Indian Army grapples with arms, gear shortage

[INDIAPOSITIVE]

SOURCE: TNN

Long-winded procedures and bureaucratic bottlenecks continue to stymie the already long-delayed modernisation of the Army, which is grappling with shortages in several areas ranging from modern assault rifles, bullet-proof jackets and night-fighting capabilities to howitzers, missiles and helicopters.

The Navy and IAF, however, have done much better. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar on Friday told Lok Sabha that 162 arms contracts worth Rs 1.33 lakh crore with Indian and foreign manufacturers were signed from 2012-13 to 2014-15. In the ongoing fiscal, 44 such contracts worth Rs 39,955 crore have been inked so far.
But the “persisting operational hollowness” in the 1.18-million strong Army is the big worry. Over 140 modernisation projects, worth over Rs 2.30 lakh crore, are currently meandering their way through the labyrinth of South Block corridors. “The Army contracts inked this fiscal amount to just Rs 5,800 crore,” said a source.

While a few of the 140 projects are new, most of them are years old. Induction of third-generation shoulder-fired ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles), for instance, has been hanging fire for over a decade now. Sources say acquisition of “Spike” ATGMs from Israel is among the 22 projects, together worth over Rs 22,000 crore, stuck in final commercial negotiations.

A stage ahead of these 22 projects are 10 contracts — worth around Rs 24,000 crore — awaiting financial approval and nod from the cabinet committee on security. These include the 4th regiment of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, two Pinaka rocket regiments and the medium-range surface-toair missile systems.
Taking note of the continuing delays, Parrikar at the defence acquisitions council meeting on Tuesday directed officials to ensure that 86 modernisation schemes for the three Services that are close to finalization — worth around Rs 1.5 lakh crore — should be wrapped up in the next four to five months.
Some delays also take place because of the Army’s formulation of unrealistic technical parameters (general staff qualitative requirements) as well as corruption scandals. “This often leads to the scrapping of tenders or RFPs (request for proposal) despite years being spent on initial processing and trials,” said the defence ministry source.

 

[Bheemsen]

SOURCE: TNN

Long-winded procedures and bureaucratic bottlenecks continue to stymie the already long-delayed modernisation of the Army, which is grappling with shortages in several areas ranging from modern assault rifles, bullet-proof jackets and night-fighting capabilities to howitzers, missiles and helicopters.

The Navy and IAF, however, have done much better. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar on Friday told Lok Sabha that 162 arms contracts worth Rs 1.33 lakh crore with Indian and foreign manufacturers were signed from 2012-13 to 2014-15. In the ongoing fiscal, 44 such contracts worth Rs 39,955 crore have been inked so far.
But the “persisting operational hollowness” in the 1.18-million strong Army is the big worry. Over 140 modernisation projects, worth over Rs 2.30 lakh crore, are currently meandering their way through the labyrinth of South Block corridors. “The Army contracts inked this fiscal amount to just Rs 5,800 crore,” said a source.

While a few of the 140 projects are new, most of them are years old. Induction of third-generation shoulder-fired ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles), for instance, has been hanging fire for over a decade now. Sources say acquisition of “Spike” ATGMs from Israel is among the 22 projects, together worth over Rs 22,000 crore, stuck in final commercial negotiations.

A stage ahead of these 22 projects are 10 contracts — worth around Rs 24,000 crore — awaiting financial approval and nod from the cabinet committee on security. These include the 4th regiment of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, two Pinaka rocket regiments and the medium-range surface-toair missile systems.
Taking note of the continuing delays, Parrikar at the defence acquisitions council meeting on Tuesday directed officials to ensure that 86 modernisation schemes for the three Services that are close to finalization — worth around Rs 1.5 lakh crore — should be wrapped up in the next four to five months.
Some delays also take place because of the Army’s formulation of unrealistic technical parameters (general staff qualitative requirements) as well as corruption scandals. “This often leads to the scrapping of tenders or RFPs (request for proposal) despite years being spent on initial processing and trials,” said the defence ministry source.

