There is speculation that Modi govt will announce a CDS by the year-end. Experts say he should have financial powers and a role in ensuring jointness in the three services.
The screwworm has breached the biological wall established in Panama over decades. The pest is relentlessly marching northwards—helped by Trump’s flailing foreign policy.
New bill aims to fix key issues with IBC 2016, including delays & patchy implementation, and protect creditors, with window for genuine promoters to retain control of their companies.
The Navy has always been on board with the theaterisation plan, but the Air Force feels splitting up air assets into several theatre commands is futile & will tie up critical systems.
Putin sees this as a victory. Europeans have decided to deal with Trump on his terms for the sake of the larger Western alliance. We look at the lessons for us in India.
CDS as an institution is an important step on the road to putting flesh into defence ministry planning.
The biggest drawback of Indian defence acquisition is compartmental defence procurement where each service raises it’s own requirements and lack of holistic view, cross leveraging and rectify deficiencies in make in India program . This has to be overhauled totally. This is where CDS has to come into picture to coordinate with defence ministry , drdo, and other services.
I am listing few examples to show the bane of compartmental acquisition.
1. Helicopters
Each service has it’s own requirement for helicopters
Kamov, chinook, nmh, Rudra, alh and apache etc..
a)Do the readers know the per unit cost of assembled kamov is more than Russian supplied helicopter price?
b) Then what is india gaining? Any body questioned make in India initiative the much trumpeted PM’s program.Is it only for creating employment and then after 20 years again assemble new platform? How many years it will take for India to export and earn revenue? Can India customize kamov without Russian assistance and export? These are the important questions
the brain less babus who conceived make in India.
c)India as well can create employment by setting up garment factories and export it for revenue.
d) What india needs is not employment but technology absorption, setting up r&d institutions for designing next generation platforms, setting up lab facilities in engineering colleges as specialized subjects for indian students to gain knowledge and cross leveraging this technology to be used in other services platforms.
I challenge any body thought about the above points.
e) So the kamov program make in india program is brain less substance less which does no good to india.
Can kamov assembly help alh and Rudra?
Can kamov assembly help develop multirole helicopter?
Can kamov assembly help design naval multirole helicopter?
I dont’t say 100% should be helpful. Even 20 -30% cross leveraging is sufficient?
Can CDS or defence ministry or drdo quantify how much India gaining?
f)While china sttops to gain technology , india is is shame we can’t buy our way to get the technology through defence acquisition programs
2) lowest bidding lc1
Another flawed approach
Do you prefer to get technology or save few bucks to award the cntract?
india can afford banks swindled by business people. But our indian defence ministry with archiac mind set decided to award the contract based on
lc bidding. Who knows this is rgged or not.
3)A/c engine technology
There are 3 routes local assembly, tot and indigeneous development.
Our babus are good at sequential processing and not used to parallel procesing.
How many years it will take to take decision?
It appears defence ministry wants to have indian engine capability in 2050s.
Why can’t the defence ministry synergise local assembly to start working with lcamk2 and amca, get tot and go tie up for indigenious deveopment hot engine technology.
The joke is
a)India works with GE engines for lca-mk2 and amca
b)Which indigenous engines India will use in 2030s god only knows
c)In case GE is not ready to part with technology why at all lca-mk2 uses their engines?
d)You have pratt & whitney, safron and rolls royce to enquire about sharing of their technology? For this how many years of decision
making is required? If it 1 or 2 billion dollars required then DRDO steps in to say we can provide with lesser money.
But every body knows kaveri is notarious for slippages. I am not against indigenous capability but time factor our indian officials
are very ignorant as if whole world is moving at snail’s pace.
e) So look at our lca-mk2 program , amca they waste their resources porting ge engine and after 10 years have tie up with
new engine manufacturer and again report with new engines.
Does it not look silly and absurd?
4)Russian Igla shoulder fired missiles Time frame to decide on weapon acquisition
a) Look at shoulder fired portable missiles ordered from Russia (igla inferior to European)
b)What is the criteria, Russia pressure ok fine
c)If you buy Russian igll, are they parting with technology?
Will Russians help set up r&d center to design next generation missiles ? No
5)lack of good criteria to make India self reliant in defence acquisition
a)it is a joke India take years to take decisions. This means they don’t have criteria for acquisition.
Example is Russian igla. We talk about lc bidding fine. Then what India gets through this criteria?
Screw driver assembly, few hundred jobs creation.
I challenge other than this what India gains let the defence ministry list out.
b)Defence ministry clearly frame work of criteria for defence acquisition not cost based , not make in india based but technology acquisition based even we get technology in other platforms is also ok.
For example if we buy missiles then if we get tank technology is also ok. But India should get some defence technology
c)There is no criteria for designing next generation systems with buyer. There is no criteria setting up r&d labs in the defence technologies. There is no criteria setting up curriculum in engineering colleges or supplying licensed version of softwares to r&d centers and colleges.
