Asian Skies

Indian moods

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:36:24 +0800

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.

Not always a great way to fly

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:11:51 +0800

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.

Malaysian flip-flops

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:22:14 +0800

Can Malaysia please get on with it?

First, Kuala Lumpur announced that the Eurocopter EC725 Cougar would replace the country's ageing Sikorsky S-61 "Nuri" fleets. Now, after opposition politicians and Eurocopter's competitors cried foul, saying that the selection was made without proper trials and checks, Kuala Lumpur has decided to "postpone" the deal.

On the surface, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's reasons seem credible. After all, the country is badly affected by the ongoing global economic crisis and it needs all the money it has in its budget to help its citizens ride out the storm. Saying that the country would defer spending several hundred million to 2011, when Kuala Lumpur plans to revisit the tender, makes good political sense.

Unfortunately, it makes little military sense. The fact remains that the country badly needs to replace the Nuris. Some of these helicopters have been flying for around 40 years and the Royal Malaysian Air Force desperately needs some new equipment. Various fatal accidents involving the type over the last few years attest to this. Malaysia's various armed services will suffer because of this postponement.

This incident is just symptomatic of the country's apparently haphazard approach to defence procurements. Its services operate several different makes of aircraft - Sukhoi, MiG and Boeing fighters, BAE and Aermacchi trainers, Eurocopter, Sikorsky, and AgustaWestland helicopters, among other permutations.

Many observers believe that this suggests a lack of proper planning, with the country spending more than necessary to upkeep different makes when it would be cheaper and operationally sounder to have similar aircraft.

An economic crisis is a serious matter, and Kuala Lumpur has to draw up a list of projects that should be given priority in the current climate. Not including the country's defence needs in that, however, makes little sense. A long-overdue programme to replace 40-year-old military helicopters is just as important for the country, and Malaysia's armed forces should not have to wait for another three years before a decision is made.

Critical non-thinking

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:05:24 +0800

It is the Lockheed Martin F-35 silly season again. Every few weeks, the Joint Strike Fighter's critics feed a story to the media about the aircraft's alleged shortcomings. That happened in Australia earlier this week.

Air Power Australia, which describes itself as an independent defence think-tank, was formed by several ex-Royal Australian Air Force officers and is opposed to the selection of the JSF for the country. Recently, it claimed that the fighter displayed inferior performance and range when compared to the latest Russian and Chinese aircraft during simulated war games conducted by USA-based think-tank RAND Corp.

Local and international media picked this up and reported on it extensively, leading to a re-opening of the debate on the F-35's viability as the future of Australia's air force strike capability. There was only one problem - the report was false. Simply put, it was another example of the sensationalist reporting has crept in with regards to the F-35.

RAND responded by saying: "Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft."

Australian defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon waded in, saying that he was one of the few people in Australia who had access to the entire classified briefing on the JSF's capability. The F-35's detractors were misrepresenting the aircraft's alleged deficiencies, he added.

The thinking in Canberra has not changed in the last few months. Australia remains committed to the F-35 programme, but it will not make a decision on whether it would actually purchase the aircraft until some time next year. If there is a further delay, it could order more Boeing F/A-18E/Fs to prevent a further drop in its strike capability. That option, however, appears unlikely for now.

The delays and problems that have plagued the F-35 have been widely reported, and the aircraft has some way to go before it convinces many in the industry about its viability. Given what it sets out to do, it is good that there is a healthy debate about the programme.

However, that does not mean that the F-35 deserves some of the pot shots that it gets. Its critics would do well to check their facts - and with RAND - first before making any public statements in the future.

Waiting for nothing

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:46:52 +0800

Japan has finally confirmed what everyone figured would happen anyway - it has delayed its F-X competition in order to continue lobbying the USA for information on the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

It is silly, though. The Japan Air Self Defense Force's capability will keep dropping, and there is no guarantee that Washington would allow the Raptor to be exported. It would be far better for the Japanese to get on with the programme and select another fighter. Yet, they stubbornly wait for the US Congress to change its mind when there are no clear indications that this would happen in the near future.

This is symptomatic of the malaise that afflicts the country's military procurement policy. A gradual year-by-year decision-making process increases the cost to the Japanese taxpayer and hardly benefits the service, and is clear evidence of an acute lack of forward planning. That is probably also why it did not join the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme when it had the opportunity.

Australia, on the other hand, knows that its future lies with the F-35, which the USA is willing to export. It also realises that the aircraft's delivery could be delayed from the target of 2015. It may be unhappy about this, but at least it is doing something about it. Canberra ordered 24 Boeing F/A-18E/Fs to plug the gap between the retirement of its fleet of General Dynamics F-111s and the induction of the F-35.