UPA3 Sad Story continues , didn't expected this from Modi Govt .

 

[prabakar]

20 days worth of ammo.....We cant even fight Pakistan

This is a very serious issue...What the hell Indian Govt is doing

 

[Pulsar]

So what's new? This is the story since independence.

Next.

 

[Abingdonboy]

SOURCE: TNN

Long-winded procedures and bureaucratic bottlenecks continue to stymie the already long-delayed modernisation of the Army, which is grappling with shortages in several areas ranging from modern assault rifles, bullet-proof jackets and night-fighting capabilities to howitzers, missiles and helicopters.

The Navy and IAF, however, have done much better. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar on Friday told Lok Sabha that 162 arms contracts worth Rs 1.33 lakh crore with Indian and foreign manufacturers were signed from 2012-13 to 2014-15. In the ongoing fiscal, 44 such contracts worth Rs 39,955 crore have been inked so far.
But the “persisting operational hollowness” in the 1.18-million strong Army is the big worry. Over 140 modernisation projects, worth over Rs 2.30 lakh crore, are currently meandering their way through the labyrinth of South Block corridors. “The Army contracts inked this fiscal amount to just Rs 5,800 crore,” said a source.

While a few of the 140 projects are new, most of them are years old. Induction of third-generation shoulder-fired ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles), for instance, has been hanging fire for over a decade now. Sources say acquisition of “Spike” ATGMs from Israel is among the 22 projects, together worth over Rs 22,000 crore, stuck in final commercial negotiations.

A stage ahead of these 22 projects are 10 contracts — worth around Rs 24,000 crore — awaiting financial approval and nod from the cabinet committee on security. These include the 4th regiment of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, two Pinaka rocket regiments and the medium-range surface-toair missile systems.
Taking note of the continuing delays, Parrikar at the defence acquisitions council meeting on Tuesday directed officials to ensure that 86 modernisation schemes for the three Services that are close to finalization — worth around Rs 1.5 lakh crore — should be wrapped up in the next four to five months.
Some delays also take place because of the Army’s formulation of unrealistic technical parameters (general staff qualitative requirements) as well as corruption scandals. “This often leads to the scrapping of tenders or RFPs (request for proposal) despite years being spent on initial processing and trials,” said the defence ministry source.

UPA3 Sad Story continues , didn't expected this from Modi Govt .

Can't keep blaming the GoI/MoD. There is a reason the IAF and IN are doing better (and with far less of the bidget of the IA)- they are lean and efficent orginisations, the IA is bloated and looking to get even more bloated.

Pathetic.

@PARIKRAMA

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Best utilization of resources is Indian Navy

Second spot is IAF

Last spot is IA

Humongous manpower, mostly not in battle front but in reserves.. Need trimming of size or reallocation of extra resources to other forces..

The need of hour is not 1.2 million type soldiers but rather say 800k soldiers with very best weapons, ammo, gears, systems and network centric modern warfare capable armed forces..

So I advocate a one third reduction and internal transfer and rationalise everything

 

[Bheemsen]

Can't keep blaming the GoI/MoD. There is a reason the IAF and IN are doing better (and with far less of the bidget of the IA)- they are lean and efficent orginisations, the IA is bloated and looking to get even more bloated.

Pathetic.

@PARIKRAMA

24 months is enough of time to turn things around.

 

[Didact]

Best utilization of resources is Indian Navy

Second spot is IAF

Last spot is IA

Humongous manpower, mostly not in battle front but in reserves.. Need trimming of size or reallocation of extra resources to other forces..

The need of hour is not 1.2 million type soldiers but rather say 800k soldiers with very best weapons, ammo, gears, systems and network centric modern warfare capable armed forces..

So I advocate a one third reduction and internal transfer and rationalise everything

It, meaning the huge manpower expenditure, would probably be more 'justifiable' if there really were 1.2 million troops in the IA, even including reserves. That 1.2 million number is fallacious, something that for all intents and purposes exists only in the statistics; a practically meaningless number.

