Beyond DAP 2026: The Missing Layer of Reform

By K P Singh · · ·

Follow K P Singh on X

Why India Must Rethink Governance, Funding, Risk, and Acquisition Capability

India’s Draft Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2026 is one of the most sophisticated policy evolutions in the country’s procurement history. It reflects institutional learning, global benchmarking, and a visible shift in philosophy:

• Indigenous design over licensed assembly.
• Intellectual property ownership over mere production.
• Innovation pathways over vendor rigidity.
• TRL/MRL realism over aspirational specifications.
• Self-certification and third-party QA over inspection bottlenecks.

DAP 2026 is not cosmetic reform. It is meaningful progress.

Yet defence capability outcomes are governed by more than procedures. They are determined by a deeper layer of institutional design — one that sits beneath DAP and often constrains its impact.

India now stands at a critical juncture:

Process reform has begun. Structural reform must follow.

---

1. The Fundamental Limitation: DAP vs Structural Reality

DAP governs how acquisitions are processed.

But defence programs operate within a larger system shaped by the General Financial Rules (GFR), Delegation of Financial Powers Rules (DFPR), Ministry of Finance controls, audit doctrines, and organisational authority distribution.

This separation creates friction.

Acquisition flexibility meets fiscal rigidity.
Milestone logic meets annual budget cycles.
Program urgency meets sanction hierarchies.

The results are visible:

• Stop–start indigenous programs
• Decision latency
• Vendor cashflow stress
• Cost escalation through delays

DAP modernises procedures, but structural constraints cap velocity.

---

2. Reforming Program Ownership: From Diffusion to Accountability

India’s acquisition ecosystem remains committee-dominant. Authority is distributed across stakeholders responsible for requirements, finance concurrence, technical evaluation, negotiations, and oversight.

While checks and balances are essential, excessive diffusion creates slower trade-off decisions, unclear accountability for schedule slippage, and prolonged consensus cycles.

Global benchmarks show that complex defence programs benefit from concentrated authority and accountability.

Suggested Reform

Creation of a Defence Capability Program Executive (DCPE) for major programs:

• Own program baseline
• Approve bounded trade-offs
• Certify milestone achievement
• Exercise controlled flexibility
• Define risk acceptance thresholds

Ownership concentration improves decision velocity without removing oversight.

---

3. Funding Reform: The Silent Determinant of Capability Timelines

Procedural efficiency cannot compensate for fiscal instability.

Current Pain Points

• Annual budget dependency
• Stage-gated releases
• Revalidation uncertainties

These generate interrupted development cycles, vendor ecosystem instability, and cost escalation.

Suggested Reform

Acceptance of Necessity (AoN)-linked multi-year funding envelopes:

• Total cost ceiling approved
• Funds protected across financial years
• Phase bands defined

Reforms must extend into GFR and DFPR provisions to enable:

• Non-lapsable defence program allocations
• Milestone-based disbursal

Funding stability is not financial indulgence. It is technological necessity.

---

4. Milestone-Based Financial Governance

Technology development is iterative and non-linear. Yet funding releases remain heavily tied to procedural stages.

Suggested Reform

Establishment of a Defence Technology & Capability Fund (DTCF):

• Non-lapsable structure
• Milestone-triggered disbursal

Safeguards

• Performance-linked releases
• Envelope cap enforcement
• Exit and termination gates

Additionally, PMU structures must be empowered to:

• Certify milestone completion
• Trigger financial disbursal workflows

Flexibility with ceilings preserves fiscal discipline.

---

5. Risk Doctrine Reform: Escaping Perfection Paralysis

Implicit risk minimisation biases delay operational familiarisation, industrial learning curves, and feedback-driven upgrades.

Modern defence development follows:

Prototype → Limited Series Production → Initial Operational Clearance → Final Operational Clearance

Suggested Clause

Indigenous programs shall operate under a Risk Management Framework enabling:

• Limited Series Production (LSP)
• Conditional Induction (IOC)
• Spiral Capability Enhancements

Risk managed early reduces risk later.

