Siva Govindasamy: November 2008 Archives

You get the usual array of interesting aircraft models at any air show, and Airshow China in Zhuhai earlier this month was no different.

The Chinese were keen to display their latest unmanned aircraft although, predictably, there was very little information forthcoming on the level of development for each programme.

Perhaps, that has something to do with the fact that some models look like alien spaceships. Others look like suspiciously blatant copies of western unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). All claims about their capability, planned or actual, must be taken with a pinch of salt.

Nonetheless, these offer an interesting glimpse into the Chinese thinking of what they may need 20-30 years from now. It is far too easy to dismiss their attempts to get around the US and European arms embargo and develop indigenous weapons and aircraft. With the Russians and some other unidentified countries with access to western technology reportedly helping, the Chinese are making headway.

There is a growing acceptance among observers, albeit somewhat grudgingly by some, that the Chinese military production industry is growing more competent. A good example is the Chengdu J-10 fighter, which was on flying and static display in Zhuhai. How much of a threat that represents to the west is still moot.

The following photographs should offer an interesting glimpse into what the Chinese have in mind for the future of military aviation. The Shenyang Aircraft Design & Research Institute, which is responsible for almost all Chinese unmanned military aircraft programmes, is also in-charge of most of these aircraft.

Wing Loong

China provided the most information about the Wing Loong, which they say came into development in May 2005, had its first flight in October 2007, and is scheduled to finish a performance and mission payload flight test this year. The UAV is primarily for reconnaissance missions.

This medium-to-low altitude UAV has a 100hp piston engine, is fully autonomous flight capable, and can carry day-and-night electro-optical reconnaissance payload or laser designators. The maximum flight speed is 240km/h, it has an operating ceiling of 5,000m, endurance of 20h, maximum take-off weight of 1,150kg, and mission payload capability of 200kg.

Long-haul Eagle

The Chinese say that this is a special unmanned strategic reconnaissance UAV, which will be deployed on wide-range long-duration surveillance, reconnaissance and intelligence acquisition missions. They add that it will be an important part of the C4KISR mission system.

Warrior Eagle




This is a planned unmanned attack aircraft. The Chinese say that its main missions are to suppress or destroy air defences (SEAD/DEAD), deep strike, battlefield reconnaissance at highly threatened areas, and time sensitive target strikes.

Hidden Sword



Shenyang says that it has made "extensive exploratory works" into this UCAV programme, with the company adding that "high manoeuvrability" is one of the key targets with the Hidden Sword.

As for those who were looking for models of a different kind, and for an added incentive to visit the show in 2010, here are two pictures of those on display at Airshow China!

If anyone wonders why India adamantly pursues expensive indigenous defence projects, Anil Ananthaswamy's excellent article about the country's space programme in our sister magazine New Scientist offers some insights.

In 1998, the USA and other western countries imposed economic and technological sanctions on India after it tested a nuclear device. That pushed its scientists to develop indigenous machines, wean themselves off their dependence on the West, and assert their independence. That drive has now born fruit, Ananthaswamy writes.

"Suddenly, everything from personal computers to high-end electronics was unavailable. The last straw was when the US blocked the sale of Russian cryogenic engines needed to build the new geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV)," he points out. "ISRO [Indian Space Research Organisation] was forced to go it alone and has since succeeded in building its own engines without help from other nations. The fully home-grown GSLV should be ready to fly in 2009."

India's pride in its indigenous space programme is evident, never mind the cost to a country that still faces pressing social problems like acute poverty. Their newspapers and magazines talk about shaking off the country's dependence on the West and becoming self-sufficient in key industries such as defence.

Self-sufficiency may seem like a quaint goal harking back to socialist programmes in the 1960s and 1970s, especially in this age of globalisation and international partnerships. But it is at the heart of projects like the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and Kaveri military engine, and the stringent technology transfer requirements that India attaches to major international military tenders.

New Delhi has spent around $1.5 billion since the Tejas programme began in 1983, and is likely to pour in another $1 billion to bring it to fruition around 2011. The Kaveri has cost around $300 million, and that could reach $500 million. Despite the numerous delays and setbacks, the Indians keep plugging on.

