Priority Defence decisions for the new govt.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 27 May 2014 15:50

Outside of the obvious of setting the health of our Armed Forces on the right track (Spares / new equipment, maintenance, training, Air Defence, etc) i really wish the following Institutions finally see the light of Day

1\ CDS

2\ Somebody actually does a Rumfield and gets Special Forces Command up and running and implements strong strategic direction to our SOF forces and capability

3\ Integration / up gradation of our Intelligence Agencies - which includes a renewed focus on Training / recruiting case officers For RAW / IB outside the IPS cadre. This should include a more roboust cyberwarfare capability

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 27 May 2014 17:34

Rahul M wrote:
Sumair wrote:Top posts to cronies and not the most qualified, else how do you explain General VK Singh’s omission from MoD???

Gen VKS as RM would have been hugely controversial, not to mention improper. have you ever thought that IAF IN and DRDO might not want an army man at the helm ? a govt cant run on the basis of what feels right. it is much more nuanced than VKS was an army man so would make a good RM. a minister should not only act unbiased, he should also be seen by others as unbiased.

what's this 'qualification' anyway ? what is modi's qualification to be a PM ? a minister's job is not bringing domain knowledge to the table, he/she has experts for that.
what the MoD needs is not a RM who is ex-mil but a CDS who would become the one point of expertise on defence matters, and like the NSA, equivalent to a MoS.

No one, at least on this forum should doubt General VK Singh’s qualifications. Look at his tenure as the Top General, changes he was able to implement in a very short time as a chief, and his dogged determination to stand up against the system and people still doubt his abilities. Please listen to or read his interviews on the future of armed forces, the man has a very clear vision and determination to implement it.
If the post is for a politician who is a team player and keeps everyone happy then why all the complains and hoopla about Mr Anthony. I thought we wanted change for the better.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 27 May 2014 19:44

a. you didn't understand what I wrote about qualification. hint : I wasn't questioning Gen VKS' capability.

b. AKA failed both as a politician and a minister. what's so difficult to understand about it ?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 27 May 2014 20:26

symontk wrote:
Austin wrote:AJ get Defence and Finance confirmed now.

I wonder how a busy finance minister with so much on hands will have time for Defence or vice versa.

Just to keep cabinet small we have single minister handling many portfolio.
My take is that, some big plan (war, nuke warhead mfr, nuke testing, otherwise all combined) is on the way. AJ will give the defence portfolio to someone else after some time. But before that he would have funded the needed activities in the defence ministry

I remember for nuke tests, ABV and LKA had not informed Defence Minister George Fernandes but 3 Army Chiefs, even Chiefs were told not to mention it to DM Fernandes. Maybe for the sake of stealth and getting the feel of info NaMo and Jaitley are keeping the MoD under them, once enough info and data has been gathered they'll decide how to handle it.

Also AJ being minister for both Finance and Defence can easily call and examine both ministries files simultaneously, not just for acquisition but kukarms of chidu and antony exposed.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 27 May 2014 21:39

Like VKS is been handed over NE. This is India's real weak area which China vultures will target first....

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 28 May 2014 14:40

Amidst all the worry over having a full time Defence Minister, very less attention has been paid to the Minister of State for Defence, Rao Inderjit Singh ( MP for Gurgaon). He was in the same position in UPA-1 and was a big supporter of the Arjun tank project. In 2008, he pushed Army to get the unending trials over and place firm order for 124 tanks.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 28 May 2014 14:45

Remember last time for the acquisition of refueling tankers there was a minor tiff between defence and finance ministries with the file going to and fro and maun singh unable to do anything about it. THe Saint wanted clean image and the Uzbek lover wanted to do anything to stop expenditure and reign in fiscal deficit.

We might see decisions on such issues before DM gets a separate individual.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 May 2014 14:57

Info is that BJP anticipated pushback from some in IA etc over VKS as Def Min or direct Def related post. So he was given this new position.

Will · Post by **Will** » 28 May 2014 15:06

All said and done the way VK Singh went about the whole age episode wasn't becoming of the high standards of an army chief. At least Chiefs of the Indian Armed forces are know for supreme sacrifice. Not that I am saying that the govt was right. But you don't expect anything different from politicians but you do expect Chiefs of the armed forces to be above petty politicking.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 28 May 2014 15:49

^ True in part but if you are nicey nicey then you get short changed like how Admiral Joshi got. A VKS is needed from time to time to show that service personnel cannot be taken for granted.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 28 May 2014 18:55

Will wrote:All said and done the way VK Singh went about the whole age episode wasn't becoming of the high standards of an army chief. At least Chiefs of the Indian Armed forces are know for supreme sacrifice. Not that I am saying that the govt was right. But you don't expect anything different from politicians but you do expect Chiefs of the armed forces to be above petty politicking.

