veekysingh
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,659
- Reaction score
- -9
- Country
- Location
Everybody knows gov. No hv engouh money in spare after giving so many freebies. Why u so shocked?
Defence budget hiked 10 per cent, government accepts 'one rank, one pension'
- Thread starter Agent_47
- Start date
Everybody knows gov. No hv engouh money in spare after giving so many freebies. Why u so shocked?
VeeraBahadur
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 1,238
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
@sancho @Chanakya's_Chant @kaykay @Indo-guy @kurup @Roybot
It seems our 65% of need for arms, ammunition and procurements are being met in-house.
Press Information Bureau English Releases
It seems our 65% of need for arms, ammunition and procurements are being met in-house.
Press Information Bureau English Releases
Lil Mathew
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2013
- Messages
- 1,151
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
This only means they exported arms worth $4.7 bln in 2013 including vikramaditya (deal signed and payment started in 2004)..
Def minister A K Antony stated in parliament that btw april 2012 and march 2013 we purchase arms worth $4.6 billion which is maximum annual arms import upto that date..
If we have $8-10 billion/annum for arms import, within just 5-6 years we can spend $50bln.. That means within 5 years we can pay full amounts for almost all modernisation plans which is not true..
kurup
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 10,563
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Very good news . It shows that in the last three years , we bought more than 50% of defence procurements from domestic sources .
I am posting the article for the interested .
Share of Domestic Production in Defence Equipments
The Government has been making consistent efforts to expand the share of domestic production of defence equipments out of total expenditure on the equipments. The Defence Production Policy promulgated by the Government in 2011, aims to achieve substantive self-reliance in design, development and production of equipments / weapon systems / platforms required for defence, by enhancing domestic manufacturing capabilities.
Government has also taken number of steps in the form of Amendments to Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) to encourage indigenous production. The summary of such amendments incorporated in the revised DPP-2013 is as below:
(i)Preference to ‘Buy (Indian)’, ‘Buy & Make (Indian)’ & ‘Make’ categories over ‘Buy (Global)’ or ‘Buy & Make’ categories of Capital Acquisition cases.
(ii)The procedure for ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’ category, has been further simplified in order to make the category more attractive for Indian Defence Industry.
(iii)A clear definition of indigenous content has been provided which would not only bring more clarity on the indigenous content required for different categorization, but also enhance the indigenization of defence products in India.
(iv)DPP-2013 provides for participation of Indian Private sector also for Maintenance ToT in Buy (Global) cases.
The year-wise details of share of domestic procurement out of total defence procurement are given as below:-
This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Shri Jitendra Singh in a written reply to Dr. Bhalchandra Mungekarin Rajya Sabha today.
HH/HS
(Release ID :103921)
Press Information Bureau English Releases
VeeraBahadur
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 1,238
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Very good news . It shows that in the last three years , we bought more than 50% of defence procurements from domestic sources .
I am posting the article for the interested .
Share of Domestic Production in Defence Equipments
The Government has been making consistent efforts to expand the share of domestic production of defence equipments out of total expenditure on the equipments. The Defence Production Policy promulgated by the Government in 2011, aims to achieve substantive self-reliance in design, development and production of equipments / weapon systems / platforms required for defence, by enhancing domestic manufacturing capabilities.
Government has also taken number of steps in the form of Amendments to Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) to encourage indigenous production. The summary of such amendments incorporated in the revised DPP-2013 is as below:
(i)Preference to ‘Buy (Indian)’, ‘Buy & Make (Indian)’ & ‘Make’ categories over ‘Buy (Global)’ or ‘Buy & Make’ categories of Capital Acquisition cases.
(ii)The procedure for ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’ category, has been further simplified in order to make the category more attractive for Indian Defence Industry.
(iii)A clear definition of indigenous content has been provided which would not only bring more clarity on the indigenous content required for different categorization, but also enhance the indigenization of defence products in India.
(iv)DPP-2013 provides for participation of Indian Private sector also for Maintenance ToT in Buy (Global) cases.
