the Su-57’s already celebrated agility and its gradually expanding weapons options, the long-promised advanced Su-57M version has made little progress. The Su-57M is powered by the new AL-51F1 (izdeliye 30) turbofan engine, replacing the current AL-41F-1. It promises increased thrust, lighter weight, and lower operating costs. However, a lack of interest from Russia has done little to help the Su-57Ms’ chances on the export market.
The revised, flat version of the engine nozzle for the AL-51F1 turbofan (in the left nacelle), alongside the original three-dimensional version (right nacelle). via X
Recent reports based on an apparent leaked official document relating to Su-57 (and other Sukhoi) exports also pointed to official interest in the Felon from Algeria. This document, the leak of which was attributed to the Black Mirror hacktivist group, was, however, several years old and appears to have described possible export orders, rather than reflecting any kind of firm deals. It is also notable that most of the possible export deals in the document related to the Su-35 Flanker, rather than the more advanced Su-57.
This table has generated a lot of buzz lately, but remember that this is a summary of plans as of April 2022, over three years ago.
Su-57 to Algeria, Su-35 to Iran, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Ethiopia Su-34 to Algeria pic.twitter.com/yQKgPvJSMY
Regardless, the UAC is clearly aiming to make a big splash with the Felon at the Dubai Airshow, where it seems that the planned Su-57 flying display will demonstrate a high level of maneuverability coupled with a heavy missile load — a common sales tactic for multirole fighters. It’s also possible that more previously secretive aspects of the design could be revealed in more detail, as the campaign to secure lucrative export sales is ramped up.
The status of these weapons programs and how many are real or merely meant to confuse and overwhelm foreign intelligence isn’t clear, but based on historic precedent, the notion that many are decoys isn’t supported. With so much development emerging publicly, and so much more going on clandestinely, along with other developments around an increasingly troubled globe, including from an active war in Ukraine, a critical question must be raised: Is the American intelligence apparatus able to deal with so much foreign technological change at one time?
Not since the height of the Cold War have so many military advancements and individual adversary weapons programs flooded the space. Does the U.S. intelligence community have the raw capacity to adequately deal with this now and sustain it for the foreseeable future?
Shenyang Aircraft Corporation’s (SAC) J-XDS, also referred to unofficially as the J-50. (Via X)
With the Defense Intelligence Agency declining to comment and the CIA not responding to our queries, we reached out to a number of experts in the field to get their sense of how the U.S. intelligence community (USIC) is able to process and track this growing wave of weapons programs and provide adequate analysis for the White House, Pentagon and Congress. The responses we received vary quite dramatically. This is step one in trying to get a clear answer to this glaring question. We will be following up with more on the topic in the future.
The answers to our question from our experts have been lightly edited for clarity.
“China’s largest and growing inventory of modern weapons does pose a challenge to U.S. intelligence collection efforts. U.S. intelligence capabilities are quite sophisticated and can collect considerable data on systems once they are deployed. However, it is more useful to anticipate future weapons or programs in development and this is probably much more difficult for U.S. intelligence to accurately determine due to the secretive nature of Chinese weapons programs. Thus, U.S. intelligence is at some risk of being surprised by the emergence of new weapons systems.
Some types or programs are easier to monitor and predict than others. Warships, for example, are hard to hide and only built in a few locations. This makes it easier for U.S. intelligence to monitor. Missiles, directed energy, and hi-tech systems are smaller and easier to hide, which makes it harder for U.S. intelligence to collect.
Perhaps even more challenging than intelligence collection is the problem of how to counter the weapons. Chinese technology has improved considerably and many of their weapons and equipment systems lag only that of the United States. These are sophisticated and deadly systems and could pose a serious challenge to U.S. military forces on the battlefield. Developing counters to weapons such as hypersonic anti-ship missiles, advanced surface-to-air missiles, and stealth aircraft all require enormous sums of money and new technology. Even still, it is unclear if the U.S. can effectively counter some of these new systems, which raise questions about the ability of U.S. military forces to survive and fight in a conflict near China’s coast.”
A possible first sighting of China’s next-generation aircraft carrier, generally referred to as the Type 004. Construction work at a shipyard in Dalian, in China’s Liaoning province, reveals a module that is consistent with an aircraft carrier — which would be China’s fourth — although there remain many questions about the precise nature of the object. (Google Earth) Google Earth
Brad Bowman, senior director at Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) Center on Military & Political Power:
“Beijing revealed a remarkable quantity of weapons in the parade back in September. It is vital that the United States Intelligence Community and the Pentagon understand the capabilities of the systems displayed, distinguishing between systems that are hyped versus those that represent real advancements in capability. That is easier said than done and takes time and serious expertise to accomplish accurately. The importance and difficulty of this task is another reason why we need a large, effective, and well-funded intelligence community to understand our adversaries, their intentions, and their military capabilities – so decision makers can make informed decisions on how to respond.