When evil worst then nandas are ruling, when combine of anti-nationals like vishkanya, Pokharan oppposing sharm-al-sheikh perpetrator, 'file case against the Indian Govt.' advisor to enron chidu, CBM through de-arming Bhartiya Sena antony are ruling, then I'd prefer a 'Mushkil Vakt, Commando Sakht' V.K. Singh then gracefully going out Admiral Joshi.

I'd have lost respect for General (Retd.) Shri V.K. Singh if he had given in to make space for Gursharan Kaur's mauseri behen's husband meekly.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 May 2014 19:05

Now that a new Def. Min will be chosen before July,and the other heavyweights have been given their primary plum posts,who are the suitable ones left for this most critical post?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 May 2014 19:12

What is even more interesting is that why the Rakhsa mantri was not chosen in the first round when minor ministries were chosen. The media seemed to suggest that Rajnath was the choice but he was not interested and wanted Home. Rajiv pratap rudy could be one option as he was missing in R1, but Arun Shourie is probably a stronger contender. Perhaps Modi will spring a surprise and appoint a technocrat into this position. Perhaps move Avinash Chander from the DRODO

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 30 May 2014 00:04

Karan M wrote:Info is that BJP anticipated pushback from some in IA etc over VKS as Def Min or direct Def related post. So he was given this new position.

Disagree. Once UPA announced there was no chance of retracting the appointment irrespective of whether it was right or wrong.. Would have demoralised the forces & sent wrong message.. A nationalist PM would never allow that..

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 30 May 2014 00:06

Could everybody who has a opinion/understanding, Please post your arguments/comments/feedback about 100% FDI in defence..

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 May 2014 02:39

not sure who "you" reference was rakall, but imho, i'm just repeating what i gdf-ed.

100% FDI in defense is a very bad idea!

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 30 May 2014 03:01

SaiK wrote:not sure who "you" reference was rakall, but imho, i'm just repeating what i gdf-ed.

100% FDI in defense is a very bad idea!

"you" - I meant everybody.. Just edited my comment..

Could you please elaborate why "it is a bad idea" (if u can).

- How is it going to impact strategic systems? Hopefully not. Nobody will sell strategic systems

- How is it going to impact tactical systems? A lot. Question is how much of indigenous R&D it is going to kill... and thereby leave us devoid of a "platform" for future system development..

- How much does it make us "more susceptible" to trojans, bugs, espionage?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 May 2014 05:54

Prefab road bridges that an Arjun can traverse over along the border areas.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 30 May 2014 05:56

Karan M wrote:Info is that BJP anticipated pushback from some in IA etc over VKS as Def Min or direct Def related post. So he was given this new position.

But Karan Major Jawant Singh was also an armyman, nobody had a problem with him, why Tatra bribe exposer V.K. Singh gives kasht to people?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 30 May 2014 06:24

Why is 100% FDI in defense a problem if the investors don't deliver a product that the Indian military don't want to buy?

Right now we have zero FDI in defense with tax payer funded firms delivering a product that the Indian military does not want to buy.

In the first case zero taxpayer funds if product is not bought

In the second, 100%

This against a backdrop of 70% of arms purchases being imported.

We can' t apparently even build AK-47s

and we import

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/over- ... ces-213293

We can't build a trainer, we have to import the Pilatus. We can't build an AJT so we import the Hawk.

Who are we kidding?

The PSUs are worse than any enemy

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 May 2014 06:27

TOI has 100% FDI in defence as on the cards.Will this eventually bring in firang control over pvt. defence industry?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 May 2014 06:32

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=21012

The commerce & industry ministry has suggested a graded foreign investment ceiling. It has suggested a cap of 49% FDI for companies that do not transfer technology, while in ventures where the foreign partner is willing to transfer knowhow, the government intends to allow up to 74% FDI, and there will be no cap (100% FDI) for companies engaged in manufacturing state-of-the art equipment and machinery or those undertaking modernization projects.