---

6. Source Selection and Contract Award Reform: Moving Beyond L1 Distortion

Lowest-bidder dominance can penalise advanced indigenous technology, lifecycle cost optimisation, and upgrade authority.

Suggested Reform

Adopt various Best Value / L1-T1 hybrid evaluation models along the lines of FAR 15 and FAR 16 based on the risk involved and priority:

📊 Contract Types Comparison: Benefits, Drawbacks & Risk Allocation

Contract Type / Method	Best Use Case	Benefits	Drawbacks	Risk (Govt vs Vendor)
L1 / LPTA (FFP)	Commodities, spares	Transparent, fast, lowest upfront cost	Poor quality, no innovation, high lifecycle cost	⚖️ Medium Govt / Low Vendor
Best Value Trade-Off (BVTO)	Complex platforms	Optimizes capability, innovation-friendly	Needs strong evaluation capability	⚖️ Balanced
Weighted L1 (QCBS)	Mid-complexity systems	Balances cost & performance	Scoring subjectivity	⚖️ Medium
Cost-Plus (CPFF/CPIF/CPAF)	R&D, prototypes	Enables innovation, flexible	Cost overruns, weak discipline	⚠️ High Govt / Low Vendor
Fixed Price (FFP)	Mature production	Cost certainty, efficiency	Vendor risk premium, quality risk	⚠️ Low Govt / High Vendor
Fixed Price Incentive (FPI)	Transition phase	Cost control + incentives	Complex to structure	⚖️ Shared
Two-Stage / Down-Select	High-tech programs	Reduces technical risk, fosters competition	High upfront cost	⚖️ Medium
Lifecycle Cost (LCC) Selection	Long-life systems	True value-for-money	Data intensive, forecasting risk	⚖️ Medium
Strategic Partnership Model	Submarines, aero engines	Builds domestic capability	Higher short-term cost	⚠️ Medium Govt
Single Vendor	Emergency / monopoly tech	Fast, assured supply	Expensive, no competition	⚠️ High Govt
IDIQ / Framework Contracts	MRO, spares	Flexibility, faster procurement	Vendor lock-in risk	⚖️ Medium

 

Capability is not reducible to purchase price alone.

---

8. Program Execution Authority at Working Level

Program Managers remain constrained by limited authority.

Suggested Reform

• Budget reallocation thresholds within approved envelope
• Schedule adjustment authority within defined limits

This reduces escalation and improves execution agility.

---

9. Trials & Testing Reform: From Sequential to Concurrent

Sequential trials remain a major contributor to delays.

Suggested Reform

• Concurrent developmental and operational trials
• Limited induction trials for early capability

---

10. Testing Infrastructure Expansion

Testing bottlenecks delay prototypes irrespective of procedural improvements.

Suggested Reform

• Program-funded testing infrastructure owned by Armed Forces
• Private and consortium-operated test ecosystems

---

11. Vendor Ecosystem Reform

Financial turnover filters often exclude deep-technology firms.

Suggested Reform

• Vendor Development Track
• Capability-based evaluation over financial size

---

12. Contracting Philosophy Modernisation

Rigid contracts constrain iterative development.

Suggested Improvements

• Capability block contracts
• Spiral upgrade clauses
• Risk-sharing mechanisms

---

13. Lifecycle & Upgrade-Centric Procurement

Modern systems evolve post-induction.

Suggested Reform

• Open architecture mandates
• Source code ownership
• Lifecycle cost evaluation

---

14. Indigenous Control Metrics

True self-reliance requires:

• Design authority
• Upgrade authority
• IP ownership

These must be measurable procurement criteria.

---

15. Rapid Capability Channel

Emerging technologies require faster acquisition pathways.

Suggested Reform

• Fast-track channel
• AoN to contract within 6–9 months

---

16. Digital Vendor Credential Vault

Reduce repetitive compliance burden.

Suggested Reform

• Centralised digital vendor registry
• Reusable certifications

---

17. Innovation Fast-Track Scaling

Prototype success often fails to transition to production.

Suggested Reform

• Assured limited orders post successful prototype

This creates:

• Startup confidence
• Innovation continuity

---

18. Acquisition Workforce Professionalisation

Training programs exist, but a structured certification framework is absent.

