bunumuring
Topic Author
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:38 pm

Hey guys,
I'm loving the discussion... Keep it up!
Just a minor point, the Kawasaki C-2 transitted Australia last last year on its way to NZ for demonstration fights, just like the KC-390 did earlier in the year to 'trigger' this thread.
Cheers,
Bunumuring
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
Nean1
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:08 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Nean1 wrote:
Do not be rushed, just try to see the bigger picture:

In 15 years which of the two will have better options of remotorization? Just see how competitive the fight is to power the A321.

Wrong.

C-130J has a range with 18,144 kg payload and MIL-C-5011A reserves of 2,835 nm / 5,250 km

The KC-390 has a range of 2730nm with only 14,000kg.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

C-130J-30 has 25% more cargo volume than the KC-390. A 17.05m cabin length for the C-130J vs only 12.68m for the KC-390. Both excluding the ramp.

The C-130J while carrying its maximum payload can still carry its maximum fuel capacity.

The KC-390 with its maximum rated payload can only carry 50% of its internal fuel capacity. This is very misleading as it is exchanging fuel for payload. Fully fueled the KC-390 can't even lift 75% of the payload that the C-130 can.




RJMaz,

Thanks for the link, I did not know it. In the short comparison I used the same sources (Wikipedia), so that someone should be presenting bad information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... r_Hercules
Range: 1,800 nmi (2,071 mi, 3,334 km) at max normal payload (34,000 lb or 15,400 kg)

One point to be considered is that all KC-390s can be refueled and refuel in flight. So in a long range mission a pair of KC-390s can go quite far, since the max KC-390's Ferry range is even larger than that of the C-130J (4600 vs 4270 nm).

Considering the Embraer aircraft is not yet certified these values ​​are estimates, so it would not be surprising if the final numbers are slightly better.

When two products are compared, each manufacturer is expected to highlight the strengths of their product. Regarding the KC-390 the advantages are:
- Longer rear ramp making loading and unloading easier;
- Unlike the C-130J it is possible to transport 2 pallets over the rear ramp;
- Greater width and height fo cargo compartiment, which are usually the critical dimensions to military equipment;
- Superior max capacity (26 vs 20 t);
- T-tail, facilitating the movement of loads and vehicles

I understand that it would be quite unfair to say that the KC-390 does not represent a very tough competition to the C-130J.
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:37 am

Embraer – The KC-390 currently has only two signed customers for 33 aircraft so clearly some further exports need to happen if the aircraft is to stay in production 15 years from now. Brazil remains a wildcard on the military arms market and will be seen as primarily an importer and not an exporter and I don’t expect that to change much in the next 15 years, even if the KC-390 is a runaway success.


Brazil is not a first world advanced 1 trillion dollar defense budget country, but its no Haiti either,

You should do a little more research on the country military techs.
 
Nean1
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:49 am

Ozair wrote:
Nean1 wrote:
Where some seek the cheapest solution others will think of the more economical solution. Maybe a refurbished C-130H is cheaper.

That equation is not black and white and will vary depending upon the requirements of the respective user, how far and wide they deploy forces, the extent of their road, rail and sea transport networks and their partners. Hence why a review of current C-130 operators would likely point to a potential size of the market for the KC-390.

Nean1 wrote:
The USMC has chosen among the available options, but what if there are others? If America wants to have the most powerful military this means that performance and merit also matter.

Having a powerful military doesn’t mean you need the best of everything. What often defines the capabilities of a military is the ability to manage, move and resupply that force. The US already has all that it needs to do that and introducing a new sub type, as was seen with the C-27J which lasted only a few years before it was withdrawn from service (for various reasons), is not necessarily the right answer, even if that new type has some unique or enhanced features.

Nean1 wrote:
With regard to export financing you probably know that military equipment does not follow the same restrictions applicable to civil aircraft (WTO, OECD), so I believe that BNDES may have competitive rates for government-to-government deals.