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 30 May 2014 10:17

In effect this seems to be an increase in the FDI limit from 26% to 49%.

Existing policy already allows up to 100% if the Cabinet Committee on Security gives approval.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 30 May 2014 10:48

congress bhakts having burnol moments

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 30 May 2014 11:29

krishnan wrote:congress bhakts having burnol moments

Politely request you to avoid challenging the homogeneity of BR.. Party lines best avoided required on BR !

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 30 May 2014 11:53

was talking about FB posts , nothing to do with BR posts here

sum · Post by **sum** » 30 May 2014 11:55

^^ Which FB posts?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 30 May 2014 12:08

my boss FB post

he follows me on FB

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 30 May 2014 12:24

Amitabh wrote:In effect this seems to be an increase in the FDI limit from 26% to 49%.

Existing policy already allows up to 100% if the Cabinet Committee on Security gives approval.

If that is so, fine..

Across the board 100% FDI in defence likely to kill indigenous R&D in the long run..

wherever 100% is allowed, CCS should do proper due diligence..

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 30 May 2014 12:31

rakall wrote:
Karan M wrote:Info is that BJP anticipated pushback from some in IA etc over VKS as Def Min or direct Def related post. So he was given this new position.
Disagree. Once UPA announced there was no chance of retracting the appointment irrespective of whether it was right or wrong.. Would have demoralised the forces & sent wrong message.. A nationalist PM would never allow that..

Nonsense! Why would the forces be demoralized if the appointment decision of a corrupt and outgoing regime is overturned? I would think that UPA tried to politicize every institution and if their decisions are allowed to persist, then the people(including the forces) will be demoralized. The new regime should not allow the wrong decisions of the previous govt to fester. All the decisions which were taken by the outgoing regime in its last days must be reviewed and overturned if necessary by the new regime.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 30 May 2014 12:51

johneeG wrote:
rakall wrote: Nonsense! Why would the forces be demoralized if the appointment decision of a corrupt and outgoing regime is overturned? I would think that UPA tried to politicize every institution and if their decisions are allowed to persist, then the people(including the forces) will be demoralized. The new regime should not allow the wrong decisions of the previous govt to fester. All the decisions which were taken by the outgoing regime in its last days must be reviewed and overturned if necessary by the new regime.

As you said, it was the regime that was corrupt.. Not the person.. Yes, there were instances of shortcomings in duty which led to DV ban.. however, there has been no evidence of Gen.Suhag himself being associated with corruption of any kind..

considering the DV ban & a missing ACR it would have been prudent if UPA did not appoint him in the first place.. However, UPA govt intention in appointing him itself seemed childish act of vindictive politics. (as everything they did like the Handlegate etc).

Gen.Suhag's appointment is wrong for the fact that it did not follow the proper procedure for appointment.. But, it wud be wrong to victimize Gen.Suhag for the misdeeds of UPA govt.

His appointment having been announced, if the next govt were to retract - it might have created a feeling that ArmedForces are merely puppets to the political whims of establishment.. and, that is highly demoralising to the troops..

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 30 May 2014 13:52

The way decision on General Suhag's elevation to Army Chief was taken, one thing is clear. This decision was not taken by AK Antony. It was not even taken by Manmohan Singh. This decision was directly imposed by Sonia Gandhi. And as per extremely reliable congress sources Sonia Gandhi used to work only for money(range atleast 50-100 crore and all paid upfront ) or in exceptional circumstances for some future favour.

So as far as Gen. Suhag's promotion is concerned, it is highly likely(99.99%) that substantial amount has already been pocketed by Sonia/Rahul. Now this money need not have been paid by Gen Suhag himself, but then there must be his sponsors who arranged for this amount. And now they will be looking for their pound of flesh.

General Suhag himself might be an honest officer. Infact I do not even rate honesty as the topmost rated quality for an Army Chief. It is leadership, Courage and Initiative which General Dalbir Singh Suhag definitely has.

But then it is very important to identify his sponsors and understand their interests. It is extremely vital for our country.

P.S. This was not unique to Army only. With respect to Nomination for every important Govt post, the above scenario was the rule rather than exception in the 10 years of Congress misrule under Nehru Gandhi family. Top posts in every department were sold. Decisions were taken which will continue to haunt Bharat for quite some time.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 May 2014 16:27

Bribes are being paid is known to everyone. The elephent in the room is the bribes being paid to top army bosses. When all the babus, politicos and others like press (planting paid stories etc) it is natural top people in the armed forces will also to approached and refusal is not an option in many cases. We have seen how VKS was dealt by UPA.