So with so many loopholes and drawbacks god only knows how India will become self sufficient in defence technology.
So the whole Indian system is rotten which the CDS should try to address.
It will be something like its equivalent in Pakistan. One would not say, Ceremonial, but not the power and aura of Army Chief, for sure. A fifth star may be granted to keep the Josh high.
CDS as an institution is an important step on the road to putting flesh into defence ministry planning.
The biggest drawback of Indian defence acquisition is compartmental defence procurement where each service raises it’s own requirements and lack of holistic view, cross leveraging and rectify deficiencies in make in India program . This has to be overhauled totally. This is where CDS has to come into picture to coordinate with defence ministry , drdo, and other services.
I am listing few examples to show the bane of compartmental acquisition.
1. Helicopters
Each service has it’s own requirement for helicopters
Kamov, chinook, nmh, Rudra, alh and apache etc..
a)Do the readers know the per unit cost of assembled kamov is more than Russian supplied helicopter price?
b) Then what is india gaining? Any body questioned make in India initiative the much trumpeted PM’s program.Is it only for creating employment and then after 20 years again assemble new platform? How many years it will take for India to export and earn revenue? Can India customize kamov without Russian assistance and export? These are the important questions
the brain less babus who conceived make in India.
c)India as well can create employment by setting up garment factories and export it for revenue.
d) What india needs is not employment but technology absorption, setting up r&d institutions for designing next generation platforms, setting up lab facilities in engineering colleges as specialized subjects for indian students to gain knowledge and cross leveraging this technology to be used in other services platforms.
I challenge any body thought about the above points.
e) So the kamov program make in india program is brain less substance less which does no good to india.
Can kamov assembly help alh and Rudra?
Can kamov assembly help develop multirole helicopter?
Can kamov assembly help design naval multirole helicopter?
I dont’t say 100% should be helpful. Even 20 -30% cross leveraging is sufficient?
Can CDS or defence ministry or drdo quantify how much India gaining?
f)While china sttops to gain technology , india is is shame we can’t buy our way to get the technology through defence acquisition programs
2) lowest bidding lc1
Another flawed approach
Do you prefer to get technology or save few bucks to award the cntract?
india can afford banks swindled by business people. But our indian defence ministry with archiac mind set decided to award the contract based on
lc bidding. Who knows this is rgged or not.
3)A/c engine technology
There are 3 routes local assembly, tot and indigeneous development.
Our babus are good at sequential processing and not used to parallel procesing.
How many years it will take to take decision?
It appears defence ministry wants to have indian engine capability in 2050s.
Why can’t the defence ministry synergise local assembly to start working with lcamk2 and amca, get tot and go tie up for indigenious deveopment hot engine technology.
The joke is
a)India works with GE engines for lca-mk2 and amca
b)Which indigenous engines India will use in 2030s god only knows
c)In case GE is not ready to part with technology why at all lca-mk2 uses their engines?
d)You have pratt & whitney, safron and rolls royce to enquire about sharing of their technology? For this how many years of decision
making is required? If it 1 or 2 billion dollars required then DRDO steps in to say we can provide with lesser money.
But every body knows kaveri is notarious for slippages. I am not against indigenous capability but time factor our indian officials
are very ignorant as if whole world is moving at snail’s pace.
e) So look at our lca-mk2 program , amca they waste their resources porting ge engine and after 10 years have tie up with
new engine manufacturer and again report with new engines.
Does it not look silly and absurd?
4)Russian Igla shoulder fired missiles Time frame to decide on weapon acquisition
a) Look at shoulder fired portable missiles ordered from Russia (igla inferior to European)
b)What is the criteria, Russia pressure ok fine
c)If you buy Russian igll, are they parting with technology?
Will Russians help set up r&d center to design next generation missiles ? No
5)lack of good criteria to make India self reliant in defence acquisition
a)it is a joke India take years to take decisions. This means they don’t have criteria for acquisition.
Example is Russian igla. We talk about lc bidding fine. Then what India gets through this criteria?
Screw driver assembly, few hundred jobs creation.
I challenge other than this what India gains let the defence ministry list out.
b)Defence ministry clearly frame work of criteria for defence acquisition not cost based , not make in india based but technology acquisition based even we get technology in other platforms is also ok.
For example if we buy missiles then if we get tank technology is also ok. But India should get some defence technology
c)There is no criteria for designing next generation systems with buyer. There is no criteria setting up r&d labs in the defence technologies. There is no criteria setting up curriculum in engineering colleges or supplying licensed version of softwares to r&d centers and colleges.
So with so many loopholes and drawbacks god only knows how India will become self sufficient in defence technology.
So the whole Indian system is rotten which the CDS should try to address.
It will be something like its equivalent in Pakistan. One would not say, Ceremonial, but not the power and aura of Army Chief, for sure. A fifth star may be granted to keep the Josh high.
Pak don’t have any CDS. Are you this fool? They have CJCSC who is generally junior to their Army Chief. Their Army Chief is defacto CDS equivalent.