The modernisation of the Indian Mechanised Forces sparks debate at regular intervals, often torn between upgrading existing inventory and acquiring new platforms. With rapidly changing threat patterns, ensuring protection and mobility for every soldier and piece of equipment is crucial.  This paper briefly delves into the entire spectrum of platforms, focusing on the Mechanised Forces, and suggests standardisation and ‘Family of Vehicles’ concept as key to achieving operational readiness and self-reliance. The industrial opportunity that emerges can be a game changer India’s military industrial complex.

The modernisation of the Indian Mechanised Forces frequently comes up for discussion in a familiar cyclic pattern. The debate invariably oscillates between upgrading the existing inventory or acquiring new platforms. With the rapidly changing threat pattern it has become clear that every soldier and piece of military equipment needs protection and mobility in order to survive on the battlefield. The issue thus is no longer just limited to the Tank Corps or the Mechanised Infantry and their affiliates; in the modern day battlefield protected mobility is imperative for all arms, fighting and/or in support role, and the logistics.

This paper briefly spans the entire spectrum of platforms and is not confined to a specific arm. However, as the Mechanised Forces are the focal point and have the experience and the wherewithal, with several programmes in place, the discussion is centred around Armour and Mechanised Infantry. The platforms developed for the Mechanised forces can be adapted or tweaked to suit the operational requirements of platforms for Artillery, Air Defence, Engineers and Infantry (which needs protected mobility while moving across theatres of war and within a TBA (Tactical Battle Area). Standardisation is the first step and key to developing a sustainable manufacturing and logistical ecosystem within the country.

The current mechanised forces inventory comprises the T-90, Arjun Mk 1, T-72, and a few T-55 tanks, along with the ICV BMP II. The T-90 tanks were inducted as ‘State of Art’ and now border ‘contemporary status’. The T-72 tanks, first inducted in 1979, are in the ‘vintage category’ while the T-55s are in the ‘obsolete category’. The mechanised infantry is equipped with the BMP II, first inducted in 1984-85. Despite continual technology infusion, the vintage status suggests incremental upgrades may not suffice for future combat readiness. In the case of India’s Mech Forces, the optimal mix of 25-30% equipment with state-of-the-art technology, 40-45% contemporary equipment, and 25-30% obsolescent technology is skewed.

Acquisition or Upgrades

Resources being finite, investments required for new technologies and platforms are substantial, though they eventually reduce overall life cycle costs and provide better capabilities. In contrast, the maintenance costs of ageing platforms rise while mission reliability decreases. New platforms entail comprehensive application of state-of-the-art and futuristic technologies through protracted R&D, making the process time and cost-intensive. Upgrades, however, offer piecemeal capability enhancement using contemporary technologies. New platforms require overhauling the entire production and sustenance process, while upgrades add modern technology to existing platforms by replacing obsolete technology.

Modernisation plans need an optimal balance between procuring new platforms and upgrading existing inventory to achieve the right mix of state-of-the-art and contemporary equipment.  However, due to time and cost constraints, it is hardly a surprise to note that very often  upgrades become a preferred option for decision-makers.

In the Indian context, upgrades and mid-course life enhancement measures have been continuously planned and executed, including medium repairs and overhauls for T-series tanks and BMPs. Upgrades in night enablement, ballistic fire control systems, communication systems, engine horsepower enhancement, improved armour protection, and active protection systems are at various execution stages. These upgrades involve multiple procurement routes, including a mix of revenue/capital and solutions from private industry, PSUs, and Ordnance Factories. T-90 upgrades have faced challenges due to user preferences and budgetary constraints.

Given the aging fleet, skewed towards contemporary and obsolete profiles, and the proactive efforts on Light tank, FICV and FRCV, an inventory overhaul is advisable. The current RFI/RFPs for around 1770 FRCVs, 1750 FICVs, and about 350 Light Tanks need to be integrated into a comprehensive program addressing operational, technical, logistical, and sustenance issues from inception to completion. Add to this Mobile Artillery Gun Systems, Air Defence platforms and Infantry Carrying vehicles and we have a huge requirement which begs standardisation for the sake of scale and economy which the opportunity presents.

Common Technologies and Family of Vehicles

Whether it is a battle tank, an Infantry Combat Vehicle (ICV), an artillery gun system, or an air defence platform, the basic platform shares several commonalities in systems, sub-systems, assemblies, and components. In many cases, the fundamental platform can remain the same with only minor modifications. For instance, a light tank and an ICV can utilise the same hull, power pack, and suspension system. Similarly, a medium tank’s hull can be modified for a mounted artillery gun system, or a mobile bridge can be mounted on a medium tank’s chassis.

Achieving AtmaNirbharta, or self-reliance, will be best accomplished by standardising and diligently following the concept of a ‘Family of Vehicles,’ especially given the substantial requirements in India. This approach can lead to the establishment of a comprehensive industrial base within the country, fostering self-reliance and generating employment as an added benefit. The scale of this opportunity will also encourage foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to indigenize and participate in the Make in India initiative.

Execution Strategy

The execution of this programme requires a departure from the present structure, procedures, and thought processes, which are ill-suited for such an endeavour. Standalone RFIs/RFPs under existing frameworks like Strategic Partnership, Make I or II, and DRDO-led development cannot suffice. This initiative should be treated as a National Capability Projection Project under a Special Purpose Vehicle sanctioned by the CCS. A cross-functional team, empowered with clear decision-making authority and comprising users, R&D, QA, finance, industry, academia, think tanks, and project management experts, must be established. Oversight mechanisms and clear delineation of authority for modifying, adding, or eliminating specifications, requirements, and disqualifications are essential to drive the program effectively. Conventional strategies and structures will not work; an innovative approach is necessary.