As India’s economic and military profile grows in the wider Indo-Pacific, it too faces a range of intrastate and interstate security challenges, which it has to manage. In this context, it is worth considering the nature and scope of India’s military modernization in view of the types of conflicts it faces. The twin military challenges posed by China and Pakistan thus reflect critical shifts in these two countries' military capabilities and operational postures. They demand, in turn, different command structures, involving tri-service cooperation and capabilities, for the Indian armed forces. India’s efforts to revamp and restructure its military in response to security challenges are characterized by a quest to meet the needs of the three services without compromising transparency and integrity in the acquisition of weapons.
The Armed Forces serve as the ultimate instrument for maintaining the unity and the integrity of the Nation in the face of external threats and internal unrest and disturbances. The major roles of the Armed Forces, encompassing both domestic and international responsibilities are as follows:
Safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unity of India and preserve National Interests against any threat in the entire spectrum of conflict by possessing and projecting a robust deterrence capability or by application of force, as required.
Assist civil authorities to cope with internal threats/contingencies and provide necessary aid, when requested.
Participate in peacekeeping operations and protect the global commons under the UN charter.
Render military assistance including HADR to friendly foreign countries, when requested.
Progress military diplomacy to constructively engage with defense forces of friendly foreign countries.
The above-mentioned roles entail the three services to operate in a joint scenario and feed off each other’s capabilities to reinforce one’s own capability and also achieve the laid down objectives with minimum or no attrition to own forces. To fulfill the same, the Indian Armed Forces have to be adequately empowered in terms of weapons, ammunition, and equipment that are relevant and specific to the role.
Interoperability and Standardisation
Since the history of mankind, standardization has existed in one form or the other. The necessity of standardization was felt during the Second World War when the Allies could not get war equipment of interchangeable nature. All these resulted in the formation of the International Standardisation Organization (ISO) which has defined “Standardisation” as:
“The process of formulating & applying rules for an orderly approach to a specific activity for the benefit and with the cooperation of all concerned & in particular for the promotion of optimum overall economy taking due account of functional conditions & safety requirements”.
Standardization is a process whereby doctrine, as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures, are developed in harmony. This process enables the forces to operate effectively together while optimizing the use of resources. In the end, the aim of standardization is to facilitate interoperability, and thus enhance the armed forces' operational effectiveness. Specifically, it enables forces, units, and/or systems to operate together and allows them to share common doctrine and procedures, each others’ infrastructure and bases, and to be able to communicate. Interoperability reduces duplication, enables the pooling of resources, and produces synergies among the services.
Consequently, standardizations can be normally classified into one of three main areas as follows, although some standards may apply to more than one area:
Operational Standardisation. Those standards affect future and/or current military practices, procedures, or formats. They may apply among other things, to such matters as concepts, doctrine, tactics, techniques, logistics, training, organizations, reports, forms, maps, and charts.
Material Standardisation. are those standards which affect the characteristics of future and/or current material including telecommunications, data processing, and distribution. They may cover production codes of practice as well as material specifications. Material includes complete systems, including command, control, and communications systems, weapons systems, sub-systems, assemblies, components, spare parts, and materials and consumables (including ammunition, fuel, supplies, stores, and consumable spares).
Administrative Standardisation. Primarily concern terminology - which applies to both the 'operational' and the 'materiel' fields - but this category also includes standards that facilitate Alliance administration in fields without direct military application (e.g. reporting of defense economic statistics).
The differentiation between the three levels of interoperability is important because they represent different levels of joint operations. Compatibility is being able to fit into the overall system or work with other types of equipment. Interchangeability is being able to be exchanged one for another whereas commonality expresses a state where various groups use common resources or have common aims. As Figure 1 shows the whole integration process starts with standardization which is resulted in a higher level of interoperability which is leading to more integration among NATO forces, and between NATO forces and partner national forces
Standardization affects the operational, procedural, material, and administrative fields. This includes a common doctrine for planning a campaign, and standard procedures for transferring supplies and interoperable material between troops on the ground, in the air, and at sea. Standard is published in a document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body (Committee for Standardization) 17 which provides for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines, or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.
The standardization process encompasses the formulation and subsequent national agreement on standardization objectives which are based on standardization requirements from the strategic commands and nations (top-down structure) and on standardization proposals, which are, in most cases, generated by the specialized groups of experts (bottom-up structure).
The standardization process has to go through the following steps:
Identifying Standardization Requirements/Deficiencies. These are derived from either top-down or bottom-up approaches. They identify the capability to be achieved and the required level of standardization.
Formulation of Standardization Objectives. Based on the agreed requirement, priority standardization needs are identified and the standardization objectives (SOs) are formulated.
Formulation and Updation of Standards. The formulation and updation of standards are inherently international in character and hence must be coordinated internationally in the applicable NATO bodies. In view of the wide range of Alliance activities for which standards are desirable, the formulation of proposed NATO standards will normally be decentralized. Formulation of NATO standards can best be accomplished by multinational bodies of national experts.
Ratification of Standards. Specific proposed standards may not be relevant to all three services. A proposed standard may be ratified and designated a Standard if all three services feel that it is acceptable as a goal for implementation.
Promulgation of Standards. After the standards have been ratified the proposed standard will be promulgated for the services to implement at their level.
Implementing Agreed Standards as Standardised Policy. Once the policy is formulated, it should be implemented at the grass root level to enhance the interoperability at the formative stage itself by the three services.
Verification and Validation of Standards. Verification of standardization may be carried out in PSOs, exercises, and other operations. The verification should be carried out on the basis of a verification plan. Validation of verification information may result in the adaptation and/or deletion of certain policies.
The standardization policy can be formulated by two methods i.e. by the Top-down approach or the Bottom approach. Although the top-down approach is slow and takes longer time, it is used for the building of new system-oriented standards. The bottom-up approach is faster and reacting to shortfalls or interoperability gaps quickly. In the case of bottom-up standardization, the initiative comes from a lower level in the form of standardization needs. The suggestion can be formulated into Standardization Proposals (SP) by a working group and confirmed by the appropriate authority.
It is necessary to view interoperability in a way that interoperability issues and problems can arise at each level of military operations or exercises. Therefore, any interoperability initiative must be considered the feasibility and potential impact at each level. The previous conflicts like Kargil operations show that standardization must focus on C3ISR (command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) interoperability, offer short and medium solutions in five areas (readiness, deployment, effective engagement, logistics, new generation weapon systems), and analyzes several new types of military benefits that might be expected from interoperability enhancements.
11. The standardization is one of the most important ways to achieve interoperability. It is the most crucial factor to achieve high-level interoperability in today's complex battlefield scenario.