Military equipment financing is a whole other level of complexity over civilian aircraft.

Nean1 wrote:
Embraer has proven itself to be able to offer high-quality support even in markets where it had no tradition, such as executive jets. Why couldn't they offer a good service to the KC-390s abroad?

Militaries like to talk, interact with and work with other militaries. Even in the US FMS situation, the US has an FMS office that is run by the DoD to manage those interactions. While Embraer may be able to provide the support and sustainment the way the organisations interact in a military procurement is different. Not saying they can't do it, but there is a volume of input required by the Brazilian Air Force. The Brazilian acquisition of the Gripen could be seen in a similar vein where the Swedish Air Force as the primary customer has a lot of input.

Nean1 wrote:
I think the big outstanding question is which military transport aircraft of equal or bigger size than Hercules will still be produced 15 years from now. The C-17 ended production 20 years after its entry into service. I do not think the A400M will be in production in 2028.

Agree a good question. The respective market players
US - We know the US is looking at future transport options but there is no indication whether that will be a single aircraft across both strategic and tactical roles, ala A400M, or separate aircraft. I would bet on two separate aircraft covering the separate markets. Any US solution may also be priced above or more technically complex (vertical landing) than what most nations can afford or a willing to operate.

Airbus – Agree the A400M may struggle to move forward past 2028 but its fate may rest more on the replacement for Enders than on the market. I could see a new CEO of Airbus pruning the company back and the A400M would be an easy target and could leave the export market before it has much of a chance to get going

Japan – The C-2 has approx 40 domestic orders and some mild interest from a few other nations. It could be in production 15 years from now but would require a number of export customers to sign on for it to happen. The future influence of Japan on the international arms market also plays a factor here.

Embraer – The KC-390 currently has only two signed customers for 33 aircraft so clearly some further exports need to happen if the aircraft is to stay in production 15 years from now. Brazil remains a wildcard on the military arms market and will be seen as primarily an importer and not an exporter and I don’t expect that to change much in the next 15 years, even if the KC-390 is a runaway success.

Russia – The IL-76MD-90A is just starting production and there are enough global customers of the IL-76 that it is very likely to be in production in 15 years time. We may see a new turboprop aircraft around the KC-390 size but funding for new Russian equipment looks to be tight.

China – The Y-20 should be in production for many years to come but is on the big size to compete in the KC-390 market. A new jet or turboprop aircraft in the size range is probable out of China in the next 15 years.

Nean1 wrote:
The KC-390 has many possibilities to maintain and receive better engines, compatible with the super-competitive single-aisle civil aircraft market. The last gear in the puzzle is called Boeing.

The history of military aircraft is that most designs only refresh engines when the whole platform is refreshed. Few in service airframes are re-engined and if they do it is typically much later in their design life. From an export potential, introducing different engines to a KC-390 than what Brazil operates would likely introduce additional risk for a military customer. The preference would be to operate the same version as other users and take a % hit on fuel costs, which are only a small factor in military procurement and operational cost anyway.


Ozair,

Your line of reasoning confuses me a little. First, you say that the US does not need the best equipment, and then you say that any solution made to the US will be technically cutting-edge, above the requirements of other countries. I believe you meant that "We can spend a lot of time employing obsolete equipment (B-52, C-130, KC-135 ...) until we can design and produce something in America that will revolutionize the industry."

With regard to competitors:

Japan: (1) The country has no tradition as an arms exporter and (2) the fact that the C-2 is not designed to operate on semi-prepared runways. This puts C-2 in the strategic transport category, a very small and expensive niche. Any western customer would try before buying some used C-17 or A400.

Russia: Il-76 has an impressive capacity, but few recent exports and a good part of them for a market that will close (China). The Il-276 (ex-Il-214) looks a lot like the KC-390, but there are doubts as to whether this troubled project will be implemented.

