The Logistics Section of the Ministry of Defence plays a crucial role in ensuring the overall functionality and effectiveness of the Armed Forces. It oversees all logistical processes necessary to support military operations, training, administrative functions, and crisis management. These responsibilities include coordinating various army components, strategic planning and decision-making, supply and support, equipment maintenance, crisis preparedness, resource management optimization, operational and training support, and cooperation with international partners. Major General Robert Bielený serves as the Director of the Logistics Section of the Ministry of Defence. We had the opportunity to speak with him during our discussion program CZ DIALOGUES.

Video: Interview with the Director of the Logistics Section of the MoD, Maj. Gen. Robert Bielený / CZ DEFENCE

Without logistics, and we can probably agree on this, the army cannot function. How would you briefly introduce the work of the Logistics Section of the Ministry of Defence?

The Logistics Section, just like the Communications Information Systems Section or the Development Section, is important for the Czech Army. In the Logistics Section, I, as the property manager, am responsible for the procurement of all material, except that which falls under the Communications Information Systems Section. Whatever is acquired must go through the logistics section. I am glad that we have the Logistics Agency under us, where there are managers who procure all the material for the Army, whether it is ammunition, equipment or fixtures. These people process the specifications, which are more than a thousand a year. It is the same for all servicing. We are also responsible for coordinating requirements for real infrastructure and, of course, we deal with mobilisation stocks. So the scope is huge - from operational logistics, planning, through mobilisation stocks, immovable infrastructure and all services.

Do the new Alliance Capability Targets change the focus of logistics in any way?

They are construction targets, which are not surprising to us. In the context of what's been happening over the last decade, particularly to the east of us, there's a fundamental increase in the requirements for the existence of units within the Alliance, which is challenging. In the latest objectives, the biggest pressure is on air defence assets and new logistics units.

Why is the procurement method used for military purchases? Why is it not more common to buy directly?

Firstly, we are managing state finances and we have to comply with the Public Procurement Act. The internal rules within each ministry are derived from this. Municipalities and every state authority must also comply with this law. The most we have an exception to this is that some parts that can be justified as absolutely necessary for national defence, such as a tank, can be awarded directly to suppliers. However, this does not apply to, for example, service contracts or ammunition, because ammunition can be produced by several suppliers. So we have to comply with the law and act accordingly. And it is the same when we talk about equipment and armaments. Everything just has to go through a procurement process that is open or, at most, shortlisted.

How much does that complicate your life?

We didn't make up the rules we have to follow. On the other hand, I don't think it is right that we should favour one company over another just because we choose it, because we think its products are better in terms of feel or visuals, because in the end every product has to go through a quality check, where the standards are important, because if we don't check the quality then we have a problem with complaints. For example, we do quality verification for gear because of abrasion of the material. If we are talking about ordinary gloves, even those have to be verified that they will last what we ask them to last. Quality verification is absolutely important to avoid unnecessary claims procedures, because at the time of the claim the material would have to be withdrawn from the soldiers and they would not have it. However, there are products, such as field boots, which pass all the tests and subsequently become unstitched, but this can also be caused by mishandling.

Do soldiers all have the same entitlement to all parts, or is it different somehow?

Under the current decree, all enlisted soldiers are entitled to all components and all active reserve soldiers are entitled to all components on loan. And this will be changed by the new ordinance on free rations and free equipment, which is not, as stated, just an equipment ordinance. This decree will ensure that everyone gets the same, whether they're active duty or active reserve soldiers. Soldiers will get things relating to the military uniforms that we have in place and, in addition, they will get sportswear. However, no decree will ensure that we have a simpler system of acquisition while complying with the law and that we have all the material that we need, because there are a lot of variables. We have big problems with manufacturers in terms of quality and meeting deadlines and delivering material. Then, for example, if a backpack or a vest is delayed in the order of years, not months, then we will either be patient with the manufacturer and, for a contract that we worked on for two years before we got into military testing, we will take corrective action with the manufacturer, even if it takes a year, check the quality verification process, and then deliver the part, or the other option is to pull out of the contract and start over.

What about any claims for equipment parts that soldiers have already received?