While witch hunting is very damaging, I am sure IB and others know who is taking gratifications etc by now. Just ask them to retire or sent them to posts which are irrelevant in the scheme of things.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 May 2014 20:45

rakall wrote:
SaiK wrote:not sure who "you" reference was rakall, but imho, i'm just repeating what i gdf-ed.

100% FDI in defense is a very bad idea!
"you" - I meant everybody.. Just edited my comment..

Could you please elaborate why "it is a bad idea" (if u can).

Firstly, they have not given details what 100% means. Let us say, Arjun.. there is no sense in seeking 100% investment for FDI. So, it has to be product specific. There are certain products in R&D state, and some in half way to maturity, and some have established and strengthened forces' capability.

Projects and products that needs certain oomph factor to drive that extra mile to compete with firang competitors needs to be listed, and existing progams need augmentations. That definitely not necessarily means it needs FDI.

Now, FDI meaning funds or people who have the capability to share their technology? we have to be clear here. I don't think we have dearth of funds.. IMHO, all FDI is directed towards lack of technology capability or we have not reached maturity to the levels to support our forces.

Few aspects -
I bad production engineering
- we need to enhance our private participation in produciton engineering
- focus on R&D orgs to deliver to private partnership
- gov regulations on security, defence and protected products and safety guidelines for businesses
- Establish better concurrent engineering, automation, robotics, etc. [perhaps FDI area, (only tech sharing)]

II Bad or ill timed qualitative requirements or inefficient DRDO delivery plan
- Separation of concerns [production vs. r&d]
- Make users as stakeholders
- Invovle orgs and institutions at components, sub-components, project levels
- Identify areas of concerns

III focus areas
- precision engineering
- production engineering
- R&D - areas of interest

IMHO, if you take this type of analysis, you will endup that defense products and their IPR is very country and organization specific and none will share technology for free.

Given that, we can maximize all screw-driver technology from gov controls, and enhance it with private-gov partnerships or entirely gov regulated private holdings. Now, Gov can fund it, if private is interested in technology aspects.

We need to identify the exact needs. If you dig, you will find, most are related to intellectual properties, designs, blue prints, etc. our capabilities are not about R&D issues but precisely that R&D instiutions are unable to do the production engineering aspects and tool it out.

We don't need FDI for this.. We can buy equipments outright from firang suppliers. why FDI? Does the firang institutions or orgs say, without FDI, the will not sell? IMHO, no, this applies to only when India wants localization. local production.. we are asking for other gov/countries to install their setup here. It is fraught with cost and IPR issues, that they will never share. Few jobs gain, that is all you will get, with heavy counter-productive setup.

In the long run, we have gained nothing but, Indian made Foregin Liquor kind of setup.

- How is it going to impact strategic systems? Hopefully not. Nobody will sell strategic systems

Yes.. no body will sell strategic systems.. Hence, 100% FDI is no use. Instead, buy the F22s, JSF, PAKFA, Rafales or anything you want direct at negotiated deal. This will come with scew up cost, at the time of war or even for spares as we all know.

Exactly the reason we are asking for localization. Localization where we failed is where the areas of concerns ought to be.

Code: Select all

- How is it going to impact tactical systems? A lot. Question is how much of indigenous R&D it is going to kill... and thereby leave us devoid of a "platform" for future system development..

The question should how much of indgenous products failed, where? how to strengthen them, what needs to be done? etc.
Get our private partnership first. Check if they can establish better solutions. Without trying, we can't tell.

- How much does it make us "more susceptible" to trojans, bugs, espionage?

HUGE! for example khan-gadgets will by default will come with bugs. No chance of escaping that. Or russkie components comes with heavy quality issues. no spares later on etc.

So, essentially, we have to list out all those areas of concerns. Ask our private sector to support them. Let the private reach out to institutions, suppliers, and get it done.

I would support 100% Import on product level, but no FDI at that level. Even a 100% FDI on sub-components say - GE414 engines for LCA, what is the gain? GE will retain rights, profits, setup, etc. Except, we get some tax, and jobs. That is all. And do you think GE will transfer the design houses from Amrikka to India? B@LLS!

