However, a closer examination of the 2025 Global Firepower (GFP) data suggests that high spending and large troop counts don’t always guarantee genuine strategic power or sustainability.
Meanwhile, the Global Firepower website provides a detailed breakdown of each African Union member’s military capacity. These numbers, while comprehensive, leave out some of the deeper factors that shape how “powerful” a military truly is.
A classic example is Egypt, which continues to lead the continent, with a GFP score of roughly 0.3427 (lower is better, according to its PowerIndex) and an estimated 440,000 active personnel.
Yet its defence budget, at about US$5.9 billion, pales in comparison to Algeria, which spends more than US$25 billion but ranks slightly behind Egypt in terms of GFP.
This raises a key question: Does a higher budget always convert into greater military effectiveness, or is there a point of diminishing returns?
Beyond budget: Key metrics that matter
One of the criticisms of the GFP model is that it tends to emphasise quantity, large numbers of troops, tanks, and aircraft, sometimes at the expense of quality.
Operational readiness, training, technology integration, and maintenance are critical yet less tangible aspects of military power. Analysts argue these factors are not fully captured in a raw index.
For instance, a large force that is poorly maintained or undertrained might be less effective than a smaller, well-equipped, and well-led military.
Furthermore, logistic capability is a pivotal but underexamined aspect. A military might have thousands of vehicles and various types of weapons.
Still, without a strong logistical network for transportation, spare parts, and supplies, those assets may be underutilised or even unusable in prolonged operations.
Not all power is created equal — regional nuances matter
The top African militaries in 2025, according to GFP, reflect more than brute force. Nigeria, now ranked third in Africa and 31st globally, illustrates this well.
Its rise in the rankings is largely attributed not just to manpower, but also to focused investment in counter-terrorism, enhanced training, and improved coordination between military arms.
Yet Nigeria’s defense budget, estimated at around US$3.1 billion, is significantly smaller than that of Algeria, suggesting that efficient use of resources can count for more than sheer size.
Similarly, South Africa, ranked fourth in Africa (40th globally), spends around US$2.3 billion. Known for its professional force and historic defence-industrial capability, the country’s relatively modest budget underscores that institutional capacity and technological base are also critical levers of military strength.
The imperative of reform and transparency
For many African states, the challenge is not only acquiring weapons but also ensuring their sustainability. Limited maintenance budgets, corruption, or weak procurement processes may burden some militaries.
Without robust systems for sustainment, spare parts, training, and arms modernisation, even high-value equipment can become liabilities.
A more data-driven, transparent approach to military ranking would make a significant difference. By incorporating publicly available information on training cycles, average age of hardware, procurement lead times, and maintenance costs, observers could develop a more nuanced index.
Such a “composite readiness score” might better reflect real capability rather than raw inventory.
Strategic Implications
Understanding the gap between budget and effectiveness isn’t just academic. For regional powers and their partners, misjudging a country’s actual military capabilities could lead to flawed assumptions in diplomacy, peacekeeping, or alliance building.
As African militaries evolve, so too must the way they, and external observers, evaluate strength. The wealthiest or most populous forces will not always be the most effective.
In many cases, reform, transparency, and strategic investment in readiness will outweigh size alone.