Suggested Reform

Indian Defence Acquisition Certification Framework:

• Functional specialisations
• Certification levels I, II, III
• Certification-linked appointments

Program Manager and DCPE eligibility must be competency-driven just like Program Executive Officers and Program Managaers in DoD, US.

---

19. Alignment with Government Financial Rules

DAP reforms require enabling conditions within:

• GFR
• DFPR
• Delegation of Financial Powers

Needed provisions:

• Multi-year funding rules
• Milestone disbursal mechanisms
• Delegated authority ceilings

---

Strategic Implication

Without structural reform, gains remain incremental.

With this structural reform in place, expected outcomes:

• 30–40% reduction in testing timelines
• Increased testing throughput
• Faster prototype-to-induction cycle
• Reduced cost escalation due to delays
• Stronger private participation in defence ecosystem

---

Final Reflection

DAP 2026 is a strong and necessary evolution.

But self-reliance and capability velocity require:

• Authority clarity
• Funding stability
• Risk-managed induction
• Best-value selection
• Contract flexibility
• Testing capacity expansion
• Vendor ecosystem nurturing
• Acquisition workforce certification
• Financial rule harmonisation

---

Final Strategic Thought

In defence modernisation, time is a capability variable. Delay is a strategic cost. Structure determines speed.

DAP 2026 lays the runway.
Structural reform determines the take-off.

India’s Defence Modernisation Crisis: Structural Failures and the Way Forward

By K P Singh · · ·

Follow K P Singh on X

Procurement bias, weak testing ecosystems, absent technical ownership, and a misaligned R&D and funding architecture are the key lessons India must draw from the evolution of the U.S. and Chinese military-industrial complexes.

India’s defense modernization debate is often reduced to budgets, political will, or bureaucratic delay. These explanations are incomplete. The deeper problem lies in how the Indian armed forces conceptualize procurement, how little technical ownership they retain over execution, and how funding authority is fragmented away from engineering reality.

A comparison with both the United States and China shows that India’s constraint is not money or talent, but institutional design—especially who controls programs once they begin.

---

1. Procurement Philosophy: Build, Commit, Fix Vs Buy, Test, Delay

The US Model: Commitment Is a Decision, Not a Reward

The United States Armed Forces do not wait for perfection before committing. They commit first and correct later.

The sequence is consistent:

1. Define threat
2. Commit to a domestic solution
3. Place large, long-term orders early
4. Field imperfect systems
5. Fix and evolve them in service

The United States Department of Defense optimizes for sovereignty, scale, and ecosystem survival, not lowest unit cost (L1).

---

F-35 vs Tejas Mk1: Commitment Creates Capability

The contrast between F-35 Lightning II and Tejas Mk1 is illustrative.

The F-35 entered service with software instability, reliability issues, and cost overruns—yet the US and partners placed hundreds of orders upfront. Production scaled before maturity. Problems were solved after induction, not used as reasons to delay it.

Tejas Mk1 followed the opposite path:

• Limited initial orders
• Stop-start commitment even after IOC/FOC
• Induction treated as a reward for perfection

Capability matures at scale, not in endless trials. The US understands this structurally. India does not.

---

2. Testing Infrastructure: Capability Is Decided Here, Not on Paper

US Armed Forces: Testing Is a Military Asset

In the US, testing infrastructure is owned, funded, and prioritised by the armed forces themselves:

• Flight test centers
• Engine and propulsion test beds
• Weapons integration labs
• EW and environmental ranges

“Failures feed redesign, not rejection. Operators, testers, engineers, and program managers operate as one technical loop”.

---

China: Infrastructure First, Platforms Later

The People’s Liberation Army internalised this lesson early.

Before demanding results, China:

• Built engine and materials test infrastructure
• Invested heavily in metallurgy and manufacturing
• Created integrated flight-test ecosystems

Platforms followed infrastructure—not the other way around.

---

India: Expecting Outcomes Without Tools

India’s experience—most starkly with engines—shows the cost of ignoring this logic.

