Date: 21/09/2004
Source: Ministry of Transport
Title: J Radebe: African Aerospace and Defence
REMARKS BY JEFF RADEBE, MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, ON AFRICAN AEROSPACE AND DEFENCE, 21 September 2004
Ministers,
Excellencies,
Ambassadors and High Commissioners,
Chiefs of Air Forces, Generals and members of the Officer corps
Industry executives and leaders
Esteemed guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As I glanced at the programme for today's activity I noticed with some alarm the rather large number of speeches that you expect from those of us who are connected in some way or another with the aerospace and defence industries and undertakings. Well, I consider myself fortunate to be given the lunchtime slot to share a few thoughts with you, but I must warn you up front that I do not intend making a speech, but prefer to restrict myself to some bullet-point comments. After all is said and done, perhaps the most valuable experience of attendance at shows like this one is to see how much networking people can fit in to such a short time - I don't intend interfering with that important work!
Paging through some of the South African periodicals such as World Airnews, African Pilot, and SA Flyer, early this morning, I was struck by a few things that are probably obvious to this gathering, but I suggest are not that obvious to the broader public who ultimately determine whether we spend money on the aerospace industry or not. The first thing I noticed from some of the historical articles is the way in which the civil or commercial side of the aerospace world is truly intertwined with the military side of things. For example, when just over 100 years ago the Wright brothers launched themselves into history, no-one in government or business really took notice and it took military brains to consider the future importance of aircraft. So, in a very real sense, the fact that we have powered flight in such sophisticated form today, which has revolutionised the way the world interacts, and that has made such enormous strides in such a short period of time, owes much to the role of defence and military undertakings. Thus, at one level, there can be no sense in the call from some groups that somehow military or "nasty" defence activity must be separated from the more benign area of commercial aviation. Historically, and logically from the side of technological advance and investment, the two are conjoined and should remain so.
A second feature that has reinforced my experience since tackling transport issues over the past months is how the two sectors of defence and commercial aerospace seem to be integrating. Simply put, as defence budgets come under pressure in the face of increasing costs of technology, operations, and personnel training in specialised fields, and commercial aviation requirements have increased by leaps and bounds within the limited margins of altitude, air corridors and so on, so it has become more natural for the previously separate defence and commercial airspace navigation services and traffic controls to merge operations.
This situation perhaps lays a foundation for greater cooperation between the two sectors in the future, in particular in relation to pilot training and retention programmes to avoid commercial poaching of sorely needed pilots; to greater use of commercial technologies adapted to military requirements; and towards greater dual-use of particular defence related technologies, avionics, and systems that will benefit government budgets and industry alike.
A third element that amused me, was the fact that when passengers first hitch-hiked on the London-Cape Town airmail planes, they had to endure an 11 day journey, using three different aircraft, and 16 stops (including a short train trip between Paris and Brindisi) for the 150pound air ticket! All that, along with the possibility of an unscheduled crash-landing, if you were lucky, somewhere along the route. By the beginning of the war, technological advances in both airframes and engines had reduced the trip to between 4 and 5 days. The sombre thought this history raises is this: in 2004, to travel from South Africa to some African destinations in modern aircraft takes about the same length of time in some instances!
Which brings me to my final points.
Early next year, following agreement at a conference in Nairobi, South Africa will host a meeting of African aviation and transport ministers to assess the aviation situation in Africa, to identify the shortcomings to the implementation of old decisions, and to map the way forward for increased investment in the aviation sector, the development of sustainable African expertise in the sector and the industry itself, and to encourage partnerships and cooperation between African countries at government and industrial levels. Our aim is to speed up implementation of the Yamassoukro Declaration to open Africa's skies. Bluntly put, NEPAD just won
Source: Ministry of Transport
Title: J Radebe: African Aerospace and Defence
REMARKS BY JEFF RADEBE, MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, ON AFRICAN AEROSPACE AND DEFENCE, 21 September 2004
Ministers,
Excellencies,
Ambassadors and High Commissioners,
Chiefs of Air Forces, Generals and members of the Officer corps
Industry executives and leaders
Esteemed guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As I glanced at the programme for today's activity I noticed with some alarm the rather large number of speeches that you expect from those of us who are connected in some way or another with the aerospace and defence industries and undertakings. Well, I consider myself fortunate to be given the lunchtime slot to share a few thoughts with you, but I must warn you up front that I do not intend making a speech, but prefer to restrict myself to some bullet-point comments. After all is said and done, perhaps the most valuable experience of attendance at shows like this one is to see how much networking people can fit in to such a short time - I don't intend interfering with that important work!
Paging through some of the South African periodicals such as World Airnews, African Pilot, and SA Flyer, early this morning, I was struck by a few things that are probably obvious to this gathering, but I suggest are not that obvious to the broader public who ultimately determine whether we spend money on the aerospace industry or not. The first thing I noticed from some of the historical articles is the way in which the civil or commercial side of the aerospace world is truly intertwined with the military side of things. For example, when just over 100 years ago the Wright brothers launched themselves into history, no-one in government or business really took notice and it took military brains to consider the future importance of aircraft. So, in a very real sense, the fact that we have powered flight in such sophisticated form today, which has revolutionised the way the world interacts, and that has made such enormous strides in such a short period of time, owes much to the role of defence and military undertakings. Thus, at one level, there can be no sense in the call from some groups that somehow military or "nasty" defence activity must be separated from the more benign area of commercial aviation. Historically, and logically from the side of technological advance and investment, the two are conjoined and should remain so.
A second feature that has reinforced my experience since tackling transport issues over the past months is how the two sectors of defence and commercial aerospace seem to be integrating. Simply put, as defence budgets come under pressure in the face of increasing costs of technology, operations, and personnel training in specialised fields, and commercial aviation requirements have increased by leaps and bounds within the limited margins of altitude, air corridors and so on, so it has become more natural for the previously separate defence and commercial airspace navigation services and traffic controls to merge operations.
This situation perhaps lays a foundation for greater cooperation between the two sectors in the future, in particular in relation to pilot training and retention programmes to avoid commercial poaching of sorely needed pilots; to greater use of commercial technologies adapted to military requirements; and towards greater dual-use of particular defence related technologies, avionics, and systems that will benefit government budgets and industry alike.
A third element that amused me, was the fact that when passengers first hitch-hiked on the London-Cape Town airmail planes, they had to endure an 11 day journey, using three different aircraft, and 16 stops (including a short train trip between Paris and Brindisi) for the 150pound air ticket! All that, along with the possibility of an unscheduled crash-landing, if you were lucky, somewhere along the route. By the beginning of the war, technological advances in both airframes and engines had reduced the trip to between 4 and 5 days. The sombre thought this history raises is this: in 2004, to travel from South Africa to some African destinations in modern aircraft takes about the same length of time in some instances!
Which brings me to my final points.
Early next year, following agreement at a conference in Nairobi, South Africa will host a meeting of African aviation and transport ministers to assess the aviation situation in Africa, to identify the shortcomings to the implementation of old decisions, and to map the way forward for increased investment in the aviation sector, the development of sustainable African expertise in the sector and the industry itself, and to encourage partnerships and cooperation between African countries at government and industrial levels. Our aim is to speed up implementation of the Yamassoukro Declaration to open Africa's skies. Bluntly put, NEPAD just won
Advertisement
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE SAVE THIS ARTICLE FEEDBACK
To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here