Japan can teach the world many things, but its bureaucrats at the defence ministry in Tokyo could learn a thing or two from their Australian counterparts. They should forget about the F-22 and simply order the F-35.

I get by with a little help from my friends...

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:29:44 +0800

The pieces are finally falling in place for the Mitsubishi Regional Jet. Its manufacturer Mitsubishi Aircraft has been lining up the design and manufacturing know-how over the last year, but what it sorely lacked was the marketing and after-sales expertise in the passenger jet business.

That should now come with Boeing's involvement in the programme as a consultant. Granted, the US company will not be investing in the programme itself. But its years of experience in the commercial aviation market will be useful as it helps to guide the people at Mitsubishi through the MRJ's formative years.

Here is the question: will Boeing eventually invest in the MRJ as a way to get into the regional jet programme? It may be a logical extension of its commercial aircraft business, given the strong growth potential for the regional aircraft sector. It would also be a low-risk approach if Mitsubishi leads the initial development of the aircraft. Watch this space.

Crowded House

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:37:13 +0800

Why in the world does India want to manufacture regional jets, when it already has so much on its plate?

An Indian Regional Jet will join a crowded field in which newcomers from Japan, China and Russia will also be competing with the incumbents, Brazil's Embraer and Canada's Bombardier, for market share. Analysts say that one or more manufacturers will eventually have to drop out due to the intense competition.

National Aerospace Laboratories, the Indian state-owned agency leading the study, is keen to involve either Bombardier or Embraer. But if they decline, New Delhi must spend an enormous amount of time and money to develop the technology. Either way, it is impossible for an IRJ to fly by the stated target date of 2012.

Ultimately, this project appears to be more about keeping up appearances. Successful aircraft programmes are a source of national pride, and India is probably keen to show that it is as capable as other leading emerging economies like Brazil, China and Russia.

In truth, India is late to the party. Its decision to manufacture regional aircraft has little economic rationale. It would take too long, cost too much, and have too low a chance of success. Instead of starting a new programme, it would be far more sensible to complete those it has already begun.

These include the Saras 14-seat twin turboprop, Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, and Sitara Intermediate Jet Trainer, which are long overdue and have already cost Indian taxpayers far too much. If India really wants to be taken seriously as an aircraft manufacturer, it could start by bringing those programmes to fruition first.

Business Aviation could get a helping hand in Japan

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:13:08 +0800

The mere mention of Japan to those involved in business aviation results in a sigh, a roll of the eyes and a shrug of the shoulder. The world's second largest economy is a beacon of innovation that produces marquee brands like Sony and Toyota.

Yet its restrictive policies have resulted in it having only 60-odd business aircraft - in contrast, the USA, home to the world's largest economy and business aircraft fleet, has over 16,000.

Unlike other Asian countries, poor infrastructure or high fees do not plague Japan. Instead, it is held back by a myopic bureaucracy that still applies 30-year-old regulations - 60min ETOPS thresholds, forcing foreign-registered aircraft to apply for permits seven days before flights, limits on slots for business aircraft at Tokyo's Narita and Haneda airports while simultaneously preventing access to the capital's secondary airports.

There is pent-up demand for business aircraft in Japan, yet after years of challenging the status quo the exasperated business aviation community has elected to concentrate its efforts on the booming Indian and Chinese markets instead.

While these countries face numerous challenges to build and develop infrastructure, their governments are working diligently to accommodate their business aviation industries - which, as a result, are thriving. Japan has hinted that it may ease some restrictions for business aviation this year. Let's hope so.

Announcing the arrival of Asian Skies

Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:01:40 +0800

Welcome to Asian Skies! This is the Flight Asia Pacific team's way of sharing our opinion about the aerospace industry with those who are keen on the region as well.

Asian airlines account for a large number of new aircraft orders, defence contractors have a big presence here as armed forces modernise their fleets, and the business jet sector is registering the fastest growth rates in the world.

Yet there is also an acute shortage of pilots in the region, governments still refuse to coordinate policies due to narrow nationalistic interests, and the investment in much needed infrastructure has not kept up with the growth.

Issues like these make us glad to be in Asia, writing about an industry with so many hopes, challenges and opportunities. These are interesting times, and we hope that this blog will help us to navigate through them.

We want to know what you think too, so please leave a comment or an opinion about the topics that we raise. Together, we can have a useful discussion about Asian skies.