The Kaveri engine, led by Gas Turbine Research Establishment, was pursued without:

• Heavy thermal and hydraulic forge presses
• A timely Flying Test Bed
• High-altitude engine test facilities
• A mature materials ecosystem

Testing gaps were treated as DRDO or vendor failures—not as user-owned capability gaps.

---

3. Technical Ownership and the Missing CTO-Style Authority

The US: Technical Authority Controls Money

A critical but underappreciated difference is who controls funding during execution.

In the US system:

• Congress authorises and appropriates funds
• The DoD Comptroller apportions money
• Acquisition leadership controls execution

Within the United States Department of Defense:

• The Under Secretary for Acquisition & Sustainment sets acquisition direction
• Program Executive Officers (PEOs) control portfolios (fighters, engines, ships)
• Program Managers (PMs) control day-to-day spending

Crucially, funding follows engineering judgement, not committee comfort. When problems emerge, money is re-aligned—not withdrawn.

This functions as a CTO-style model with budget authority.

---

Why US Programs Survive Failure

This structure explains why US programs:

• Receive large upfront orders
• Survive early failures (F-35, Aegis, Zumwalt)
• Are fixed after induction, not abandoned

Once the US commits, withdrawal is institutionally difficult. The system is designed to fix problems, not escape them.

---

India: Fragmented Authority, No Owner

India has the opposite structure:

• Users define requirements but don’t control funds
• MoD controls funds but not technical execution
• DRDO develops but cannot assure induction
• DPSUs execute without competitive pressure
• Private industry carries risk without authority
• Imports become a default setting when a program get delayed due to absence of ownership.

No single entity:

• Owns outcomes end-to-end
• Can dynamically reallocate funding
• Can protect a program through early failure

This is why programs slow down, infrastructure is delayed, and imports become the default escape.

---

4. The Missing R&D Investment Strategy: Why an Extra 0.5% of GDP Matters

India spends ~0.7% of GDP on R&D. An additional 0.5% of GDP on R&D that translates to $20bn, even for a few years, would be transformational only if directed towards National R&D misiions like engines with structural reform.

Done right, it would:

• Accelerate existing programs (Engines, AMCA, TEDBF, Naval systems)
• Build shared infrastructure once for multiple platforms
• Enable parallel solutions instead of sequential risk-avoidance
• Expand priorities into civil aviation and transport aircraft

The US and China widened their portfolios after stabilizing funding and authority. India has done neither.

---

5. Execution Model: Why Industry Must Lead

For this R&D expansion to work, execution must be private-industry-led, not dominated by DPSUs or government labs.

This is not a critique of individuals in DRDO. It is recognition of systemic limits of government execution:

• Risk aversion
• File-driven decision-making
• Inability to iterate fast
• Fear of visible failure

No country has built jet engines, combat aircraft, or complex weapons through government labs alone.

Correct roles:

• Private industry: system integration, productization, scaling
• Armed forces: capability ownership and technical decisions
• DRDO: high-risk research, testing, certification
• DPSUs: competitive production and sustainment

This mirrors the US MIC ecosystem and China’s state-directed primes.

Conclusion: India’s Problem Is Not Spending — It Is Unity of Purpose and Control

The United States commits early and fixes later. China commits ruthlessly and scales fast. India waits for perfection—and imports when patience runs out.

At the heart of this failure is a deeper contradiction.

Those who take risks reap the rewards of their actions—but risk in national defense is not borne by the military alone. The scientific and engineering community takes equally consequential risks, often over decades, in environments of uncertainty, incomplete data, and evolving threats. Technology is not an accessory to national defense; it is one of its most powerful instruments.

If both the scientific community and the armed forces serve the same purpose—protecting the nation—then the persistent lack of harmony between these two pillars becomes impossible to justify.

In India, success is often claimed collectively, but failure is frequently isolated and assigned—usually downward. Scientists are blamed for delays, industry is blamed for immaturity, while the user quietly exits to imports. This dynamic destroys trust, discourages risk-taking, and guarantees technological dependence.

No serious military power functions this way.

