Of Matters Military. Mrinal Suman
(b) Exploring the most suitable and cost-effective option that can deliver the equipment in the stipulated timeframe.
(c) Acquisition, induction and support of the selected equipment.
All countries follow different models to perform the above mentioned functions. However, France was the first country to recognise the need to have a single overarching agency to oversee the complete gamut of acquisition activities. With the objective of making itself self-reliant in defence production, France adopted a centralised system of defence acquisitions in 1961. The French model is unique and is considered to be highly successful. General Directorate for Armament (Direction générale de l’armement), or DGA in short, is the government agency responsible for programme management, development and procurement of weapon systems for the French armed forces. It is an empowered authority under the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and has 12,000 employees at 20 locations in France.
DGA has a three-pronged mission. One, it is responsible for the design, acquisition and evaluation systems that equip the armed forces. Its work covers the entire life of these programmes. Two, it prepares for the future, anticipating threats and risks, preparing the technological and industrial capabilities. Finally, it actively contributes to promoting exports. Additionally, DGA provides overview of the weapon systems to ensure their global coherence; possesses an ability to manage risks to drive complex projects; and has mastered unique ways to survey and test systems.
In addition to overseeing the functioning of government’s industrial entities like shipyards and repair depots, DGA also undertakes testing and assessment of equipment and military technologies through a vast network of test centres that function under it. DGA has also been assigned responsibility to supervise engineering schools like École Polytechnique that function under the aegis of MoD. See Illustration 1.
Illustration 1: French General Directorate for Armament
After experimenting with various models and configurations, other nations are now inching towards the French pattern, albeit with modifications to suit local peculiarities. For example, subsequent to the acceptance of the reforms programme, the British Government merged the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation in April 2007 to create a single colossus Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S). This brought some 25,000 people together in an integrated procurement and support organisation with responsibility for around £15 billion of annual expenditure.
While delivering the 10-year Equipment and Support Plan, DE&S meets the needs of the services by analysing their capability needs, market capability and technology maturity. Thereafter, solutions based on a clear understanding of financial and commercial risk are presented. DE&S manages delivery of these solutions by planning and managing projects, services and assets to ensure that equipment and support is delivered and sustained through life. This includes working with front line users and sponsors to shape the concept of use, forward plans and deployment options for equipment and support. See Illustration 2.
Illustration 2: British Defence Equipment and Support
Every review of the US defence acquisition system results in increased centralisation of policies, procedures and programmes. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defence for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics {USD (AT&L)} is the nodal agency and the overarching authority tasked to oversee the complete defence acquisition process. In the performance of its functions, it is assisted by a number of agencies – Joint Requirements Oversight Council, Functional Capabilities Board, Defence Contract Management Agency, Defence Logistics Agency and Defence Procurement and Acquisition Policy. Defence Acquisition Board and Information Technology Acquisition Board are senior advisory boards for defence acquisitions for Major Defence Acquisition Programmes (MDAP) and Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) respectively. See Illustration 3 for schematic depiction of the US defence acquisition structures.
Illustration 3: The US Defence Acquisition Structure
Germany has divided its acquisition system into two categories. While Bundeswehr IT Office handles IT related acquisition, Federal Office of Defence Technology and Procurement (BWB) has the central responsibility for the management of all armament projects (excl IT), including management of complex projects; systems engineering and integration; research and technology; technical/economic aspects of in-service support management; and contract and price negotiations. It is also the supervisory body for seven technical centres and two research centres. See Illustration 4.
Illustration 4: German Federal Office of Defence Technology and Procurement
The Indian System
Prior to 2002, India’s defence acquisition system functioned in a highly fragmented and compartmentalised manner. There was no dedicated central apparatus to oversee and coordinate acquisition activities. Officers held multiple responsibilities with divided attention and efforts. Worst, decision making was hierarchal and the environment hindered positive decision making.
Post-Kargil reforms resulted in the creation of dedicated procurement structures. Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) under the Defence Minister has been constituted as an apex authority. In addition to according in-principle approval to 15-years Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan and 5-years Services Capital Acquisition Plan, it categorises all procurement proposals, thereby specifying the route to be taken to acquire required equipment – outright purchase of the total quantity or indigenous development or initial purchase from foreign vendor followed by licenced production in India. There are a total of nine categories – ‘Buy (Indian)’; ‘Buy (Global)’; ‘Make (Strategic-DRDO)’, ‘Make (Indian)’; ‘Make (Low-tech)’; ‘Buy and Make (Global)’; ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’; ‘Ship Building (Nomination-Public Sector)’; and ‘Ship Building(Open Competition)’.
Decisions flowing from DAC are implemented by the following three boards:-
The Acquisition Wing has been created as an executive authority, primarily to implement ‘Buy’ and ‘Buy and Make’ decisions. To start with, it was required to report only to the Defence Procurement Board. However, with the introduction of additional categories, a great deal of multiple tasking has crept in, thereby diluting the