The Indian army has something of the order of 40 divisions plus 35(?) independent brigades, roughly equivalent to 50 divisions. (To put that in perspective, that would be the Army Group South, Operation Barbarossa.) The number of combat troops in a division vary, from 9,000-10,000 in Armored Divisions to 15,000 in infantry divisions all the way upto 20,000 in the Mountain Divisions. Taking a liberal average of 18,000 troops per division, that comes out to be 900,000 troops; the reality would be somewhere close to 780,000-820,000.

The gap of 300,000 (380,000-420,000) is made up by the supporting elements; the non-combat arms of the army. Infact every division has roughly 8,000 supporting elements, or a third of the total numerical strength of the division.In perspective, that is bigger than the entire army of Britain & France combined.

If this area, and it must be understood that many of these supporting elements are assigned redundant tasks,is sorted, it should be possible to cut anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 from the division roll-call, without affecting the ORBAT strength.

 

[Abingdonboy]

24 months is enough of time to turn things around.

IF the decsion makers understand the nature of the problem but it doesn't seem to be the case as of yet, in fact it seems to be the reverse. Why is no one asking why the IA is BY FAR the most backward force despite having an annual budget 4-5 times the entire Pak defence budget? Why the IN with the smallest allocation is the most advanced service followed by the IAF?

Indian Army 2016:

Contrast this with:

It's all about ratios, the IN's OPEX:CAPEX ratio is hugely weighted in favour of the latter; 61% CAPEX.

The IA, despite consuming more than the IAF and IN combined barely has a CAPEX budget in line with the IAF's AND fails to spend even this measely ammount.

Humiliating isn't it?

The reasons behind this are absurdly simple- the IA has FAR too much manpower, the days of wars being won because you have more guys than the other side are long gone but the IA's top brass still seem commited to this regressive mindset. The IN only grows when it has the requirement to do so based on capital commitments (ie new ships/bases) but the IA grows FIRST then looks around at how to equip these poor souls. There is no long term planning as with the IN and the IAF.

And what is the IA's solution? To keep f*cking expanding!!

This is why when the IN has already launched its own sat and the IAF is looking to do so shortly the IA hasn't even implemented F-INSAS thus far.

The IA is a lost cause for the forseeable future IMO, they have got themselves into such a mess that they don't even understand what they are doing anymore and the actual solution (cuts to manpower) is unthinkable to these buffons.

It, meaning the huge manpower expenditure, would probably be more 'justifiable' if there really were 1.2 million troops in the IA, even including reserves. That 1.2 million number is fallacious, something that for all intents and purposes exists only in the statistics; a practically meaningless number.

The Indian army has something of the order of 40 divisions plus 35(?) independent brigades, roughly equivalent to 50 divisions. (To put that in perspective, that would be the Army Group South, Operation Barbarossa.) The number of combat troops in a division vary, from 9,000-10,000 in Armored Divisions to 15,000 in infantry divisions all the way upto 20,000 in the Mountain Divisions. Taking a liberal average of 18,000 troops per division, that comes out to be 900,000 troops; the reality would be somewhere close to 780,000-820,000.

The gap of 300,000 (380,000-420,000) is made up by the supporting elements; the non-combat arms of the army. Infact every division has roughly 8,000 supporting elements, or a third of the total numerical strength of the division.In perspective, that is bigger than the entire army of Britain & France combined.

If this area, and it must be understood that many of these supporting elements are assigned redundant tasks,is sorted, it should be possible to cut anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 from the division roll-call, without affecting the ORBAT strength.

Clearly you can't have an army of 100% combatants, a literal army of support staff have to exist to meet the needs of the combat arms and you can't just cut the support staff without a corresponding cut in combat units (infantry ideally) and vice versa.

The fact remains that for a 30% cut in manpower (a combination of infantry and support staff) the IA could be made to be 4-5 times more effective.

