Why Computer Based Training Is Now a Mandatory Deliverable in Defence Contracts
Anyone familiar with how defence procurement works in India will recognize a quiet but significant shift over the past several years.
Computer based training, once treated as an optional add on, is now routinely written directly into requests for proposals, statements of technical requirements and training specification packages. It is no longer something vendors offer as a bonus. It is a contractual deliverable that sits alongside the equipment itself.
Why CBT Became Non Negotiable
The reason for this shift comes down to operational reality. The Army, Navy and Air Force all operate systems that are technically dense and require continuous training as personnel rotate through postings. Physical training programs alone cannot keep pace with this need because they are costly to run repeatedly, consume limited equipment availability, and depend on subject matter experts who are not always available where and when needed.
How CBT Captures and Repeats Expert Knowledge
Computer based training addresses this gap by capturing expert knowledge once and making it repeatable indefinitely. A properly built CBT program typically covers system overviews, working principles, subsystems, electrical and signal flow, indications and warnings, maintenance procedures and fault diagnostics, often broken into separate modules so that operators and maintainers can focus on what is relevant to their role.
CBT Within the Training Aggregate Structure
Within Indian defence training packages, CBT usually appears as part of a larger structure known as Training Aggregates. This bundle typically includes technical manuals across multiple parts, operator and maintainer handbooks, training work modules, supporting videos and animations, and in many cases interactive electronic technical manuals at advanced levels. All of this content is expected to align with JSS 0251 standards and be deliverable in both digital and physical formats depending on end user requirements.
Where Programs Run Into Trouble
This is where execution quality becomes critical. A CBT package that is not properly mapped to officially approved technical literature creates real problems during quality assurance review. Mismatches between training content and approved manuals lead to rework, delays and rejection during audits, which is costly in a sector where timelines are already tight and accountability is high.
What Successful Vendors Do Differently
Vendors who succeed in this space tend to share a few traits. They understand defence documentation standards deeply enough to build training content that aligns cleanly with technical manuals from the start. They can scale their methodology across very different project sizes, from a focused subsystem program covering a few hours of content to a full platform level program that can run past one hundred hours of training material. And they treat CBT as one piece of a connected training ecosystem rather than an isolated product, integrating it with training work modules, charts, and interactive technical manuals so that knowledge delivery stays consistent across every format a trainee might encounter.
The Takeaway for Program Managers
For program managers and procurement teams, the practical takeaway is straightforward. CBT quality should be evaluated the same way equipment readiness is evaluated, because in many programs today, the two are tied together. A training package that is audit ready, properly documented and built with long term usability in mind reduces risk far beyond the training room itself, and increasingly defines how smoothly a defence program moves from delivery to operational readiness.