Same screw driver tech, except guaranteed delivery perhaps. Which can be achieved by privitizing production engineering, its r&d, and empowering the private model. If private reach outs to firang to buy technology, their choice. Let the market drive there.

gov and def sector must work on regulations, r&d, empower private sector, etc. The regulations will not talk about FDI (that is private concern), but will talk about design changes, regulations, specifications, etc that caters to the needs. I am 100% guaranteed Indian requirements mandates a change and no foregin supplies exactly matches that. So, essentially private has to invest in R&D either solo or in collaboration with DRDO labs. That is the way forward. meanwhile, have firang components as stand-by technology. A cost that we have to bare till we mature.

Bottom: If we have to mature, A matured firang can't help there by coming over to your backyard to demonstrate what maturity means. We have to do that all by ourselves. Of course, we have all freedom to buy capabilities till we mature (develop capabilities).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 May 2014 04:02

Exactly the reason we are asking for localization. Localization where we failed is where the areas of concerns ought to be.

Spot on.Whether it has been licence production of ToT,ultimately the quality of the local product depends upon the local manufacturer.Thus far,the DPSU quality leaves a lot to be desired.This is where one hoped that pvt. industry would take up the challenge .They have but in a limited way,as costs are high and large,assured orders have not materialised enough. Foreign acquisitions need to come from the beginning with the required support establishment,either a designated DPSU (MIG-29 engines being manufactured locally for example) or pvt. player. The second Q is what level of TOT will be forthcoming/offered? The IMFL analogy is very apt.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 31 May 2014 05:33

I have some doubts on gora investment policy in defense -
Suppose French or US puts a 100% subsidiary in India will it be allowed to export India produced items to say China or Pakiland or we have to purchase them all for our self ???
Why will any goras give us unto date tech in areas like defense?
Encourage private sector in India first before jumping into higher FDI route. 26% is already there and hardly anything has come it mainly because of Saint Ministry of UPA. Allow private players to big say for Artillery once and give a really big order first and regularly start purchasing products from Indian private sector units and you will find greater FDI inflow automatically into Indian private sector.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 May 2014 10:49

Sirji, the investments made into an indian defense industry would be bound by indian laws. A tough framework has to be provided from the legal side to ensure a FDI policy that serves the best interest of india's military. Say a foreign company invests 4 billion dollars and buys a controlling share in an indian defense companies. The two companies make a product and the greedy foreign company sells it to a country without going through our legal opporoval process. We can then take over that company's stake. Such laws need to be inacted and probably will as the policy matures.

vic · Post by **vic** » 31 May 2014 10:54

I don't think people on BRF know that as per Indian law one can completely control a company even with 25% shareholding. That is how print media has been taken over by foreign PE with concurrence of Sonia Govt.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 31 May 2014 10:58

I am not qualified to comment here. Nor do I have any particular ideas. I am making a simple observation -- the need for transparancy in the use of what you already have. I will give you a concrete example -- until the PC7s came along entire batches of trainees combiined were going to (kiran) jets with less solo time than I have on single prop. Let me add that I havent touched a stick or yoke in 15 years. You dont know what you need if this fear of transparancy will continue.

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 02 Jun 2014 05:20

vic wrote:I don't think people on BRF know that as per Indian law one can completely control a company even with 25% shareholding. That is how print media has been taken over by foreign PE with concurrence of Sonia Govt.

Can you please elaborate? i am writing a paper on the negative effects of 100% FDI pl see my post in Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector where I made this suggestion:

"Instead of 100% FDI in Defence, let us have 100% Defence Offsets, which should be increased to 100%. All countries serious about indigenous defence capabilities have 100% Defence Offsets. Through Offsets, they have grown a dual use and defence production sector. Then Rafale complains about 30% Offsets in India, a ridiculously low amount, but agrees to 100% in Canada, because it could get away with it with our politicians for a consideration. Countries with 100% defence offsets obligations: Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland.

The great thing about defence offsets is that it will allow local manufacturing, transfer of technology, huge employment, multiplier effects AND you retain control in your hands!

IMO people are turning to FDI Defence because the PSU led licenced production model has failed to deliver indigenous products. But
no country has 100% FDI. It is a lazy solution which will perpetuate our dependence and wipe out our young private industry which is slowly gathering pace, I am in touch with some industry leaders - SME and large, who have developed fantastic capabilities. In fact, many business people in developing countries praise the quality of Indian industrial products over Chinese, but China backs its exports with massive loans and investments."