The absolute strength of the army should be a a SECONDARY consideration behind budget per soldier. In Australia each combat soldier is equipped with $27,000 worth of top of the line equipment, what do we think the average IA combat soldier has spent on him? If they're lucky it will be 10% of this figure- including the cost of their weapon.


Only the US is able to provide their huge army with the right kit and that's because their defence budget is absolutely ludacris (>$600BN USD a year) even China has learnt this lesson and have begun to make cuts to their army so as to make their combatants more effective.

The IA has got to be one of the few armies of large economies that is actually growing- what are these clowns thinking?


@PARIKRAMA @Levina @anant_s @Taygibay @MilSpec @ranjeet @Vauban

 

[Taygibay]

Clearly you can't have an army of 100% combatants, a literal army of support staff have to exist to meet the needs of the combat arms and you can't just cut the support staff without a corresponding cut in combat units (infantry ideally) and vice versa.

No but you can outsource some non-combat roles to civilian contractors as is done in many places.
Cooks that go in the field to support the front are still soldiers but those catering the cafeterias aren't.

Which only works if the new peeps cost less of course, Tay.

 

[Bheemsen]

IF the decsion makers understand the nature of the problem but it doesn't seem to be the case as of yet, in fact it seems to be the reverse. Why is no one asking why the IA is BY FAR the most backward force despite having an annual budget 4-5 times the entire Pak defence budget? Why the IN with the smallest allocation is the most advanced service followed by the IAF?

Indian Army 2016:

Contrast this with:

It's all about ratios, the IN's OPEX:CAPEX ratio is hugely weighted in favour of the latter; 61% CAPEX.

The IA, despite consuming more than the IAF and IN combined barely has a CAPEX budget in line with the IAF's AND fails to spend even this measely ammount.

Humiliating isn't it?

The reasons behind this are absurdly simple- the IA has FAR too much manpower, the days of wars being won because you have more guys than the other side are long gone but the IA's top brass still seem commited to this regressive mindset. The IN only grows when it has the requirement to do so based on capital commitments (ie new ships/bases) but the IA grows FIRST then looks around at how to equip these poor souls. There is no long term planning as with the IN and the IAF.

And what is the IA's solution? To keep f*cking expanding!!

This is why when the IN has already launched its own sat and the IAF is looking to do so shortly the IA hasn't even implemented F-INSAS thus far.

The IA is a lost cause for the forseeable future IMO, they have got themselves into such a mess that they don't even understand what they are doing anymore and the actual solution (cuts to manpower) is unthinkable to these buffons.



Clearly you can't have an army of 100% combatants, a literal army of support staff have to exist to meet the needs of the combat arms and you can't just cut the support staff without a corresponding cut in combat units (infantry ideally) and vice versa.

The fact remains that for a 30% cut in manpower (a combination of infantry and support staff) the IA could be made to be 4-5 times more effective.

The absolute strength of the army should be a a SECONDARY consideration behind budget per soldier. In Australia each combat soldier is equipped with $27,000 worth of top of the line equipment, what do we think the average IA combat soldier has spent on him? If they're lucky it will be 10% of this figure- including the cost of their weapon.


Only the US is able to provide their huge army with the right kit and that's because their defence budget is absolutely ludacris (>$600BN USD a year) even China has learnt this lesson and have begun to make cuts to their army so as to make their combatants more effective.

The IA has got to be one of the few armies of large economies that is actually growing- what are these clowns thinking?


@PARIKRAMA @Levina @anant_s @Taygibay @MilSpec @ranjeet @Vauban

Before criticizing armed forces , read the parent article carefully , all 3 forces are highly deficient and i have not seen any major fast tracked decisions to procure arms and equipment by current MOD , current govt simply wasted first 8 months under jaitley and mr parrikar isnt doing much more than talks , actions speak louder than words , they can act fast track deals crack whip on domestic defense research agencies but nothing major has been achieved , lot was expected but they are turning out to be a UPA 3 , sad but true. Don't be a blind Fanboy.

