“One successful prototype demonstrates technological potential; consistent performance across every production batch demonstrates industrial maturity,” says N. Manoharan, Director General of the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA).
“The Armed Forces do not rely on promises of performance — they rely on evidence of performance.”
As India expands defence manufacturing, performance has to hold from one production batch to the next.
For Manoharan, assurance begins before final inspection.
“Quality cannot be added to a product after it has been designed and manufactured.”
By final inspection, the chance to prevent a defect may already have passed. Its cause may lie in design, manufacturing, supplier quality, testing or documentation.
Manoharan describes defence failures as the cumulative result of small compromises. Inconsistent manufacturing can weaken a sound design. Inadequate testing can leave faults undiscovered. Incomplete documentation or poorly controlled changes can make later correction more difficult.
DGQA already operates across several stages before acceptance, including requirement formulation, technical evaluation, trials and assurance during design and development. Supplier declarations and certification schemes also require manufacturers to demonstrate that what they produce meets the required standard. Industry has access to proof and testing facilities as part of the process.
As private participation grows, Manoharan says greater participation must carry greater responsibility. He emphasises traceability, disciplined processes and accountability, and says every supplier contributes to the credibility of the finished system.
Assurance cannot stop with the company delivering the finished equipment because critical suppliers also determine whether the final system is dependable.
For major indigenous programmes, the designer, manufacturer, critical suppliers and DGQA should establish early which design and manufacturing factors directly affect reliability. Any change to those factors should be recorded so that a recurring defect can be traced to its source.
Final inspection should not repeatedly discover a problem that production already knows how to prevent.
A defence product, Manoharan says, has to perform reliably across repeated production batches, different environmental conditions and prolonged operational use.
“Confidence is not created by a single successful trial or demonstration.”
Production records should show whether faults recur across batches, whether corrective action removes their cause and whether a manufacturing change alters performance.
When reliability changes, DGQA and the manufacturer need to know what changed with it.
Repeated batches show whether the manufacturing process can keep delivering the required result.
Manoharan links early defect prevention to lower lifecycle costs, stronger operational readiness and greater confidence in indigenous equipment. Preventing a defect during design or manufacture avoids correction later in production or service.
Modern defence equipment is widening the assurance task.
Mechanical hardware increasingly works alongside electronics, software, artificial intelligence, autonomous functions and networked capabilities. Manoharan identifies software integrity, cybersecurity, electronic reliability, system integration and functional safety as areas that assurance now has to cover.
Physical inspection alone cannot establish whether those functions will perform reliably together.
Software and electronics have to be verified during development and integration as well as in the finished system. The method may vary, but assurance has to match the equipment being fielded.
Service use adds evidence on reliability, maintenance and performance under real conditions, which Manoharan says should shape later design, manufacturing and testing.
A recurring field fault should be traced to the manufacturing process, supplier control or test that failed to stop it, and the relevant control should then change.
Field evidence matters when it changes how later equipment is manufactured or tested.
India can expand defence output while this discipline is still developing. Production numbers measure how much the country can manufacture. Manoharan’s argument asks whether reliability remains stable as production grows.
Preventing defects early lowers lifecycle cost and supports readiness. Consistent production strengthens confidence in manufacturers and suppliers. Evidence gathered during service improves how later equipment is produced and verified. Manoharan links sustained reliability with operational readiness and enduring confidence in indigenous systems.
Every batch must reproduce proven performance.