A CS-5000T drone is reviewed during the V-Day military at Tiananmen Square on September 3, 2025, in Beijing, China. (Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images) VCG
I am all for efficiency in government, but the effectiveness of our intelligence community is a higher priority than efficiency, particularly in this dangerous geo-strategic moment for Americans.
It is possible that Beijing is happy to inundate the U.S. intelligence community with an enormous quantity of systems and munitions to scrutinize. But a more prudent approach in Washington is to assume that Beijing actually means what it says and is sprinting to develop and field military capabilities that it hopes could conquer Taiwan and defeat the U.S. military in the Pacific.
If Beijing is trying to portray more advanced military capabilities than it actually possesses, it would not be the first country to do so. Then again, we have also seen examples in which Americans were unwisely dismissive of adversary capabilities. We should neither exaggerate nor dismiss what we are seeing from China. We should try to understand the actual capabilities of each system, and then realize that those capabilities can change quickly.
When it comes to adversary parades and static displays, there is always more than one intended audience. Washington is no doubt on the short list of intended audiences, but Beijing is also sending messages to America’s partners, to the Chinese people, and to the PRC’s partners, including the other members of the axis of aggressors – Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Regardless, the split screen between a historic expansion in military capabilities in China and a government shutdown in America could not be more jarring and troubling.”
Zack Cooper, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies U.S. strategy in Asia, including alliance dynamics and U.S.-China competition:
“I think the United States is certainly concerned about some of the new systems shown by Beijing, but many experts have expected China to continue developing more advanced uncrewed systems and long-range missiles, so I wouldn’t say that those are huge surprises.
The United States has a number of intelligence agencies with deep expertise on weapons systems, so although I’m sure they are busy watching these new developments, I doubt that they are overwhelmed. At the end of the day, we’re really only talking about a handful of truly new systems, so the magnitude of the challenge is probably workable, even if it does require a substantial amount of time and attention at DIA and elsewhere.
Chinese DF-5C intercontinental ballistic missile systems pass through Tiananmen Square during a military parade in Beijing, capital of China, Sept. 3, 2025. (Photo by Yan Linyun/Xinhua via Getty Images) Xinhua News Agency
Christopher Miller, former acting defense secretary from November 2020 to January 2021 during the first Trump administration:
“I don’t think there was concern about the ability to track and analyze Chinese weapons programs. It was a pretty standard collection requirement. Now, how effective they were ……I don’t know how effective they were. I am out of the business now.
The large number of programs was not a concern. It was a pretty standard collection requirement. The challenge was prioritization because of so many different constituencies pushing their ‘pet rocks.’ But that is simply part of the churn. It was never a crisis issue — just typical process.
Questions about being adequately resourced was the standard pathology of the IC — ‘they NEVER have enough resources’; the political masters don’t understand the National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF)!! ‘Woe is us; etc.’ It was/is their SOP.”
Robert Peters, senior research fellow for strategic deterrence in the Allison Center for National Security:
“How overwhelming, or not, for the USIC are Chinese new weaponry like those seen so far in parade preps and programs, like the long-range bombers, UAVs etc? They are a problem, both the quantity and diversity of systems displayed, but we should not make the Chinese out to be 10 feet tall. It is unclear how many of these systems are real vs. how many are mockups. And even if they are all real, it is unclear how effective these systems are.
As an example, the U.S. Air Force recently said that the Chinese ‘stealth bomber’ — which looks for all the world like a B-2 Stealth bomber— has no stealth characteristics at all, it simply looks like a stealth bomber.
The future Chinese H-20 stealth bomber. (PLAAF/YouTube Screencap)
Further, even if these systems are highly capable, it is unclear how or how well the PLA would employ them. The PLA has not fought in a kinetic conflict since 1979, so they have no real-world experience in combat operations. While they certainly exercise jointly, exercises are far different than battlefield effectiveness. So we should look at what the Chinese are producing with seriousness, but we should not be fatalistic about them.
Is this affecting the USIC and the military’s ability to get a handle on this? The Chinese military buildup — particularly is numbers of fifth-generation fighters, naval surface combatants, missiles, and nuclear warheads — presents a real challenge for the United States, yes.
