FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1998
1998 - 2324.PDF
INDUSTR] RUSSIA to see a collaborative effort to build a new trainer, but the manufacturers cling to hopes of an order that will enable them to keep going it alone. Two MiG-ATs are flying, with a further handful lying idle, and MAPO is testing a light attack variant, the -AT2, with Moskit radar. The single rival Yak-130 is now being flight tested in Italy. The Russian military helicopter industry remains in the doldrums, albeit with some signs of hope for the future. Kamov is about to begin flight testing the first Ka-60 medi um utility helicopter. With the potential to replace large numbers of Alii Mi-8s, the Ka- 60 and its Ka-62 civil counterpart appear to have good prospects, particularly with export customers in Asia. Kamov also has hopes of selling its Ka-50- 2 attack helicopter, modified with Israeli technology, to Turkey. The Russian army, however, remains unable to do more than fund maintenance for an ever-shrinking fleet of ageing Mil Mi-24 and Mi-8 bat tlefield helicopters. While there may be some hope for indi vidual programmes, there is still little indi cation that Russia's industrial leaders are prepared to grasp the nettle and begin the mergers, streamlining and plant shutdowns that are needed to create a handful of firms able to rival their US and Western European counterparts. The first signs of such co-operation are there, with the example set by the teaming of MIG MAPO and AVPK Sukhoi to build a maintenance plant in India. Helicopter design bureaux and manufac turing plants have belatedly begun to merge. A coalition of the Mil bureau, the Ulan-Ude production plant and Kazan Helicopters has taken the first steps towards becoming Mil Helicopters Holding. Kamov is also discussing the formation of a joint company with the Kumer-Tau and Arsenyev plants. In February this year, Sergei Mikheyev, Kamov's general director, visited the Kumer-Tau plant in the republic of Bashkiria (where the Ka-32 is produced) to discuss this with the local government, which is interested in investing in die ven ture. The move may reflect disillusionment with Kamov's position in the MIG-MAPO group, which has so far been unable to attract a helicopter manufacturer. There is also talk of co-operating to devel op next-generation fighters, mostly instigat ed by an air force increasingly alarmed at its poor prospects of a fifth-generation fighter. Given the scarcity of domestic orders, how ever, it remains to be seen just what will be left to merge after a few more years of decline. • A rare sight: a 1998 delivery from a Russian aircraft factory - Slovakia Airlines'first Tu-154M The Kazakhis thought they had bought it, but die owner claimed their payment was interest on arrears and repossessed the aircraft to sell to the new customer, so die Kazakhis stole it back. A debacle such as this does not build foreign confidence in funding Russian aircraft. Such events, which are compounded by low profitability and poor balance sheets, mean that Western financiers are in no hurry to look for Russian business. Despite this, some finance deals are expected to be announced before die year-end, for fleet renewal and project funding. In die past four or five years, many attempts have been made in Russia and Uzbekistan to set up leasing companies. In virtually ever)'case, die missing ingredient was money. Little regard has been paid to die fact tiiat aircraft lessors are essentially banks lending money in the form of an aircraft to an operator and, without a sufficient supply of capital, a leasing business cannot be set up. A leasing business requires an adequate legal basis, and this is lacking in Russia. Despite the preparation of a new aviation code, it is still difficult for a lessor to take back an aircraft when payments are in arrears, unless the operator concurs. If an airline goes out of business, it can take a lessor at least six months to find another. The Russian Air Register, and those of most other CIS countries, does not record mort gages, or other evidence of title, which are need ed to prevent a sale taking place without the actual owner (or financier) being advised of it. In practice, Russia's FAS will note the registration with reference to the central mortgage register, but this is a concession, not a legal requirement. Amazingly, seven years after the break-up of the Soviet Union, it is neither the design bureau nor the production factory which sets the price of a new aircraft, but the Russian Ministry of the Economy (which took over the role of the Soviet Ministry of the Aviation Industry), in conjunction with the FAS. The expectation that foreign carriers will pay a higher price than Russian or CIS airlines prevails. One added Russian complication concerns ownership of factory aircraft. With few deliver ies, and no cashflow in recentyears, most manu facturers have had to find other ways to pay their debts. Some have branched out, opening pro duction lines for televisions and other consumer durables. Some have begun to overhaul the air frames or engines previously built by the plant. Others have paid suppliers with partially or completely built aircraft. Before an aircraft can be financed, therefore, the owner of its title must be checked. It is not enough to assume that the manufacturer is entitled to sell the aircraft. Given these circumstances, it is no surprise that Russian and CIS aircraft programmes are behind schedule. The Tu-334, expected to fl> in 1992 and enter service in 1994 is, because oi money problems, yet to fly, while the Yak-242 is experiencing similar delays. The I1-96M, which made its first flight in 1993, is uncertificated although the I1-96T freighter version has now received Russian approval. Although certificated in the CIS, the 11-114 has not yet found a customer. The An-3 8 wa; approved at the same time, in April 1997, ane three examples have been delivered with th« help of US financing. The stretched Ilyushin I1-76MF freighter ha: made little apparent progress in the four year; since its first flight. Beriev has no paying cus tomers for its Be-32 feeder airliner, nor ha: Sukhoi for its twin-turboprop S-80, rolled ou in May, but yet to fly. The Be-200, a twin-tur bofan amphibian planned for passenger, cargo and firefighting roles, is in the same situatioi The only CIS designer to achieve notabli civil results this decade is Ukraine's Antonov. It An-38 is now in service; the An-124-100 ha been certificated to civil standards and 22 are ii use; the An-70 propfan transport and An-14( regional airliner are in flight testing; and worl has begun on the An-74-300, a version witl engines mounted under, rather than over, th wing. The bureau is working also on the -400, stretched An-74 which it plans to make avail able in passenger and cargo versions. While it An-32 twin-turboprop transport has sold we] in Africa, Asia and Latin America, Antonov ha survived in part by using money earned from it joint venture with the UK's Air Foyle to marke cargo services using An-124s. Almost every one of Russia and the CIS' avi ation companies is having serious money prob lems. Only Antonov has found any answers and it needs more. If realistic solutions cannc be found, time will run out and Russia and th CIS'most prominent industry will die. C 84 FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 2 - 8 September 199!
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