China: The Y-20 belongs to another category of aircraft (2.5 x KC-390), a very disputed segment. With Russian turbofans, the efficiency and durability of turbines appears as a point of fragility.

Ukraine: With all the political and industrial problems, the traditional manufacturer Antonov should not have a competitive product. The A-178 is perhaps a bit small for the task.

I believe the actual competitors are the C-130J and Chinese Y-8.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:37 am

YuriMG2 wrote:
You should do a little more research on the country military techs.

I’m generally not the guy you accuse of not doing any research…

YuriMG2 wrote:
Brazil is not a first world advanced 1 trillion dollar defense budget country, but its no Haiti either

I don’t think anyone referred to Brazil as Haiti. What we do know is that Brazil does not rank in the top 20 for arms exporters globally and most exports from Brazil comprise smalls arms and ammunition which are reasonably low tech exports.

Image

Brazil has every opportunity to increase that and the KC-390 probably has a big role to play in that increase, but right now Brazil is comparatively not a large exporter and doesn’t have a lot of agreements or track record with countries in that area.

Nean1 wrote:
Ozair,
Your line of reasoning confuses me a little. First, you say that the US does not need the best equipment, and then you say that any solution made to the US will be technically cutting-edge, above the requirements of other countries.

I thought that point was clear but I will try again.

If we look at what the US has, in some areas its weapons and systems dominates, in others it does not. Overall, the US would probably be classed as the most proficient and combat capable military, but that proficiency is not directly related to high end military equipment being operated in every category.

Take the USMC for example. It has the MV-22, a top end high tech cutting edge piece of equipment., expensive to acquire, costly to operate but it comes with great capabilities. On the flip side, it operates the UH-1 in various forms. A good helicopter but no world breaker.

In a similar fashion the USMC operate the AAV-7 which is not a modern piece of equipment and we could probably find better armed and armoured vehicles in service with other nations. How the Marines use it, and how the AAV-7 fits into their overall battle concept and how often and realistic they train, allows them to compensate for any perceived deficiencies against other systems.

Nean1 wrote:
I believe you meant that "We can spend a lot of time employing obsolete equipment (B-52, C-130, KC-135 ...) until we can design and produce something in America that will revolutionize the industry."

No. I was considering that a future US tactical transport aircraft for the USAF has a chance of being, for example, VTOL. That won’t come cheap and will likely be reasonably complex to maintain but will fulfil the requirements the USAF has. I don’t see that type of airframe appealing to the large number of existing C-130 operators so exports may be limited.

Nean1 wrote:
Japan: (1) The country has no tradition as an arms exporter and (2) the fact that the C-2 is not designed to operate on semi-prepared runways. This puts C-2 in the strategic transport category, a very small and expensive niche. Any western customer would try before buying some used C-17 or A400.

What we don’t see are used large military transports on the international market, no chance of a used C-17 anytime soon that is for sure. Perhaps used German Air Force A400M given they have already indicated they are willing to sell but that market is limited.

I agree though, at the moment Japan has a limited defence export industry. How that changes over the next 15 years will directly impact the C-2 as a potential, albeit heavyweight, competitor to the KC-390.

We have had an extensive discussion in the A400M thread about semi-prepared runways and the requirement to land on them. I think there is a market for transports that do not have that capability as so few nations require it, but only time will tell if that is true.

Nean1 wrote:
Russia: Il-76 has an impressive capacity, but few recent exports and a good part of them for a market that will close (China). The Il-276 (ex-Il-214) looks a lot like the KC-390, but there are doubts as to whether this troubled project will be implemented.

The IL-76 had the largest manufactured fleet of any modern military transport above C-130 size. The new IL-76, or IL-476, has every chance of being an export success given the large number of current operators and an established Russian military export program.

Nean1 wrote:
China: The Y-20 belongs to another category of aircraft (2.5 x KC-390), a very disputed segment. With Russian turbofans, the efficiency and durability of turbines appears as a point of fragility.

