Sudanese Armed Forces
| Sudanese Armed Forces | |
|---|---|
| القوات المسلحة السودانية | |
Insignia of the Sudanese Armed Forces | |
| Founded | 1925 (as Sudan Defence Force) |
| Current form | 1956 |
| Service branches | Sudanese Army Sudanese Navy Sudanese Air Force Republican Guard |
| Headquarters | Khartoum |
| Leadership | |
| Supreme Commander | Transitional Sovereignty Council |
| Commander-in-Chief | General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan |
| Minister of Defence | Hassan Daoud Kayan |
| Chief of Staff | Muhammad Othman al-Hussein |
| Personnel | |
| Military age | 18 |
| Active personnel | 300,000 |
| Reserve personnel | 200,000 |
| Expenditure | |
| Budget | $2.47 Billion (2017 est.) |
| Percent of GDP | 1.0% (2017 est.) |
| Industry | |
| Domestic suppliers | Military Industry Corporation |
| Foreign suppliers | China Czech Republic Iran North Korea Russia Turkey |
| Related articles | |
| History |
|
| Ranks | Military ranks of Sudan |
The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF; Arabic: القوات المسلحة السودانية, romanized: Al-Qūwāt Al-Musallaḥah as-Sūdāniyah) are the military forces of the Republic of Sudan. The force strength has been estimated at 109,300 personnel in 2011 (by IISS), 200,000 personnel before the current war in Sudan broke out in 2023 (by the CIA), and 300,000 personnel in 2024 (by Al Jazeera).
In 2016–2017, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) had 40,000 members participating in the Yemeni Civil War (of which 10,000 returned to Sudan by October 2019). As of 2026, the SAF and RSF remain in armed conflict against one another in the ongoing civil war in Sudan.
Reports indicate a significant influence of Islamist elements, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, within the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Some estimates suggest these groups comprise a substantial portion of the force, with certain accounts placing the figure as high as 75%. While the international community has repeatedly engaged the SAF to negotiate an end to the ongoing conflict, observers note that internal pressure from Islamist factions has frequently led leadership to reject proposed peace settlements. Critics argue that this ideological control remains a primary obstacle to a diplomatic resolution.