Of course, we can always claim these things, even if we have taken the material into use and it turns out that it does not meet the conditions, even if it has been tested. In practice, this means that we have to withdraw all the material from the soldiers and reclaim it. It may surprise some people, but we cannot issue a new contract and buy other material while the claim is in progress. We have to endure all the steps until the end of the complaint procedure.

The new equipment ordinance is a big topic at the moment. What process will it go through before it is adopted?

The ordinance, the benefits of which I have already discussed, will be in effect on the first of July. At the moment, it is in the last round of the comment procedure within the ministry. I think there will be only minor comments. In March, it will then go to the inter-ministerial comment procedure and in April it should go to the Legislative Council of the Government for consideration and approval. After that, the decree will come into force.

What is the current status of the new camouflage pattern for our MAD21 army?

The process is still ongoing, I expect that after all approvals, by the middle of next year at the latest, we will have a new camouflage pattern. We can then commission the new field uniform according to it. We already have a new field uniform ready according to the new pattern. The contract is awarded, but the contractor has been delayed more than we would have liked. We were ready to get it out to the troops in 2025, but the contract has been delayed so the first uniforms will be with the troops in the spring of 2026.

Is there any difference in procedures when the military orders tanks versus buying caps, for example?

We have clearly defined rules where we have to describe the technical conditions, for example for a tie, hat or gloves, under which the product is then manufactured and then there is an inspection as part of quality verification and production supervision. However, the difference in specification and procurement of a tie or a tank top is unfortunately minimal. The only difference is that we already have the infrastructure in place for that tie because we have it in the equipment depot. For the tank, for example, we still have to modify the garage door or build the whole garage and we have to provide service support, i.e. spare parts, repairs and trained people. That's where the difference is already significant. The time to say we want what we want and get it is basically the same, the only difference is the time it takes to produce a tank versus producing a tie-up. In total we have about eight hundred outfit components and for every single outfit component we have to do an asset specification and we do a procurement for each one.

Is there a simpler solution in your opinion?

This is how the law is set, this is how the rules are set, so that there is no abuse of funds. I'm not commenting on it, we are soldiers and we have to play by the rules that someone has set for us. And there's no point in crying about it. Of course, we are talking to the economic section and the financial administration and so on, the people who are the gestors after the law has been translated into our internal normative acts, and they are also doing what they can to simplify the rules, but so far there is nothing like that.

Let's move on to quality verification. At what stages of the selection process does quality verification occur and how much does it complicate your life when sourcing parts?

As part of the selection process, for example for backpacks or ballistics, we have to verify, test that the sample we deliver meets the parameters we require. Then contractors bid for the job and compete on price. Once the contract is signed, a mass-produced reference sample must be delivered in the required sizes, which we test in military trials. After the military trials, the contractor starts mass production, at which point we again supervise production and verify quality. This is so that we avoid having to argue with the contractor over claims, because he will not accept the claim and we will end up in court and not use the material.

There is talk in the public domain that soldiers often buy some parts of their clothing and equipment themselves with their own money. Is there a chance that in the future the army will reimburse these purchases?

In the new decree, we will have what exists today for women soldiers, where it is inappropriate for some components, such as shoes for the service uniform or the walking uniform, to be procured centrally because they are individual items. We want to extend this, which the new decree will allow us to do from 1 July. We are going down the route of, for example, sports shoes, sports shorts or shorts, sports shirts or other components. However, there are always certain rules. Even for women, it is stipulated that the shoe must be black, that the crampon must be a certain number of centimetres high at most, so that some women do not walk around in nine-inch stilettos and others walk around in a biscuit. However, for some components we cannot retreat from central procurement.

For example, field boots must meet certain standards. Soldiers are supposed to buy a quality part for an adequate lump sum per year of service, but where is your guarantee that they will buy a quality part? That they won't buy a part that costs half the price? And then a soldier, for example, breaks his ankle because he had the wrong shoes. We have a responsibility to prevent these things from happening. We also have to maintain some guaranteed uniformity in the procurement of parts, because when a commander has a battalion, for example, he really doesn't want to have 50 types of caps in there. With sports shoes or sports parts, on the other hand, I can imagine some differences. We are a military organisation, we have uniforms, and those uniform components must therefore be the same. However, I can say, and we will discuss this with the Chief Warrant Officer, that for some items that are appropriate and do not affect the soldier's health, there will be a flat rate so that soldiers can buy them themselves, but it will certainly not be, for example, a rucksack or ballistic protection like a helmet or something like that.