I already indicated the Y-20 was on the big size to compete. I still expect we will see something out of China in the next ten years for the smaller transport segment, whether an updated Y-8 or turbofan aircraft will have to wait and see.

Nean1 wrote:
Ukraine: With all the political and industrial problems, the traditional manufacturer Antonov should not have a competitive product. The A-178 is perhaps a bit small for the task.

Hence why I didn’t list Ukraine.

Nean1 wrote:
I believe the actual competitors are the C-130J and Chinese Y-8.

Well NZ is a perfect example of a nation that has a fleet of C-130 that they are looking to replace. They have expressed interest and are looking at four different aircraft, the C-130J, KC-390, A400M and the C-2. I think for some customers all four will compete but for others the two smaller airframes may be preferred.
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:52 am

Yes, Brazil is not a main military exporter. But there is something it can do is build good aircrafts as history has shown.

Canada is in that chart u posted but its BBD couldnt compete with Embraer, so u may be underestimating the company ability to build a good product because the country has no history of being a military exporter.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:07 am

YuriMG2 wrote:
Yes, Brazil is not a main military exporter. But there is something it can do is build good aircrafts as history has shown.

Canada is in that chart u posted but its BBD couldnt compete with Embraer, so u may be underestimating the company ability to build a good product because the country has no history of being a military exporter.

We aren't talking about building a good aircraft and no one has stated the KC-390 is anything less than a good aircraft.

We are talking about the export of military equipment...
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:20 am

Nean1 wrote:
RJMaz,

Thanks for the link, I did not know it. In the short comparison I used the same sources (Wikipedia), so that someone should be presenting bad information.

Turboprops have a very big advantage when it comes to fuel burn. Generally to travel say 1000nm a turboprop will consume 75% of the fuel. The turboprop will take longer to travel that distance but it will do so using less fuel.

KC-390
81T max takeoff.
38T empty weight.

C-130J
79T max takeoff.
35T empty weight

Now let's say the KC-390 filled up with 20T of fuel bringing its weight to 58T. That leaves 23T before hitting max takeoff weight.

The C-130 to travel the same distance would burn only 15T of fuel due to its 75%. That would bring it's weight up to 50T. That leaves a massive 29T for payload before hitting the 79t maximum takeoff weight. This shows the headroom the C-130J has for emergency and war situations.

Payload is limited for peace time purely to increase airframe life. The C-130J for instance at maximum payload must land if its fuel capacity in the wings drops below 50%. This is reflected by the C-130J's relatively low range at max payload. The weight of the fuel is used to reduce wing root bending movement purely for peace time airframe life. This restriction is not all bad news it means the C-130J has plenty of fuel to return from the combat zone which is very realistic.

During the evacuation of Vietnam the C-130's regularly took off with over 30T payloads. The newer C-130J could lift 35T a short distance if it had to.

The C-130J can lift more by weight, lift more by volume, fly further, land on a shorter runway and then takeoff from a shorter runway. All on the one mission. It can even loose an engine due to enemy fire and still get the job done.

The KC-390 will be a very hard sell. Low end militaries will go used herc's. High end militaries will use new herc's as a tactical airlift and for the speed part they have a larger faster C-17's.

New Zealand is probably the only country I can think of that would prefer the KC-390. It flies relatively long flights to Australia where its speed would be an advantage. New zealand would rarely send aircraft to the front line of a war zone where the extreme tactical performance of a C-130 would be required.
 
ZKNCI
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:38 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:42 am

RJMAZ wrote:

The C-130J can lift more by weight, lift more by volume, fly further, land on a shorter runway and then takeoff from a shorter runway. All on the one mission. It can even loose an engine due to enemy fire and still get the job done.

The KC-390 will be a very hard sell. Low end militaries will go used herc's. High end militaries will use new herc's as a tactical airlift and for the speed part they have a larger faster C-17's.