 

[Abingdonboy]

No but you can outsource some non-combat roles to civilian contractors as is done in many places.
Cooks that go in the field to support the front are still soldiers but those catering the cafeterias aren't.

Which only works if the new peeps cost less of course, Tay.

It's true that this is what has happened in many Western militaries and there is some scope for this I'm sure but, personally, I am against the idea on any large scale as I see it as a slippery slope to outsourcing combat missons (as the UK and US do now) to PMCs.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Before criticizing armed forces , read the parent article carefully , all 3 forces are highly deficient and i have not seen any major fast tracked decisions to procure arms and equipment by current MOD , current govt simply wasted first 8 months under jaitley and mr parrikar isnt doing much more than talks , actions speak louder than words , they can act fast trck deals crack whip on domestic defense research agencies but nothing major has been achieved , lot was expected but they are turning out to be a UPA 3 , sad but true. Don't be a blind Fanboy.

I'm not ignoring the fact that the decsion making process needs to be streamlined massively but that would not change the fundamental issue I have highlighted. No streamlined/fast track decsion making system will address the over bloated nature of the IA, you can't ignore that it consumes >50% of the entire defence budget but has the smallest (by far) CAPEX budget of all the 3 services and with 1/3rd of the allocation of the IA, the IN has been able to transform itself into a truly world class force- I would struggle to justify attaching the same accolade to the IA.

How is it being a "fanboy" to point out the critical deficiencies present today?

Nobody can hide it,your army is such in a bad state,with obsolete equipments,soldiers as bad as equipped than Malian soldiers,i cannot understand how billions remain unspent every year.
I see people saying "We have to increase budget to equip well the soldiers",but if billions remain unspent,that's pointless.

There are two parts to this IMO:

1) The decsion making process- this relates to failures to spend the full allocation
2) The fundamental limitations of the IA (that are self imposed to a large degree)-this relates to why the IA has so little to spend on procurements

The first part can be split into to parts:

a) The civlian failures
b) The Army failures

so:

1a) The decsion making process- civlian failures. There can be no doubt that between the bureaucrats in the MoD and the previous Defence Minister procurements all but crawled to a halt for the military and this legacy has carried over to today and will exist for a long time.


1b) However, the role of the IA cannot be ignored as the IN and IAF have shown that the civlian side is not entirely to blame and the IA's procurement managment is BY FAR the most inept of all the three services that translates to a failure to have much progress with procurements. Whilst the IN has a clear 10+ year plan (labelled critical perspective plan) of where it would like to be by a certain point (manpower, capabilties, deployments etc) and then implements a comprehensive set of measures to make this a reality- the IA has no concept of long term planning and the IAF itself has only recently begun doing this. So whilst the IN is building up its strength, creating vast new bases and inducting assets hand over fist the IA is unable to create sensible enough Qualatative Requirements (QRs) for rifles! It is no good blaming the civvies in the MoD/GoI for failing to progress procurements when the IA's own systems have made this untenable because nothing this side of 2030 is going to meet their ridiculous QRs. If I had specualte as to why this situation persisted in the IA I would say that whilst the IAF and IN are highly technical branches that by their very nature only progress the careers of those who are the most innovative, the IA's top brass are almsot solely made up of infantry/combatants who have a very different mindset and are, perhaps, less suited to making such prospective plans or overseeing vastly technical documents.

Thus through a combination of civlian and military failures even the most basic procurements don't progress and CAPEX funds remain unspent.



2) The IA will always have far less to spend than the other two branches when their overheads (manpower) remain so increidbly vast. Despite having more to spend than the IAF and IN combined, their enourmous manpower constraint means that they actually have less to spend on new equipment than either branch.



To tackle the IA's serious issues there is going to have to be a LOT of introspecting and innovtive thinking and it can only come externally as I don't beleive the IA or MoD are capable of doing it themselves but the most depressing part is that these questions aren't even being asked let alone answers being found. And to compound the misery even more the IA is actually actively expanding now (Mountain Strike Corps). It is stupidity on top of BS on top of incompetence.