The year-wise details of share of domestic procurement out of total defence procurement are given as below:-
This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Shri Jitendra Singh in a written reply to Dr. Bhalchandra Mungekarin Rajya Sabha today.
HH/HS
(Release ID :103921)
Press Information Bureau English Releases
Not mere just above 50% ,it's significantly higher than that.
To be exact out of total of 271245.39 carores worth equipment purchased during last 3 years ,183319.24 worth equipment were locally procured and that stands out as 67.58%.
kurup
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 10,563
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Defence budgeting based on delusion
The interim defence budget, which raises military expenditure by 10 per cent from the current 2,03,672 crore to Rs 2,24,000 crore for 2014-15, is merely a fiscal bridge until the incoming government presents a final budget. With growth less than 5 per cent, the United Progressive Alliance has tried to signal that it is strong on national security. Yet, defence allocations remain below 2 per cent of GDP, a low figure given India’s two-front threat perception from China and Pakistan, and its internal security challenges in J&K, the northeast and in the Naxal belt.
The figure looks better --- close to 3 per cent of GDP --- if one adds spending on defence pensions, nuclear forces and central armed police forces (CAPF) --- which include organisations like the Central Reserve Police Force and the Border Security Force that play essential roles in internal security. Finance Minister Chidambaram, again strumming the “strong-on-security” chord, announced the allocation of Rs 11,009 crore for modernising the CAPF. This is welcome, given that the CAPF’s heavy-handedness (and that of the J&K Police) in handling public protests in J&K in 2009 and 2010 created a national security crisis.
Directly courting a restive ex-servicemen community, which is also being wooed by the BJP, the government acceded to a longstanding demand for “One Rank One Pension”, or OROP. This entitles soldiers, sailors and airmen who retired before 2006 --- when the 6th Pay Commission raised salaries and, therefore, pensions --- the higher pensions drawn by more recent retirees for the same length of service. This concession was not surprising since Rahul Gandhi had virtually promised OROP to a group of army pensioners he met last Friday.
Through OROP, the government has reached out to a constituency of 1.26 crore people, if one counts 14 lakh serving soldiers, 24 lakh pensioners, and a family unit of four for each. The government has long opposed OROP because full and retrospective implementation would require a one-time pay out of Rs 3,000-4,000 crore for arrears since January 1st, 2006; and also an annual hike of Rs 2,000 crore in the pension budget. To minimise the financial impact, the government has dispensed with the arrears, garnering the goodwill while handing the tab to the next government. While allocating only Rs 500 crore for OROP, the separate defence pensions allocation has been raised substantially, from 45,500 crore this year to Rs 50,000 crore in 2014-15.
Defence pensions are not paid from defence allocations, but this rising figure is a reminder that growing manpower costs are blocking force modernisation. In 2013-14, just 42 per cent of the budget (it should be 60 per cent) was earmarked for modernisation, with 58 per cent reserved for running costs. After Rs 7,868 crore were diverted in December from the capital to the revenue account, modernisation expenditure will fall to just 38 per cent this year. The 2014-15 defence budget also allocates 42 per cent to modernisation, a sum of Rs 92,601 crore. But the decision to raise a mountain strike corps for the China border, which will add 80,000 soldiers to India’s already bloated 13,73,678-man military, could again result in money meant for weaponry being eventually spent on salaries and pensions.
Each year, equipment modernisation is blunted by predictable events; the same patterns dealing double and triple whammies to capital spending. Firstly, contracts concluded during preceding years build up instalments that must be paid, and which are known in advance. This year, the army was to pay more than Rs 64,680 crore --- 92 per cent of its capital allocation --- on pre-committed expenditures, leaving it with just Rs 2,955 crore for new contracts. But capital allocations have ignored this trend, leaving less and less each year for new weaponry.
Secondly, capital expenditure is hit by any decline in the rupee. Since capital expenditure, including instalments for equipment bought during previous years, is denominated in foreign currency, any fall in the rupee upends the calculations.
