Standardization agreement

But

sir, sorry, I'm just trying to understand if it is okay for us to position this on the heights in Ladakh with the assumption that it would face a lower degree of attacks, whether it is from drones or... and given the fact that anti-tank engagements may be lower, then why is it not okay to go with this tank, with the Stanag 4 level of protection, which it presently has?

You see, it is now the current dispensation.

I myself made it Stanag 6.

So I will leave it to their decision because you know when you are making something you are slightly you can't be you see if you want to give credit there is nothing every QR which was made has been made into a tank except for one.

So that itself is 99% success in the first go.

But it's to stop looking at just our stuff and see what other people can bring.

And I think what we're finding is when you have this base of 18 nations that all generally need the same thing, and some of our friends in the U.N. command are NATO STANAG, right? So, why would we not try to bring all this together to at least remove one thing? The tyranny of distance only exists because we haven't thought of ways to work inside that distance and sustain ourselves inside that distance.

And that, again, points to we don't acknowledge the fact that we've got enviable posture, but to have it, we've got to have some staying power, industrial endurance, physical endurance.

sustainment.

So we say whatever you choose to have, would it be their homeland solution or something you buy on another country? Would it be U.S., for example? In fact, we need to work on the interpreted piece.

So that means what are the standards we enforce? One of the big things we enforce for the Task Force 6 was the STANAG.

You know, it's the standard NATO agreement where, in fact, we say that is the technical settings you need to fulfill.

And so now when you want to have a drone force, you know that you have to fulfill this TANAC that has been proven efficient in the Task Force X.