The quantity they are able to produce, coupled with their ability to focus their combat power on a specific theater close to home, is the challenge for us. Even if you believe that U.S. military capabilities are qualitatively superior to Chinese capabilities (which, I do believe), the U.S. is a global power. It has aircraft carrier strike groups operating in the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea, and the Pacific. It has ground and air forces deployed on six continents. This is because the United States has global commitments. China is able to field an enormous quantity of combat power on the Western Pacific, focus it, and achieve results, even with a qualitatively inferior force, while the U.S. would be pulling forces from around the world during a contingency.
It will require a significant amount of analysts to track and analyze these forces, but I think we have the manpower to make it happen.”
Once again, this is our first look into this unique facet of the growing military technology race between the U.S. and China. Stay tuned for follow-ups.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has told top Kremlin officials to draft proposals for the possible resumption of nuclear weapons testing, as Moscow responds to President Donald Trump’s order that the United States “immediately” resume its own testing after a decades-long hiatus.
The Russian leader told his Security Council on Wednesday that should the US or any signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) conduct nuclear weapons tests, “Russia would be under obligation to take reciprocal measures”, according to a transcript of the meeting published by the Kremlin.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“In this regard, I instruct the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry, the special services, and the corresponding civilian agencies to do everything possible to gather additional information on this matter, have it analysed by the Security Council, and submit coordinated proposals on the possible first steps focusing on preparations for nuclear weapons tests,” Putin said.
Moscow has not carried out nuclear weapons tests since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But tensions between the two countries with the world’s largest nuclear arsenals have spiked in recent weeks as Trump’s frustration with Putin grows over Russia’s failure to end its war in Ukraine.
The US leader cancelled a planned summit with Putin in Hungary in October, before imposing sanctions on two major Russian oil firms a day later – the first such measures since Trump returned to the White House in January.
Trump then said on October 30 that he had ordered the Department of Defense to “immediately” resume nuclear weapons testing on an “equal basis” with other nuclear-armed powers.
Trump’s decision came days after he criticised Moscow for testing its new Burevestnik missile, which is nuclear-powered and designed to carry a nuclear warhead.
According to the Kremlin transcript, Putin spoke with several senior officials in what appeared to be a semi-choreographed advisory session.
Defence Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin that Washington’s recent actions significantly raise “the level of military threat to Russia”, as he said that it was “imperative to maintain our nuclear forces at a level of readiness sufficient to inflict unacceptable damage”.
Belousov added that Russia’s Arctic testing site at Novaya Zemlya could host nuclear tests at short notice.
Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, also cautioned that if Russia does not “take appropriate measures now, time and opportunities for a timely response to the actions of the United States will be lost”.
Following the meeting, state news agency TASS quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying that Putin had set no specific deadline for officials to draft the requested proposals.
“In order to come to a conclusion about the advisability of beginning preparations for such tests, it will take exactly as much time as it takes for us to fully understand the intentions of the United States of America,” Peskov said.
Russia and the US are by far the biggest nuclear powers globally in terms of the number of warheads they possess.
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CACNP) estimates that Moscow currently has 5,459 nuclear warheads, of which 1,600 are actively deployed.
The US has about 5,550 nuclear warheads, according to the CACNP, with about 3,800 of those active. At its peak in the mid-1960s during the Cold War, the US stockpile consisted of more than 31,000 active and inactive nuclear warheads.
China currently lags far behind, but has rapidly expanded its nuclear warhead stockpile to about 600 in recent years, adding about 100 per year since 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
France, Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea comprise the remaining nuclear-armed countries.
The US last exploded a nuclear device in 1992, after former Republican President George HW Bush issued a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing following the collapse of the Soviet Union a year earlier.
Since 1996, the year the CTBT was opened for signatures, only three countries have detonated nuclear devices.
India and Pakistan conducted tests in 1998. North Korea has carried out five explosive tests since 2006 – most recently in 2017 – making it the only country to do so in the 21st century.
Such blasts, regularly staged by nuclear powers during the Cold War, have devastating environmental consequences.
Trump has yet to clarify whether the resumption he ordered last week refers to nuclear-explosive testing or to flight testing of nuclear-capable missiles, which would see the National Nuclear Safety Administration test delivery systems without requiring explosions.
Security analysts say a resumption of nuclear-explosive testing by any of the world’s nuclear powers would be destabilising, as it would likely trigger a similar response by the others.
Andrey Baklitskiy, senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, said that the Kremlin’s response was a prime example of the “action-reaction cycle”, in which a new nuclear arms race could be triggered.
“No one needs this, but we might get there regardless,” he posted on X.
Russian MOD Belousov suggests Russia should start to prepare for a full-scale nuclear test in response to the US statements. Action-reaction cycle at its best. No one needs this, but we might get there regardless