Thirdly, in a cosmetic exercise to reduce revenue spending, the government has shifted the purchase of several items from the revenue to the capital account. These include new aero engines, spares for in-service aircraft, and several categories of trucks and vehicles. This jugglery does indeed reduce revenue expenditure, but also leaves less in the capital account for the purchase of capital weapons platforms that actually add to combat power.
Finally, the most worrying aspect of defence budgeting is that the military’s long-term equipment planning is based on fundamentally flawed fiscal assumptions. Crucial planning documents, like the Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP) and the Five-Year Procurement Plan, envision the purchase of equipment worth lakhs of crores of rupees, without any sign of the money being available. Without a tri-service chief to take ownership of the planning process, the LTIPP assumes high GDP growth that has long ago slowed; a stable foreign exchange situation; it barely caters for inflation; and assumes defence allocations of about 3 per cent of GDP, while actual allocations are barely 2 per cent. With the basics so out of sync with reality it is hardly surprising that, year after year, spending is further out of line with planning and that budgeting is merely an activity done in February that is long forgotten by December.
Broadsword: Defence budgeting based on delusion
The interim defence budget, which raises military expenditure by 10 per cent from the current 2,03,672 crore to Rs 2,24,000 crore for 2014-15, is merely a fiscal bridge until the incoming government presents a final budget. With growth less than 5 per cent, the United Progressive Alliance has tried to signal that it is strong on national security. Yet, defence allocations remain below 2 per cent of GDP, a low figure given India’s two-front threat perception from China and Pakistan, and its internal security challenges in J&K, the northeast and in the Naxal belt.
The figure looks better --- close to 3 per cent of GDP --- if one adds spending on defence pensions, nuclear forces and central armed police forces (CAPF) --- which include organisations like the Central Reserve Police Force and the Border Security Force that play essential roles in internal security. Finance Minister Chidambaram, again strumming the “strong-on-security” chord, announced the allocation of Rs 11,009 crore for modernising the CAPF. This is welcome, given that the CAPF’s heavy-handedness (and that of the J&K Police) in handling public protests in J&K in 2009 and 2010 created a national security crisis.
Directly courting a restive ex-servicemen community, which is also being wooed by the BJP, the government acceded to a longstanding demand for “One Rank One Pension”, or OROP. This entitles soldiers, sailors and airmen who retired before 2006 --- when the 6th Pay Commission raised salaries and, therefore, pensions --- the higher pensions drawn by more recent retirees for the same length of service. This concession was not surprising since Rahul Gandhi had virtually promised OROP to a group of army pensioners he met last Friday.
Through OROP, the government has reached out to a constituency of 1.26 crore people, if one counts 14 lakh serving soldiers, 24 lakh pensioners, and a family unit of four for each. The government has long opposed OROP because full and retrospective implementation would require a one-time pay out of Rs 3,000-4,000 crore for arrears since January 1st, 2006; and also an annual hike of Rs 2,000 crore in the pension budget. To minimise the financial impact, the government has dispensed with the arrears, garnering the goodwill while handing the tab to the next government. While allocating only Rs 500 crore for OROP, the separate defence pensions allocation has been raised substantially, from 45,500 crore this year to Rs 50,000 crore in 2014-15.
Defence pensions are not paid from defence allocations, but this rising figure is a reminder that growing manpower costs are blocking force modernisation. In 2013-14, just 42 per cent of the budget (it should be 60 per cent) was earmarked for modernisation, with 58 per cent reserved for running costs. After Rs 7,868 crore were diverted in December from the capital to the revenue account, modernisation expenditure will fall to just 38 per cent this year. The 2014-15 defence budget also allocates 42 per cent to modernisation, a sum of Rs 92,601 crore. But the decision to raise a mountain strike corps for the China border, which will add 80,000 soldiers to India’s already bloated 13,73,678-man military, could again result in money meant for weaponry being eventually spent on salaries and pensions.