In the US and China, scientists, engineers, industry, and the armed forces share both failure and success. Programs are protected through setbacks. Accountability exists—but it is collective, not selective. This unity of purpose is what allows systems like the F-35 to mature, engines to evolve, and industries to scale in US and China.

India must internalize this lesson.

Our scientists and soldiers are not opposing camps—they are co-owners of national security outcomes. They must share responsibility for both failure and success. Without that shared accountability, no increase in R&D spending, no procurement reform, and no organizational restructuring will deliver sovereignty.

Until India:

• Unifies technical and operational risk
• Aligns funding authority with engineering judgement (Milestone based like DoD, US)
• Commits at scale and protects programs through failure
• Treats technology creators as partners, not vendors

…the cycle of delay, blame, and import dependence will continue.

"This is not a question of budgets or capability. It is a question of institutional trust, shared risk, and collective ownership".

“That unity—of effort, respect, and accountability—must be the path forward”.

 

An Assessment of the Modi Government’s Failure in Developing and Leveraging a Technology Ecosystem

By K P Singh · · ·

Follow K P Singh on X

(Major R&D Projects in Defence)

Today’s India is divided into three camps. One believes every technology gap should be patched with imports. The second believes in buying short-term capability while running R&D in parallel. The third—like China—believes in going all-in on chokepoint technologies until domestic mastery is achieved. Only the latter two actually build a real technology ecosystem, yet policy continues to be dominated by the first—traders of hardware, not builders of capability.

The Five Pillars of Creating and Sustaining a Real Technology Ecosystem

Nations do not become technology powers by slogans, startup festivals, or ribbon-cutting ceremonies. They become technology powers by building an ecosystem where ideas, capital, talent, testing facilities, and buyers move in one direction for decades. Every country that now dominates aerospace, semiconductors, AI, pharmaceuticals, or defence followed the same structural path.

India has talent. What it lacks is alignment. The five pillars below are not optional. They are the minimum architecture required to turn a country into a technology-producing nation rather than a technology-buying one.

---

1. Industry–Academia Collaboration

No serious technology has ever come out of isolated universities or isolated companies. Breakthroughs come when researchers, engineers, and manufacturers work on the same problems at the same time.

In the US, DARPA, MIT, Stanford, Boeing, Lockheed, US armed forces research labs/institutes and semiconductor firms operate in one loop. In China, universities, PLA research labs, and private firms like AVIC, Huawei, and SMIC are tightly integrated. In Germany and Korea, applied research institutes are directly plugged into industrial production.

India, by contrast, has universities writing papers and industries importing machines. The two barely meet. Professors are rewarded for publications, not prototypes. Companies are rewarded for imports, not indigenous design.

Without deep collaboration—shared labs, joint PhD programs, industry-funded chairs, and long-term applied research contracts—India will continue to produce engineers who assemble foreign systems instead of inventing domestic ones.

---

2. National Technology Missions

All great technology ecosystems are mission-driven.

The US did not get semiconductors by accident—it came from Cold War electronics, Apollo, and defence electronics programs. China did not get telecom, EVs, and AI, weapon systems by accident—it came from 35 Stranglehold technology roadmap, 65 Critical technologies tracker, Made in China 2025, semiconductor missions, and military-civil fusion.

Missions do three things:

• They define what must be built.
• They guarantee long-term funding.
• They align ministries, labs, industry, and procurement.

India needs explicit national missions in many areas like:

• Turbofan engines and propulsion systems
• Industrial Machinery (heavy/Precision)
• Civil/Military Transport Aircrafts
• Mining, Processing and Refining of critical raw materials
• Semiconductors and their manufacturing tools
• Energy storage and power electronics
• Defence platforms and subsystems
• Sovereign AI and compute

Without missions, R&D becomes scattered grants, and companies chase short-term profits instead of long-term capability.

---

3. Fund of Funds and Global-Parity in R&D Investment

Technology is expensive. There is no way around it.

The US, China, Germany, Korea, and Japan all spend between 2.5% to 4% of GDP on R&D. India stays stuck around 0.7%. That is not frugality—it is technological suicide. India must smell the coffee and spend on R&D as its major global peers do.