New Zealand is probably the only country I can think of that would prefer the KC-390. It flies relatively long flights to Australia where its speed would be an advantage. New zealand would rarely send aircraft to the front line of a war zone where the extreme tactical performance of a C-130 would be required.


Range is probably more important than speed: currently there is a point of no return en route to Antarctica. Pass it, you're landing on the ice no matter what. Highly undesirable due to the weather down there. Not sure whether AAR would be considered, as NZ lost that capability with the Skyhawk buddy pods. The C-17 is no longer in production and is too big for RNZAF facilities, but would have had the range. It probably would have been a good idea to fund an aircraft for a joint RNZAF-RAAF squadron, as Antarctica is the only op which could really use a C-17.

Tactical performance is still useful, as the RNZAF handles emergency relief in the region, so the ability to land in a field if need be after a natural disaster is a plus. Not to mention showing off at airshows!
All currently managed by five 50+-year-old H-Hercs! Who knows which way it will go, but those Hercs aren't getting younger
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:08 pm

Embraer just released a promo video of the KC Testing Campagn

https://youtu.be/b0NKw7GD2gg
 
Nean1
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:39 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Nean1 wrote:
RJMaz,

Thanks for the link, I did not know it. In the short comparison I used the same sources (Wikipedia), so that someone should be presenting bad information.

Turboprops have a very big advantage when it comes to fuel burn. Generally to travel say 1000nm a turboprop will consume 75% of the fuel. The turboprop will take longer to travel that distance but it will do so using less fuel.

KC-390
81T max takeoff.
38T empty weight.

C-130J
79T max takeoff.
35T empty weight

Now let's say the KC-390 filled up with 20T of fuel bringing its weight to 58T. That leaves 23T before hitting max takeoff weight.

The C-130 to travel the same distance would burn only 15T of fuel due to its 75%. That would bring it's weight up to 50T. That leaves a massive 29T for payload before hitting the 79t maximum takeoff weight. This shows the headroom the C-130J has for emergency and war situations.

Payload is limited for peace time purely to increase airframe life. The C-130J for instance at maximum payload must land if its fuel capacity in the wings drops below 50%. This is reflected by the C-130J's relatively low range at max payload. The weight of the fuel is used to reduce wing root bending movement purely for peace time airframe life. This restriction is not all bad news it means the C-130J has plenty of fuel to return from the combat zone which is very realistic.

During the evacuation of Vietnam the C-130's regularly took off with over 30T payloads. The newer C-130J could lift 35T a short distance if it had to.

The C-130J can lift more by weight, lift more by volume, fly further, land on a shorter runway and then takeoff from a shorter runway. All on the one mission. It can even loose an engine due to enemy fire and still get the job done.

The KC-390 will be a very hard sell. Low end militaries will go used herc's. High end militaries will use new herc's as a tactical airlift and for the speed part they have a larger faster C-17's.

New Zealand is probably the only country I can think of that would prefer the KC-390. It flies relatively long flights to Australia where its speed would be an advantage. New zealand would rarely send aircraft to the front line of a war zone where the extreme tactical performance of a C-130 would be required.



RJMAZ,

There is a problem with your numbers, since you do not bring the sources and some conclusions are quite speculative. You also fail in a fundamental aspect that is respect for symmetrical criteria.

To make it more objective I'll employ this source, comparing with the KC130J version, which is most similar to the KC-390:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... 202015.pdf

Max take-off weight (2.5g). . 164,000 lb / 74,389 kg
Payload (2.5 g) *. . . . . . . . . . . . 41,224 lb / 18,699 kg
Operating weight empty. . . . 87.276 lb / 39.588 kg
Zero fuel weight **. . . . . . . . 128,500 lb / 58,287 kg
Landing distance (135,000 lbs.). . . . . . . . . . 3,100 ft
Maximum cruise speed. . . . . 325 KTAS / 605 km / hr

obs: Unlike the KC-390 there is no probe for the KC-130J to be refueled in flight.