You mentioned male and female versions of the gear. Will this be addressed more in the future within the Czech Army?

As far as equipment, field uniforms are concerned, it is already partly working there. For walking or service uniforms it is unambiguous. However, if someone asks whether there will be a special bulletproof or ballistic vest for women only or a special helmet for women, saying that this is how it works in some NATO countries, I say that it works in the United States, which has a million soldiers, unlike us, where we have about 25 000. So it certainly doesn't work that way in a small army and we procure this material as unisex.

What if a soldier buys, say, a backpack or ballistic vest over the internet and then uses it on the job?

We, when we buy a backpack, for example, one of the disciplines in the military tests is a fifteen-kilometre march with this backpack. However, a soldier is not entitled to such verification in the normal course of purchase. When he goes to the store, they don't give him a sample and say "here, try it on for 15 km, then come back and tell us if you're taking it or not". We also verify with the backpack that there are no handles on the backpack that can cause entrapment and injury to the Soldier. So some components that affect the functionality of the unit and the ergonomics of the soldier's movement will always be sourced centrally. In addition, we need the components to be of the required quality if they are to be used for, for example, five years.

We still have a point system. Why don't we buy uniforms like the U.S. Army?

We don't have a point system today, and I think that's right. In the US army, soldiers buy in the so-called PX. What's a PX? It's an outfitting center, or a dispensing point, where a soldier buys a part for which he gets a lump sum, but the part is established, he can't go to that PX like he can go to a store. That part is established, it's made by a particular manufacturer that's been selected, it's tested. In the US, because of availability, there are several PXs in every state because they have military bases there. But we are in the Czech Republic, we don't have the size, maybe not even the size of one single state in the United States. We have outfitting centers in kind that are both in Moravia and in the Czech Republic where soldiers can pick up a part or even be able to order it electronically.

How are the stocks in the equipment depots you mentioned? Is there enough of everything?

I can't say we have all the parts for every soldier, but we're working on it. Rumor has it the staffs are the first to get parts. That's really nonsense. We got 2,500 backpacks that went to three units of the 4th Rapid Deployment Brigade and the Rapid Deployment Brigade headquarters. All three battalions got backpacks for all the soldiers. So these new backpacks that came in the fall are now with the units, not at headquarters. No staff officer except for the ground forces headquarters gets them. Enough uniform gear has been purchased for the active reserves as well. It's an entitlement item, it has a certain life span, we call it the mean time of use, by which turnover takes place.

In the last two years, 2023 and 2024, we have concluded 50 contracts for 350 components. And for every one of those 350 parts, you have to make a specification. Some of them we then merged into one contract because, for example, a walking uniform, it has several components, more than 20 of them, so we did a specification for each one and then we merged them because one supplier is able to deliver that, from the tie to the trousers to the blouse. And in 2025, we're going to enter into additional contracts so that by the end of 2026, we'll have all of the equipment, all of those 800 components, covered in four-year master contracts. Whether it's entitlements, or whether it's the parts that we loan to soldiers, like backpacks or ballistic helmets. And there are already funds allocated for that. In 2024, we spent two billion crowns on equipment components. We'll spend the same in 2025 and 2026 and beyond, that's how the contracts are built. It has to be said that in previous years we did not have the money. Thanks to this Government and thanks to the Minister, we now have the money in central current expenditure. However, three years ago, we only had one-third of the money we have today for these components, so we could not adequately procure. In 2023, we have specified the components that are new and necessary. Then, in 2024, contracts were awarded and fulfillment began on the order of 10,000 units. This year, another 10,000 will be procured so that the parts in question will be for every soldier in the combat unit. And in 2026, the staffs will get them as well.

Are there any countries that you do not want the products to come from or be produced in?

