Radar Replacement Under a Fixed Acquisition Ceiling
You chair a committee evaluating two options to replace an ageing air-defence radar. Option A is a proven imported system: unit cost ₹420 crore, delivery in five years, no technology transfer, and a 30-year life-cycle cost of ₹2,100 crore. Option B is a domestic system still in development: unit cost ₹300 crore, delivery in seven years after two more years of trials, 60% indigenous content, but its detection range in mountainous terrain is unverified. The budget ceiling is ₹900 crore for acquisition. The current radar has a mean time between failures of 300 hours and spares are running out. The air force wants a minimum of two systems operational by year six. The domestic programme needs a ₹150 crore development order to stay alive.
1. Which option would you recommend, and how would you justify it against cost, capability and strategic autonomy?
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: Do not choose A or B as a simple either/or. Place an order for one Option A system to meet the year-six minimum, and fund the ₹150 crore development order for Option B with a contractual break clause. Reasoning: The capability gap is real - a radar with 300-hour MTBF and no spares is a failure in waiting. Strategic autonomy and 60% indigenous content favour B, but B's mountainous detection range is unverified and two more trial years plus seven-year delivery means it cannot meet year six. A's life-cycle cost is high and no technology transfer locks you in. Budget check: One A system at ₹420 crore plus ₹150 crore development leaves ₹330 crore within the ₹900 crore ceiling, enough for spares and training. Risk control: Verify B's mountain performance on a government test range with milestone payments and penalty clauses; if B fails, the second A system is the fallback.
2. What measures would you take to manage the capability gap and protect the integrity of the procurement process?
Read the worked answer
Managing the gap: Extend the current radar's life with a spares buy and a maintenance contract; set a minimum operational availability target of 70%; deploy a mobile gap-filler radar. Protecting process integrity: Record the evaluation criteria before opening bids, declare conflicts of interest, and document why lowest unit cost is not decisive. Insist on trials, warranty and offset terms. Avoid sole-source pressure and keep the development order conditional on milestone tests. Review point: If B's mountain trials fail, stop further payments and execute the fallback; if they succeed early, consider shifting the second order to B. This keeps the decision evidence-based rather than preference-based.