China commenced the reforms in its defence sector, in an earnest manner, in the mid nineties. At the core of the reform process is the will of the Chinese to become ‘Self Reliant’ in all sectors of defence. A two pronged strategy was adopted to tackle the woes of the defence industrial system by initiating both institutional and structural reforms.
By Rear Admiral Dr. S. Kulshrestha (retd.)
INDIAN NAVY
China commenced the reforms in its defence sector, in an earnest
manner, in the mid nineties. At the core of the reform process is the will of
the Chinese to become ‘Self Reliant’ in all sectors of defence. A two pronged
strategy was adopted to tackle the woes of the defence industrial system by
initiating both institutional and structural reforms.
Institutional reforms included regulated competition for defence
conglomerates; thorough independent evaluation of technical and financial
aspects of major weapons projects, weeding out corruption and grooming of a
motivated workforce.
Structural reforms concentrated mainly on aspects of organization and defence research. The underlying principle of organizational reforms was to
integrate the defence and civilian economies so that mutual benefits accrue to
both the sectors. Organizational changes included extended role of PLA in management of S&T programs, overhauling of defence conglomerates and
restructuring of the Commission for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (COSTIND).
COSTIND was merged in to a Ministry of Information Industry (MII), and christened State Administration of Defence Science, Technology and
Industry (SASTIND). The conglomerates were reorganized in to six defence sub
sectors.
- In the space sector there are China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) and China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASTC).The CASIC is responsible for development of guided missile systems, information technology and small satellites, the CASTC specializes in strategic and tactical missiles, launch vehicles and satellites.
- In the defence electronics sector, complete responsibility lies with China Electronics Technology Group Corporation.
- In ship building sector, civilian ship building is with China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, where as China State Shipbuilding Corporation is the main supplier to PLA Navy for all types of war ships.
- In the ordnance sector, China Ordnance Equipment Group Corporation manufactures all civilian vehicles where as North China Industries Corporation meets the ammunition and vehicle requirements of the PLA.
- In aviation sector Aviation Industries Corporation One (AVIC 1) specializes in combat aircraft for PLAAF and Aviation Industries CorporationTwo (AVIC 2) is responsible for civilian aircraft, helicopters and transport planes.
- Lastly in the nuclear sector, China Nuclear Engineering and Construction Corporation looks after construction of nuclear facilities and China National Nuclear Corporation is responsible for nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons.
Reforms in the defence research sector included, increased funding,
debt restructuring, cost cutting, better financial management, competitive
environment, integration of civilian and defence technologies, faster
transition of research to production etc. The fundamental principle being to
strengthen basic research so that transformation of the PLA in to a network
centric force can take place based upon its original and unique research.
Quality Issues
The Chinese defence industry had been grappling with serious quality
related issues as its focus had been on enhancing production at the cost of
quality of product, obviously the biggest sufferer was the PLA which was
saddled with substandard weapons and equipment. This was also because
comprehensive technical standards and regulatory framework for implementing
them was not available. Reforms addressed this aspect and the armament sector
was the first beneficiary. A large number of standards and regulatory norms
have been issued by both the armed forces and the civilian industry. The
defence and civilian industry have realized that design, development and
manufacture of complex weapon systems is not feasible without creating
benchmarks, specifications and uniform quality standards. With the reforms,
being put in place PLA could demand quality products and reject items that, did
not meet its desired specifications, this in turn forced the industry to adhere
to laid down standards.
Acquisition of Foreign Technology
Tai Ming Chung has analyzed the ways in which China has attempted to
acquire foreign technology. In his analysis he brings out at least seven
approaches that have been adopted by the Chinese Defence Industry.
Firstly,
China has been inviting large number of defence scientists and engineers as
consultants for weapons projects and for academic and professional
interactions, which have provided exposure to the defence industry.
Secondly,
China has been purchasing complete systems for the PLA, which in turn provide
detailed information about the system.
Thirdly, China has resorted to import of
sub-systems and units which could not be produced locally.
Fourthly, it has
entered in to licensed production of complete systems like aircrafts and
missiles, which were far ahead of Chinese technological capability.
Fifthly, it
has taken up joint design and development ventures of new generations of
armament and defence equipment with the Russians.
Sixthly, it has carried out
industrial espionage at all levels to acquire technological knowhow of advanced
military technologies. Lastly, it has blatantly carried out adaptation of
Russian weapon platforms and indigenised them by reverse engineering or
substitution.
However, no efforts can be successful until the local industry
has the capacity to absorb these in to their own R&D system and there after
come up with innovation/invention at higher levels. Normally it is seen that
even though countries undertake complete transfers of technology they are not
able to innovate to the next level and finally go back to the foreign vendor
for new upgrades.
Civil Military Integration (CMI):
CMI has been a prominent thought
process during the reforms of Chinese defence industry. Fundamentally, it
signifies the adaptation or direct use of products and technologies available
in the civilian sector by the defence sector for incorporation into military
equipment. Thus harnessing the capabilities of the innovative civil sector, and
cutting down time frames and costs by adapting them for military use. This has
some merit since a large number of IT products and software of higher
generation are available commercially which can be easily inducted with minor
modifications in to defence. Some low- tech commercially available hardware
items can be directly assembled. However design, development and production of
complex weapon systems would remain in the defence domain as it has no/little
commercial application and may not be economically viable for the civil
industry. There is little doubt that a harmoniously integrated civil and
military industrial sector is beneficial to both sectors in leapfrogging
technologies, adapting professional program management and advanced technical
processes.
China has embarked on an ambitious programme of reforms by which it
hopes to leapfrog technologies and eventually achieve ‘Self Reliance’ and
become a world class manufacturer of weapons and armament. China was known for
its aerospace and missile industry, post reforms, ship building and defence
electronics appear to have made excellent progress. Whether China will succeed
in its efforts or whether further course corrections would be required is
difficult to say at this juncture, however what can be safely said is that
China is determined to carry out reforms and achieve formidable civil military
integration. The resolve is visible as during the past decade China has
instituted harsh corrective measures on many occasions when it observed that
the desired results were not forthcoming.
Some analysts have commented that stubborn insistence on self
reliance becomes a self defeating goal, when developing/replicating weapon
systems takes decades to fructify and the armed forces have to be satisfied
with equipment which is generations older then what the adversary has. This has
been evident in Asia -Pacific region (including India) , where state owned
armament industries function inefficiently, are not cost effective, are
reluctant to Implement stringent quality & manufacturing processes, and
have virtually nonexistent R&D infrastructure.
India has the largest defence industrial base after China; however,
the successes in the weapon systems arena have been few and far between. If
India is serious about becoming a reckonable technological power in the region,
it is time to have a relook at the current constrictive concept of self
reliance in a holistic manner and reform it to comprehensively include the
Indian civil industry. With formidable indigenous space and software sectors it
should not be difficult to integrate other sectors with the defence industry
within the next decade, to vitalize the ailing defence sector.
About The Author:
The author RADM Dr. S. Kulshrestha (Retd.), INDIAN NAVY, holds expertise in quality assurance
of naval armament and ammunition. He is an alumnus of the National Defence
College and a PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University. He superannuated from the
post of Director General Naval Armament Inspection in 2011. He is unaffiliated
and writes in defence journals on issues related to Armament technology and
indigenisation.
Cite This Article:
Kulshrestha,
Sanatan. "FEATURED | China's Policy of "Self-Reliance" in
Defence Sector - Lessons for India?" IndraStra Global 02, no. 02 (2016):
0022.
| ISSN 2381-3652 |