As long as it does not threaten the security interests of the Czech Republic, we cannot restrict the contractors where they produce the product. But we must, and we do, supervise production and verify quality. That is our right. For example, if it is a vehicle that contains electronics, there is a condition that the electronics must not be manufactured in China. If we find that out, we of course take up the matter with the contractor, saying that he has violated the rules of the contract. However, with a cap, we cannot restrict the manufacturer, even if it is a Czech contractor who, for example, manufactures part of the components in China or anywhere else outside Europe. We cannot restrict him in that respect.

What would you say to those who say that we sent everything to Ukraine and there is not much left for our soldiers?

That's not true. Trust the Chief of General Staff, trust the General Staff. We are responsible for the combat capability of the army and for the possibly mobilised army. So what we are donating to Ukraine is material that is or was in the mobilization stockpile, and at the same time we know that we will get new equipment. If we know that we are going to get CV90s, and at the moment we have the 7th Brigade equipped with BVP-2s, then we could donate BVP-1 vehicles, including ammunition and spare parts, because the BVP-2s will go into the mobilisation stocks. And that's how we did it with tanks or any other component.

Is there anything else we can send to Ukraine?

There is such material, and we are considering these things very sensitively, because the scale of the material aid that went to Ukraine was really large, whether in terms of equipment, ammunition or spare parts.

Let's go to the uniform of the 97. On social media we can read frequent complaints from soldiers about the cut and the fact that soldiers sweat in it? What do you think?

I'm not saying that this component is ideal. It was introduced in 1997 and some soldiers of our army were not even born at that time. Anyway, the service and walking gear of the vz.97 is only for exceptional situations and is not the gear we would normally have. I agree that the quality of the garment and the fabric is long out of date, but that was the standard set at the time and until there is a new service uniform, the contractor has to make it to the specification given, i.e. the same quality from the same material. I have spent more than ten years in allied units, allied commands, whether in foreign operations or within NATO headquarters. And if somebody says that, for example, a Belgian or a Dutch soldier has a uniform made of different material than we do, that is not true.

How about the availability of different sizes for ballistic vests, for example. Is it true that a soldier who is almost two metres tall has the same size ballistic vest as a soldier who is sixty metres tall?

Absolute nonsense. We have several sizes of ballistic vests in place - from S to 3XL. And based on communication with unit commanders who tell us the sizes required, these items are then ordered. The same process is now in place for the new ballistic vest that will be delivered to the Army.

New technologies are constantly being addressed to enhance the capabilities of the military. How does this relate to logistics?

Already today, some departments have acquired 3D printers in a guerrilla manner. We will issue a standard for this technology in the future, which means that we will centrally procure the same types of printers, because it is clearly defined what can be printed at that unit, at that first level, which we call the battalion level. Whether it is training fixtures, repair fixtures or spare parts, we can print it all, and often cheaper if we do not need any homologation for it. But we have to have a digital library in place for that, so we have already taken some measures. The logistics authorities will then be able to use 3D printers to print the selected items. We also want to implement innovations for repair specialists, for example, but we need to find the funding for this. Although the financial situation has improved, we still do not have enough money to implement many things. It goes step by step, you can't just change that in four years. For example, we want what doctors have today, that you can practice repairing a part in virtual reality and then actually replace the part in the vehicle. At the same time, we want to have electronic catalogues of spare parts and components, including instructions. We need to put all this in place.

When I took up the post, I was really dumbfounded that we had a functional engineering air service for aviation equipment but nothing like that for ground equipment. Now we have to put that in place, which will require people, software, a concept of how we're going to collect data from engineering, perhaps using artificial intelligence algorithms. It's about ordering spare parts through asset managers towards contractors so that we have them for that just-in-time inventory. And then it's also about having operational stocks ready for war, so those are new technologies as well. The other issue is robotization.

Today, it is quite common in Ukraine for a unit to carry supplies on some sort of ground robotic vehicle. But we need to have people for that and we need an innovation hub where we interact with startups and we need to have the conditions to be able to talk to contractors with impunity, which is not an easy thing either.

General, thank you for the interview and good luck.

Thank you very much and I would like to conclude with an important sentence that warriors talk about strategy and strategists deal with logistics.