The VSHORAD Fork: Import Now or Indigenous Later
In a mountain corps sector along the northern border, the replacement of vintage Very Short-Range Air Defence (VSHORAD) equipment has already slipped by three years. The indigenous development programme has completed two flight trials but needs at least 30 more months of user trials and a further 18 months for production ramp-up. Two options are before the Defence Acquisition Council.
Option A: a government-to-government offer from an allied country for a proven man-portable system - about ₹9,000 crore for 5,000 missiles and 200 launchers, first deliveries in 48 months, a 30% offset obligation, and no source code or design authority.
Option B: a domestic private consortium's response to a Buy (Indian-IDDM) request - about ₹11,500 crore, indigenous content of 60% rising to 75% by the fifth year, first deliveries in 72 months, full transfer of technology from a foreign partner, and a committed domestic supply chain.
The acquisition wing notes that the capital budget window for the five-year plan is ₹20,000 crore. The Corps Commander states plainly that the operational gap cannot be accepted beyond FY 2027, given the adversary's expanding low-level air and drone threat. A decision is required next month.
1. Recommend an acquisition route under the Defence Acquisition Procedure 2020. Set out the trade-offs you weighed and explain how your recommendation respects the policy preference for indigenisation without accepting a capability gap.
Read the worked answer
The DAP 2020 hierarchy places Buy (Indian-IDDM) above Buy (Indian), Buy (Global-manufactured in India with ToT) and Buy (Global). That ordering is a default, not a prohibition: it exists to build design capability, but it does not override an operational requirement that the adversary sets, not the buyer.
The straight choice is false. A single-source foreign buy of 5,000 missiles forecloses the domestic design authority for a generation and locks the Army into a 30-year sustainment relationship on someone else's terms. But funding only Option B means the sector flies blind for roughly six years, which is precisely the window in which loitering munitions and low-cost drones are proliferating.
I would split the requirement. Proceed with Option B under Buy (Indian-IDDM, with a renegotiated delivery schedule and no-cost-no-commitment milestones so that failure does not become a sunk cost. Simultaneously buy a limited bridging quantity - say 800 to 1,000 missiles and 60 launchers - of Option A through the government-to-government route, explicitly designated as a bridging capability for the two highest-threat sectors, not as fleet replacement. Within a ₹20,000 crore window, a bridging buy of roughly ₹2,500–3,500 crore leaves room for a multi-year commitment on Option B.
The cost is a dual inventory: two training pipelines, two spares chains, two simulators. That is a real but bounded penalty, concentrated in one corps, and it is cheaper than either a six-year void or the loss of the indigenous design line.
2. The domestic bid's indigenisation figures look strong on paper. What specific risks would you test in technical evaluation, and what contractual safeguards would you insist on before signature?
Read the worked answer
The headline percentage is the least informative number in the file. What matters is where the indigenous content sits.
First, depth of transfer. Ask whether the seeker, the propulsion grain, the proximity fuze and the guidance software are actually within the ToT, or whether they remain foreign-supplied line-replaceable units that are then counted as indigenous value-added. Insist on the design authority package, source code for the fire-control and identification software, and a licence to manufacture, modify and export.
Second, schedule credibility. Cross-check the 72-month claim against the vendor's existing order book, its testing infrastructure and its supply chain's single-source dependencies. A schedule that has not been validated by an independent project review is a negotiating position, not a plan.
Third, indigenous content escalation. Make the 60%-to-75% progression an audited obligation with a defined methodology, third-party certification and a financial penalty for shortfall, rather than a declaration.
Safeguards I would insist on: milestone-linked payments released only after factory acceptance testing; a performance bank guarantee and liquidated damages scaled to delay; a 15-year product support agreement with priced spares; an option clause for 50% additional quantity at the same rates; a step-in right to source critical sub-assemblies from the OEM if the consortium fails; and a technology absorption audit at 60 months. Without these, the indigenisation percentage is a procurement slogan.
3. Assuming the Council accepts your route, what interim measures would you propose for the 2025–27 gap, and how would you justify them financially and legally?
Read the worked answer
Interim measures must be fast, reversible and small enough not to pre-empt the main programme.
Three layers. First, redistribute existing assets: pull the least-obsolescent legacy systems from low-threat sectors to the two highest-threat ones, accepting a calculated risk elsewhere that is documented rather than assumed. Second, upgrade what exists - refurbishment, new sights, integration with the corps' air-defence control and reporting network - which buys detection and cueing quality even if it does not buy missile range. Third, use the Services' delegated financial powers for limited quantities of a proven system, plus a short lease if the vendor's government agrees, which avoids a capital commitment and can be terminated.
Justification is on three grounds. Operationally, the gap is a function of adversary capability, not of our procurement calendar. Financially, a lease or limited purchase is a revenue or small capital charge, so it does not breach the ₹20,000 crore capital envelope and does not create a committed liability beyond the plan period. Legally, this must not be dressed up as 'emergency procurement' unless the statutory conditions are genuinely met; mislabelling a known, long-anticipated shortfall as an emergency invites audit objection and, worse, normalises bypassing the acquisition process.
The honest framing to the Council: this is a risk-mitigation spend that preserves the option value of the indigenous programme, and its success criterion is that it becomes unnecessary.