Many laugh at India's attempts to develop its indigenous products, others shake their heads at the amount of money that is involved, and some may even question the viability of it all. But senior Indian officials say that they want to be able to arm themselves even if nobody else helps them. And so India continues to pursue programmes like the Light Combat Helicopter and Medium Combat Aircraft.

Similarly, a major factor in deciding the winner of the ongoing 124-fighter Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft competition will be the level of access to technology that the Indians are given. Bidders like Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the Eurofighter consortium may not like the stringent offset rules, but the Indians are adamant about getting what they want. The fear that fresh sanctions could lower their defence capability lies at the heart of these requirements.

"These countries and companies want our business and we have the market, but it won't work unless we get a high level of access to technology and our companies learn as much as they can through license-production," says a senior Indian defence ministry official says: "We want to be equal partners with the Americans, the Russians and the Europeans, but sometimes it appears as though they want to treat us like a client state. They must realise that circumstances have changed and the world has evolved."

The lessons of 1998 are at the heart of India's attempts to develop its own fighter and engine, and its aim of extracting as much technology as possible from the companies that want a stake in its growing defence market. Those involved in the country's defence market would do well to learn from that too.

Given the challenging times that lie ahead, you would expect carriers to do all they can to keep their customers happy. Unfortunately, as my recent experience with Singapore Airlines shows, that is not always the case.

Let me say first, though, that I really do like SIA. They normally have great service, their connectivity out of Singapore is second to none, and it is a reliable airline that does not usually let me down. The experience that I am about to relate, though, has made me realise that too many of us have an idealised view of the airlines that we like.

Last month, while waiting to take off on a trip to Tokyo, the pilot announced that there would a short delay to a small technical problem. That short delay turned into a 75-minute wait inside a crowded Boeing 747-400, with the air-conditioning switched off in the section where I was sitting. The experience literally left me hot under the collar.

Around 45 minutes into the ordeal, I asked a stewardess why we were not being let out of the aircraft. My first shock came when one of her colleagues, who was walking past us and heard me and gave an indignant sneer in my direction. You know, the type where she really saying: "Another bloody idiot." The second came when the lady that I asked said nonchalantly: "Can you just go back to your seat please? We will tell you if there are any changes to the plan." It was the tone of her voice, though, that got to me. She might as well have told me: "Stop moaning and sit down."

I would have, but for the fact that it was simply too hot where I was sitting. I soon got hold of an in-flight supervisor, who assured me that they were considering getting us out of the aircraft sauna. He was an experienced hand, and his professionalism was a good example for the rest. But it eventually took around 30 minutes more before a decision was made to change the aircraft and we were let out.

SIA could have relayed more information to the passengers, who were left wondering why they were sitting in the aircraft for so long. Waitng for more than an hour inside an aircraft with the air-conditioning switched off is simply not on as well. And the crew should have been better trained to deal with the situation.

I have a lot of sympathy for airline crew. It is not easy trying to serve several hundred passengers in economy, who vent their frustration at the long flight by ordering around the flight crew. Surely, though, that is no excuse for being plain rude? I am not expecting the five-star service that business or first class passengers get on SIA, but it is not unfair to expect some polite answers and responses.

This was not an isolated incident. Several friends who have been flying on Singapore Airlines for several years are reporting that they are getting worse service on the flights than before. Admittedly, it is still better than in most other airlines. Increasingly, though, they feel that they are not being rewarded for their loyalty and some are trying out competing products.

A colleague recently flew on Cathay Pacific and came back saying that he was very happy. He intends to use them more frequently from now, even if there is a short lay-over in Hong Kong. Ditto for a friend who recently flew on both Malaysian Airlines and Thai Airways, and was surprised at the quality of the on-board service. They are grateful for the ability to choose.

I, though, am sticking to Singapore Airlines for now. My loyalty is not just to the carrier, but also to several friends who work there. I also still like what SIA offers on board. Ultimately, all I want in most flights is a diet coke, the crackers with cheese, and for my headphones to work so that I can watch the movies and pass the time.

The competition, though, is catching up. When times are bad, people will sniff around at the other options. Treating your customers badly is not the way to keep your lead in the game.