|
GUEST COLUMN |
|
Made in India
|
|
Future Infantry Combat Vehicle will be India’s Greenfield
‘Make India’ Project |
|
By Brig. Arun Sahgal (retd) |
 |
In Indian Army’s quest for developing indigenous capability and developing next
generation of armoured fighting vehicles, two projects were conceived as far
back as 2007 in what can be termed as ‘Make India’ projects. One was the Future
Main Battle Tank (FMBT) and the other, the Future Infantry Combat Vehicle 2017
(FICV). It is reliably learnt that FMBT project with the notional in service
date of 2025 has since been shelved and the ‘Future Infantry Combat Vehicle’
(FICV), is being pursued as a unique Indian experiment of private–public
partnership in the defence sector.
As mentioned, the story of this project goes back to 2007 when a feasibility
study was ordered to evaluate whether the Indian industry could undertake design
and development of a future ICV for India in the 20 ton range with the
capability of carrying seven infantry soldiers in addition to its normal crew.
The reason why this was selected to be an industry-oriented project was because
of a major decision taken in by the ministry of defence that DRDO would focus
its research and development effort on the projects of strategic value while the
Indian defence industry would be involved in high technology projects with two
specific aims; one to develop required technology base in the defence industrial
sector and two, allowing enmeshing of design and development by single agency,
in this case private industry who were to be responsible for erecting production
facilities locally for their systems, assemblies, and components, in addition to
providing any requisite engineering support for integration. Foreign assistance,
if any, was envisaged at systems and sub systems level through industry import
which it is believed would help India further develop indigenous capabilities
through technology transfer. |
Project Perspective
Post these decisions in the ministry of defence, a multi disciplinary study
group were formed which developed a draft general staff qualitative requirement,
listing out broad parameters of the FICV. The study group also shortlisted
various Indian vendors who were in terms of their design and infrastructural
capabilities appeared to have the potential for design, development and
production. The vendors selected included, Mahindra Defence Systems, Tata’s, L&T
and Ordnance Factory Board, later more for its production base than any design
capability. Accordingly letter for Expression of Intent (EOI) based on the
formulated GSQR was sent only to these four. An outcry from other vendors like
Bharat Forge, Punj Lioyd of not being included was ignored.
To oversee the project a Project Team, led by the Additional Director General
Mechanised Forces was constituted with members from DRDO, Finance, defence
procurement and all the other related agencies. In broad terms the project
entails, each of the four vendors submitting both their technical and commercial
bids, which would be evaluated and from these two vendors, shortlisted. These
two vendors would be required to produce five prototypes by 2015 for user
trials. To ensure adequate funding, the project would be run as an 80:20
public–private partnership, wherein ministry of defence would provide 80 per
cent funding while the industry would come up with 20 per cent. The current
status of the project is that bids from four vendors have been received which
are under evaluation. Attempt by OFB to partner DRDO as a design partner has not
been accepted under the plea that eventually DRDO will be the agency responsible
for technology evaluation and approval hence could not partner OFB. This given,
the lack of design perspective actually means that OFB will either have to tie
up with one of the other vendors for design and development or simply lose all
interest in the project.
Areas of Concern
First issue is the Project Team itself and its oversight. As mentioned it is a
multi disciplinary team headed by ADG mechanised forces reporting to director
general Acquisition in the ministry of defence whereas the nodal agency charged
to oversee the project is Directorate General Mechanised Forces. This is a
flawed arrangement at best, given the fact that post development; it would be
the DG Acquisition who would be responsible for selecting one out of the two
vendors. His being the overseer of the project could cast aspersions on his
objectivity, even if the decision were transparent and objective.
Second issue is even more serious. Project team as presently constituted suffers
from tenure based system of postings at the service HQ. Given the fact that
large number of members will be turned over after every two/three years (minimum
two turnovers of the project team), this will be against the principal of
continuity. The proposal of creating a post of director general, Project
Implementation, to be held by a retired three star officer with two brigadiers
or equivalent either serving or retired with specified three to five year
tenures; as core team to oversee project implementation has been lost in the
labyrinths of ministry of defence’s bureaucracy. The idea it is learnt was to
create ‘Arihant’ (Nuclear submarine project) type project implementation team to
ensure both timely implementation and more importantly, empowered decision
making by a dedicated team to resolve multitudes of problems likely to arise
during the design and development phase in a Greenfield project of such
complexity.
Given the foregoing perspective it is hoped that the shortsighted policies in
terms of Project Implementation as also making DG Acquisition in charge of the
project will not come in the way of timely completion. Success of this project
is important both in terms of proving technological innovation in India as also
assuring nascent Indian defence industry that they have an important role both
as project designer and producing agency. Even perhaps more significant will be
the indigenous technology development and creation of indigenous vendor base.
Lastly, success of this project will provide ministry of defence as also
industry to further build and cement this partnership. FICV thus is not merely a
one off project but signifies a true ‘make India’ resolve.
|
|
January 2012
Issue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|