Each year, equipment modernisation is blunted by predictable events; the same patterns dealing double and triple whammies to capital spending. Firstly, contracts concluded during preceding years build up instalments that must be paid, and which are known in advance. This year, the army was to pay more than Rs 64,680 crore --- 92 per cent of its capital allocation --- on pre-committed expenditures, leaving it with just Rs 2,955 crore for new contracts. But capital allocations have ignored this trend, leaving less and less each year for new weaponry.
Secondly, capital expenditure is hit by any decline in the rupee. Since capital expenditure, including instalments for equipment bought during previous years, is denominated in foreign currency, any fall in the rupee upends the calculations.
Thirdly, in a cosmetic exercise to reduce revenue spending, the government has shifted the purchase of several items from the revenue to the capital account. These include new aero engines, spares for in-service aircraft, and several categories of trucks and vehicles. This jugglery does indeed reduce revenue expenditure, but also leaves less in the capital account for the purchase of capital weapons platforms that actually add to combat power.
Finally, the most worrying aspect of defence budgeting is that the military’s long-term equipment planning is based on fundamentally flawed fiscal assumptions. Crucial planning documents, like the Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP) and the Five-Year Procurement Plan, envision the purchase of equipment worth lakhs of crores of rupees, without any sign of the money being available. Without a tri-service chief to take ownership of the planning process, the LTIPP assumes high GDP growth that has long ago slowed; a stable foreign exchange situation; it barely caters for inflation; and assumes defence allocations of about 3 per cent of GDP, while actual allocations are barely 2 per cent. With the basics so out of sync with reality it is hardly surprising that, year after year, spending is further out of line with planning and that budgeting is merely an activity done in February that is long forgotten by December.
Broadsword: Defence budgeting based on delusion
kurup
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 10,563
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Why Centre's 'one rank, one pension' sop fails to woo the armed forces
New Delhi: If the Congress-led UPA government had thought it would be able to woo the large fraternity of soldiers with the 'One Rank, One Pension' sop, announced in the interim budget by Finance Minister P Chidambaram, it is perhaps mistaken because a great deal of resentment still prevails among serving officers of the armed forces over a glaring disparity that the government has failed to remove since 2008.
The disparity concerns the status and pay scales of senior military officers in comparison to officers of other paramilitary and civilian organisations, clubbed under a category called 'Organised Group A Services'.
Till 2008, there was no problem in day-to-day functioning between the military and officers of these services. Now a dissonance has set in. In 2008, the sixth pay commission allowed Organised Group A Services Officers with 19 years of service to be treated equivalent to joint secretary-level IAS officers.
This ruling gave the Organised Group A Services Officers a head start over much senior military officers since the government determines seniority by grade pay. The new ruling allowed these officers to get a grade pay of Rs 12,000 in 19 years. In the military, the grade pay of Rs 12,000 is granted to major generals, who pick up the two-star rank after 29 years of service - a huge gap of a decade.
This has created huge functional problem of command and control in joint cadre or multi-cadre environment where military officers have to work with the officers of the Organised Group A Services. For instance, a Brigadier with 27-28 years of service working with civilian engineers in Kashmir, north-east or Rajasthan is considered junior to officers in the organisations who may have done just 20 years of service since their grade pay is higher than the Brigadier.
The civilians, now as much conscious of their rank and status as their military counterparts, have been refusing to obey orders from military officers senior to them in number of years of service but considered junior because of the lower grade pay.
All representations by the armed forces to the government since 2008 have fallen on deaf ears. Despite a united stand taken by the three service chiefs and the Prime Minister setting up a high-powered committee of secretaries, this issue remains unresolved.
And what is the logic of not granting what is called, in technical terms, 'non-functional upgrade' or NFU? Because the Centre says Defence Officers are not part of Organised Group A Service.
So what are they? Just 'Commissioned Officers'?
Senior army officers point out that they lose out on two counts. One, they don't get higher grade pay until much later, and two, they are now deemed junior to much younger officers. On the contrary, granting NFU to defence services will remove the disparity and widespread resentment.
Why should Army officers get NFU? Because of the following reasons.