R&D as a Percentage of GDP: USA, UK, China, France, Germany, India

A Fund of Funds is essential because deep tech does not survive on angel investors and consumer-app VCs. It needs:

• 10–15 year patient capital
• High-risk tolerance
• Public and private co-investment

The state must absorb early risk so that private industry dares to build engines, fabs, materials plants, and defence/civil platforms. If India can spend tens of billions on imports, it can spend a fraction of that on building its own technological spine.

---

4. Testing and Production Infrastructure

"Design without testing is fiction. Manufacturing without scale is hobbyism".

Every advanced nation has national labs, large wind tunnels, engine test cells, Flying test bed, High Altitude engine test facility, chip fabs, materials foundries, EMC chambers, and qualification facilities, heavy forge presses(thermal and hydraulic), CNC Machines that companies can use. These are too expensive for startups/smallcap or midcap companies but essential for real technology.

India suffers from a brutal gap: companies/lab can design, but they cannot validate, certify, or mass-produce at global standards in a time bound manner. That forces them back to foreign suppliers. Kaveri engine program failed due to lack of testing, production infrastructure and a day one perfection expectation coupled with frugal investment. Our fighter aircraft subsystems still go abroad like ONERA, France for testing.

National testing and production infrastructure—shared, neutral, and world-class—is what turns drawings into flying aircraft, reliable turbofan engines, working chips, and deployable systems on time. When these facilities don’t exist, delays are inevitable, and DRDO and industry end up as convenient scapegoats. Reforming DRDO and DPSUs matters, but without serious investment in common testing, certification, and production infrastructure, no high-technology ecosystem can scale

---

5. Procurement Aligned with Indian Design and Manufacturing

This is the most critical pillar—and the one most often sabotaged.

No technology ecosystem survives without a buyer. The biggest buyer in any country is the state: defence, railways, energy, telecom, space, and infrastructure and you can not compare these sectors with automotive sector where an individual is the customer not the state.

If procurement rewards imported systems or screwdriver-assembly JVs, domestic R&D dies. This happened with most of our programs as they were either not ordered at all or not ordered at scale just like nag missiles, Arjun tank, ATAGS, WhaP etc. What if the procurement prioritizes Indian designed, developed, and manufactured products, industry gets the confidence to invest. The fact that Tata Advanced Systems had to set up its WhaP armored vehicle manufacturing plant in Morocco instead of India should put any leader claiming to champion self-reliance to shame. After a decade of ‘Make in India’ slogans, an Indian defence company still finds it easier to build for the world outside India than inside it. "That gap between rhetoric and reality is the real national security risk". 

The Defence Procurement Manual 2025 is already raising alarm among defence enthusiasts because it appears to tilt the playing field in favor of foreign OEMs offering JVs and ToT, instead of genuinely rewarding Indian companies that invest in building and owning intellectual property over time. It risks turning ‘self-reliance’ into assembly work rather than true capability creation. Lets wait for DAP 2025 which is in draft mode currently.

The US bought from Boeing and LM. China bought from COMAC and AVIC. France bought from Airbus and Dassault. They did not wait for perfection—they bought domestic, improved it, and kept buying. That is exactly how industry stalwarts in the US, China, and France were built.  India must do the same. Capability grows only when orders flow to those who build locally and own the IP. However, Our armed forces are still looking at a whopping ~$50 billion in defence equipment imports from the U.S., Israel, France, Germany, and others

---

Conclusion

Talent is not India’s problem. Capital is not India’s problem. Market size is not India’s problem.

The problem is that these five pillars are not aligned.

Until industry, academia, missions, funding, infrastructure, and procurement pull in the same direction, India will keep importing engines, chips, weapons, and machines—while claiming to be a technology power.

Some so-called geopolitics experts are now celebrating India’s plan to import massive amounts of capital-intensive equipment ($40bn approx.) from France and Germany ahead of an EU FTA. In reality, it exposes something far less flattering: India is negotiating from a position of technological weakness, not strength—buying leverage instead of building it

Technology leadership is not declared. It is constructed—slowly, expensively, and deliberately by investing heavily in R&D and education. That’s how a country gains the true strength of negotiating with its peers.