This report provides Congress with official, unclassified data from U.S. government sources on transfers of conventional arms to developing nations by major suppliers for the period 2008 through 2015. It also includes some data on worldwide supplier transactions. It updates and revises CRS Report R42017, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2003-2010 , by [author name scrubbed]. Data in this report provide a means for Congress to identify existing supplier-purchaser relationships in conventional weapons acquisitions. Use of these data can assist Congress in its oversight role of assessing how the current nature of the international weapons trade might affect U.S. national interests. For most of recent American history, maintaining regional stability and ensuring the security of U.S. allies and friendly nations throughout the world have been important elements of U.S. foreign and national security policy. Knowing the extent to which foreign government arms suppliers are transferring arms to individual nations or regions provides Congress with a context for evaluating policy questions it may confront. Such policy questions may include, for example, whether to support specific U.S. arms sales to given countries or regions or to support or offset arms transfers by other nations. The data in this report may also assist Congress in evaluating whether multilateral arms control arrangements or other U.S. foreign policy initiatives are being supported or undermined by the actions of arms suppliers. This report focuses principally on the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world—where most analysts agree that the potential for the outbreak of regional military conflicts currently is greatest, and where the greatest proportion of the conventional arms trade is conducted. For decades, during the height of the Cold War, providing conventional weapons to friendly states was an instrument of foreign policy utilized by the United States and its allies. This was equally true for the Soviet Union and its allies. The underlying rationale given for U.S. arms transfer policy then was to help ensure that friendly states were not placed at risk through a military disadvantage created by arms transfers by the Soviet Union or its allies. Following the Cold War's end, U.S. arms transfer policy has been based on maintaining or augmenting friendly and allied nations' ability to deal with regional security threats and concerns. Data in this report illustrate global patterns of conventional arms transfers that have changed in the post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf War years. Relationships between arms suppliers and recipients continue to evolve in response to changing political, military, and economic circumstances. Whereas the principal motivation for arms sales by key foreign suppliers in earlier years might have been to support a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based as much, if not more, on economic considerations as those of foreign or national security policy. Nations in the developing world continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of this report, 2008-2015, conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent orders for future delivery) to developing nations comprised 80.24% of the value of all international arms transfer agreements . The portion of agreements with developing countries constituted 80.92% of all agreements globally from 2012-2015. In 2015, arms transfer agreements with developing countries accounted for 81.7% of the value of all such agreements globally. Deliveries of conventional arms to developing nations, from 2012 to 2015 constituted 67.89% of all international arms deliveries. In 2015, arms deliveries to developing nations constituted 72.69% of the value of all such arms deliveries worldwide. The data in this new report supersede all data published in previous editions. Because these new data for 2008-2015 reflect potentially significant updates to and revisions of the underlying U.S. government databases used for this report, only the data in this most recent edition should be used for comparison of data found in previous reports. The data are expressed in U.S. dollars for the calendar years indicated, and adjusted for inflation (see box note below). U.S. commercial ly licensed arms export deliveries values are excluded (see box note on page 16). Also excluded are arms transfers by any supplier to subnational groups. The definition of developing nations, as used in this report, and the specific classes of items included in its values totals are found in box notes below. The report's table of contents provides a detailed listing and description of the various data tables to guide the reader to specific items of interest. The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and developing nations) in 2015 was $79.9 billion. This was a decrease in arms agreements values over the 2014 total of $89 billion. ( Figure 1 ) ( Table 1 ) ( Table 30 ) ( Table 31 ). In 2015, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making agreements valued at $40.2 billion (50.29% of all such agreements), up from $36.1 billion in 2014. France ranked second in 2015 with $15.3 billion in agreements (19.16% of these agreements globally), up considerably from $5.7 billion in 2014. The United States and France collectively made agreements in 2015 valued at over $55.4 billion, 69.4% of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers ( Figure 1 ) ( Table 30 ) ( Table 31 , Table 32 , and Table 34 ). For the period 2012-2015, the total value of all international arms transfer agreements ($317 billion in current dollars) was higher than the worldwide value during 2008-2011 ($266.6 billion in current dollars). During the period 2008-2011, developing world nations accounted for 80.39% of the value of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide. During 2012-2015, developing world nations accounted for 80.92% of all arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2015, developing nations accounted for 81.7% of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide ( Figure 1 ) ( Table 30 ) ( Table 31 ). In 2015, the United States ranked first in the value of all arms deliveries worldwide, making nearly $16.9 billion in such deliveries or 36.62%. This is the eighth year in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries. Russia ranked second in worldwide arms deliveries in 2015, making $7.2 billion in such deliveries, and ranked second for all of those eight years. France ranked third in 2015, making $7.0 billion in such deliveries. These three suppliers of arms in 2015 collectively delivered approximately $31.3 billion, or 67.77% of all arms delivered worldwide by all suppliers in that year ( Table 2 ) ( Table 36 , Table 37 , and Table 39 ). The value of all international arms deliveries in 2015 was nearly $46.2 billion. This is a decrease in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year from $54.1 billion. The total value of such arms deliveries worldwide in 2012-2015 (about $199 billion) was higher than the deliveries worldwide from 2008 to 2011 (about $187 billion ( Table 2 ) ( Table 36 and Table 37 ) ( Figure 7 and Figure 8 ). Developing nations from 2012 to 2015 received 67.9% of the value of all international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 2008-2011, developing nations accounted for 57.7% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2015, developing nations collectively accounted for 72.7% of the value of all international arms deliveries ( Table 2 ) ( Table 15 , Table 36 , and Table 37 ). Worldwide weapons orders decreased in 2015. The total of $79.8 billion was a decrease from $89 billion in 2014. The United States' worldwide weapons agreements values increased in value from $36.1 billion in 2014 to $40.2 billion in 2015. The U.S. market share increased greatly as well, from roughly 40.5% in 2014 to 50.3% in 2015. Although the United States retained its position as the leading arms supplying nation in the world, nearly all other major suppliers saw increases too. The principal example was France, whose worldwide agreements increased from $5.7 billion in 2014 to $15.3 billion in 2015. Meanwhile, Russia posted a marginal decline in its global arms agreements values, from $11.2 billion in 2014 to $11.1 billion in 2015. The collective market share of worldwide arms agreements for the four major West European suppliers—France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy—was approximately 22% in 2015. Although the global total in weapons sales in 2015 represents an increase, the international arms market is not likely growing overall. The U.S. global total for arms agreements in 2011 appears as an outlier figure, representing large sales with Saudi Arabia worth approximately $33.4 billion. Moreover, there continue to be significant constraints on its growth, due, in particular, to the weakened state of the global economy. The Eurozone financial crisis and the slow international recovery from the recession of 2008 have generally limited defense purchases of prospective customers. Concerns over their domestic budget problems have led many purchasing nations to defer or limit the purchase of new major weapon systems. Some nations have chosen to limit their purchasing to upgrades of existing systems and to training and support services. Others have decided to emphasize the integration into their force structures of the major weapon systems they had previously purchased. Orders for weapons upgrades and support services can still be rather lucrative, and such sales can provide weapons suppliers with continued revenue, despite the reduction in demand for major weapon systems. As new arms sales have become more difficult to conclude in the face of economic factors, competition among sellers has increased. A number of weapons-exporting nations are focusing not only on the clients with which they have held historic competitive advantages due to well-established military-support relationships, but also on potential new clients in countries and regions where they have not been traditional arms suppliers. As the overall market for weapons has stagnated, arms suppliers have faced the challenge of providing weapons in type and price that can create a competitive edge.