It should be accepted that we cannot match Chinese spending dollar for dollar; nor should we try. Some very bright people among us can probably figure out smart spending but even this would have its limitations. Though we may not spend six per cent, we should not go below 3-4 per cent. This is the level of spending on defence that is widely believed to be affordable.

Planning for force structuring has to, at a minimum, look at a ten-year time horizon. It takes about 2-3 years to decide the system to be procured and its desired specifications. If all goes well, another three to four years are required to invite offers analyse them, carry out trial evaluation, negotiate contracts and place orders. For major systems, deliveries can commence only after at least one year after the advance is paid. If we were to look at some of the ongoing major procurements like the Medium Range Strike Aircraft, or the helicopters or the artillery guns, the time plot has gone horribly awry.

What most of us tend to forget is that acquisition alone does not mean enhancement of capability. Time has to be allowed for assimilation and absorption of each system. For instance, to train a pilot to be combat ready on a new sophisticated modern aircraft can take as much as one to two years.

All the three services are currently saddled with aging equipment. Replacement programmes are running behind schedule. Weapons replacement in quite a few cases also means ammunition replacement and expenditure on ammunition is invariably many times more than the cost of the weapon. To even maintain the existing capability we need considerably higher allotments.

... contd.