@Taygibay @Levina @Chinese-Dragon @Parul @MilSpec @PARIKRAMA @anant_s @ranjeet

 

[Killswitch]

For the Army, many of these issues are being sorted out:

Ammo: It is being bought from abroad and production is being stepped up

3rd gen ATGM: Spike selected contract being finalized

Artillery: Dhanush is being produced, M777 to be made in India pending contract signing

Infantry: MCIWS being tested, very little info on the rest of the requirements and progress being made

NVGs: New rifle to have night scopes/infared

 

[Bheemsen]

I'm not ignoring the fact that the decsion making process needs to be streamlined massively but that would not change the fundamental issue I have highlighted. No streamlined/fast track decsion making system will address the over bloated nature of the IA, you can't ignore that it consumes >50% of the entire defence budget but has the smallest (by far) CAPEX budget of all the 3 services and with 1/3rd of the allocation of the IA, the IN has been able to transform itself into a truly world class force- I would struggle to justify attaching the same accolade to the IA.

How is it being a "fanboy" to point out the critical deficiencies present today?


There are two parts to this IMO:

1) The decsion making process- this relates to failures to spend the full allocation
2) The fundamental limitations of the IA (that are self imposed to a large degree)-this relates to why the IA has so little to spend on procurements

The first part can be split into to parts:

a) The civlian failures
b) The Army failures

so:

1a) The decsion making process- civlian failures. There can be no doubt that between the bureaucrats in the MoD and the previous Defence Minister procurements all but crawled to a halt for the military and this legacy has carried over to today and will exist for a long time.


1b) However, the role of the IA cannot be ignored as the IN and IAF have shown that the civlian side is not entirely to blame and the IA's procurement managment is BY FAR the most inept of all the three services that translates to a failure to have much progress with procurements. Whilst the IN has a clear 10+ year plan (labelled critical perspective plan) of where it would like to be by a certain point (manpower, capabilties, deployments etc) and then implements a comprehensive set of measures to make this a reality- the IA has no concept of long term planning and the IAF itself has only recently begun doing this. So whilst the IN is building up its strength, creating vast new bases and inducting assets hand over fist the IA is unable to create sensible enough Qualatative Requirements (QRs) for rifles! It is no good blaming the civvies in the MoD/GoI for failing to progress procurements when the IA's own systems have made this untenable because nothing this side of 2030 is going to meet their ridiculous QRs. If I had specualte as to why this situation persisted in the IA I would say that whilst the IAF and IN are highly technical branches that by their very nature only progress the careers of those who are the most innovative, the IA's top brass are almsot solely made up of infantry/combatants who have a very different mindset and are, perhaps, less suited to making such prospective plans or overseeing vastly technical documents.

Thus through a combination of civlian and military failures even the most basic procurements don't progress and CAPEX funds remain unspent.



2) The IA will always have far less to spend than the other two branches when their overheads (manpower) remain so increidbly vast. Despite having more to spend than the IAF and IN combined, their enourmous manpower constraint means that they actually have less to spend on new equipment than either branch.



To tackle the IA's serious issues there is going to have to be a LOT of introspecting and innovtive thinking and it can only come externally as I don't beleive the IA or MoD are capable of doing it themselves but the most depressing part is that these questions aren't even being asked let alone answers being found. And to compound the misery even more the IA is actually actively expanding now (Mountain Strike Corps). It is stupidity on top of BS on top of incompetence.


@Taygibay @Levina @Chinese-Dragon @Parul @MilSpec @PARIKRAMA @anant_s @ranjeet

Further strengthening my claims of inapt-ability of current govt is following news , this indeed is worse than UPA , they are playing with country's security. RSS and its lackeys are hitting country hard.

No mention of defence outlay in Arun Jaitley’s Union Budget | union-budget$top | Hindustan Times