None of the Organised Groupp A Services face as much stagnation as Army officers because of its pyramidal structure. Almost 97 per cent of military officers retire at the levels below Joint Secretary.
Traditionally, since independence, there has been a broad parity between the Class 1 (or Group A) officers of Civil Services and the Defence Services officers which has been acknowledged by different pay commissions in their reports.
In such a case, the differential behaviour of the 6th Pay Commission not only disturbs the financial parity, it pushes down the military in status. In fact, now Sub Inspectors of CRPF or BSF or ITBP too have an edge over the military officers since they too will retire with the salary of Additional Secretary or Lieutenant General if they get promoted as Assistant Commandant or Deputy Superintendent of Police in eight years.
All this, say military officers, has added to the frustration, demoralization and increased disgruntlement among military officers.
Why Centre's 'one rank, one pension' sop fails to woo the armed forces | NDTV.com
New Delhi: If the Congress-led UPA government had thought it would be able to woo the large fraternity of soldiers with the 'One Rank, One Pension' sop, announced in the interim budget by Finance Minister P Chidambaram, it is perhaps mistaken because a great deal of resentment still prevails among serving officers of the armed forces over a glaring disparity that the government has failed to remove since 2008.
The disparity concerns the status and pay scales of senior military officers in comparison to officers of other paramilitary and civilian organisations, clubbed under a category called 'Organised Group A Services'.
Till 2008, there was no problem in day-to-day functioning between the military and officers of these services. Now a dissonance has set in. In 2008, the sixth pay commission allowed Organised Group A Services Officers with 19 years of service to be treated equivalent to joint secretary-level IAS officers.
This ruling gave the Organised Group A Services Officers a head start over much senior military officers since the government determines seniority by grade pay. The new ruling allowed these officers to get a grade pay of Rs 12,000 in 19 years. In the military, the grade pay of Rs 12,000 is granted to major generals, who pick up the two-star rank after 29 years of service - a huge gap of a decade.
This has created huge functional problem of command and control in joint cadre or multi-cadre environment where military officers have to work with the officers of the Organised Group A Services. For instance, a Brigadier with 27-28 years of service working with civilian engineers in Kashmir, north-east or Rajasthan is considered junior to officers in the organisations who may have done just 20 years of service since their grade pay is higher than the Brigadier.
The civilians, now as much conscious of their rank and status as their military counterparts, have been refusing to obey orders from military officers senior to them in number of years of service but considered junior because of the lower grade pay.
All representations by the armed forces to the government since 2008 have fallen on deaf ears. Despite a united stand taken by the three service chiefs and the Prime Minister setting up a high-powered committee of secretaries, this issue remains unresolved.
And what is the logic of not granting what is called, in technical terms, 'non-functional upgrade' or NFU? Because the Centre says Defence Officers are not part of Organised Group A Service.
So what are they? Just 'Commissioned Officers'?
Senior army officers point out that they lose out on two counts. One, they don't get higher grade pay until much later, and two, they are now deemed junior to much younger officers. On the contrary, granting NFU to defence services will remove the disparity and widespread resentment.
Why should Army officers get NFU? Because of the following reasons.
None of the Organised Groupp A Services face as much stagnation as Army officers because of its pyramidal structure. Almost 97 per cent of military officers retire at the levels below Joint Secretary.
Traditionally, since independence, there has been a broad parity between the Class 1 (or Group A) officers of Civil Services and the Defence Services officers which has been acknowledged by different pay commissions in their reports.
In such a case, the differential behaviour of the 6th Pay Commission not only disturbs the financial parity, it pushes down the military in status. In fact, now Sub Inspectors of CRPF or BSF or ITBP too have an edge over the military officers since they too will retire with the salary of Additional Secretary or Lieutenant General if they get promoted as Assistant Commandant or Deputy Superintendent of Police in eight years.
All this, say military officers, has added to the frustration, demoralization and increased disgruntlement among military officers.
Why Centre's 'one rank, one pension' sop fails to woo the armed forces | NDTV.com
Similar threads