With respect to Vietnam you say that at war the manuals can be forgotten and the C-130J would have a much greater effective load capacity than the certificate. There is a famous story of an Israeli 747 that transported 1122 Ethiopians (there were many children and thin people). As a matter of justice, I ask you what would be the carrying capacity of KC-390 if only the laws of physics needed to be respected? Theoretically, a device without fly-by-wire, larger wingspan and lower wing fuel load, such as C130J, would be at a disadvantage.

The KC-390 has many similarities to the A321ceo. Both use full fly-by-wire technology, the same IAE 2500 engines, have the same wingspan, and their wings have advanced features to improve lift. The maximum take-off weight of the A321 is 93 t (A320 = 78 t), while the KC-390 is limited to 81 t. The A321neo version reaches 97 t. So if I have to make a speculation of what could be a version of an heavyweight KC-390 I would say that there is still plenty of room for growth. I do not need to remember that the KC-390 is still seeking its initial certification, while the C-130J for a much older project has already received several optimizations.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:46 am

Nean1 wrote:
RJMAZ,

There is a problem with your numbers....

Max take-off weight (2.5g). . 164,000 lb / 74,389 kg
Payload (2.5 g) *. . . . . . . . . . . . 41,224 lb / 18,699 kg
Operating weight empty. . . . 87.276 lb / 39.588 kg
Zero fuel weight **. . . . . . . . 128,500 lb / 58,287 kg
Landing distance (135,000 lbs.). . . . . . . . . . 3,100 ft
Maximum cruise speed. . . . . 325 KTAS / 605 km / hr

You seem cherry picking data yo try and make the KC-390 look superior. You previously stated the C-130J could carry 20T now it is only 18,699kg. You've just supplied the weights up to 2.5G limit. The aircraft has to be much lighter to allow for 2.5G maneuvers. 2.5g is actually the max limit for most large aircraft.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

The maximum takeoff weight for the C-130J is 175,000 lbs / 79,380 kg obviously the aircraft can't perform aerobatics at such a heavy weight.


Nean1 wrote:
obs: Unlike the KC-390 there is no probe for the KC-130J to be refueled in flight..

Image
Plenty of C-130J's are refueled in flight. The vast majority of countries that fly the C-130 have no inflight refueling aircraft anyway.

Nean1 wrote:
As a matter of justice, I ask you what would be the carrying capacity of KC-390 if only the laws of physics needed to be respected? Theoretically, a device without fly-by-wire, larger wingspan and lower wing fuel load, such as C130J, would be at a disadvantage.

Completely wrong. The C-130J's in Vietnam weren't taking off at a higher maximum takeoff weight. They were simply taking off with very little fuel but with more payload. So the runway required was the same, the weight on the tyres were the same.

The KC-390 has no such ability as it has no headroom to do so. The lower fuel load of the C-130J still allows it to fly further as its engines burn less fuel. The KC-390's fuel capacity of 23.9T when used means it can only carry 18-19T before hitting the maximum takeoff weight. The KC-390 must significantly reduce its fuel load to carry its 26T payload.

Comparisons with the KC-390's and A321's wingspan as proof that the KC-390 had room for growth is laughable. Fly by wire doesnt allow the aircraft to lift more either. Wings are extremely complex. The A321 operates from 8000 foot runways. You aren't going to find one of those on the battlefield.
 
Nean1
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:59 pm

Ozair wrote:
YuriMG2 wrote:
You should do a little more research on the country military techs.

I’m generally not the guy you accuse of not doing any research…

YuriMG2 wrote:
Brazil is not a first world advanced 1 trillion dollar defense budget country, but its no Haiti either

I don’t think anyone referred to Brazil as Haiti. What we do know is that Brazil does not rank in the top 20 for arms exporters globally and most exports from Brazil comprise smalls arms and ammunition which are reasonably low tech exports.

Image

Brazil has every opportunity to increase that and the KC-390 probably has a big role to play in that increase, but right now Brazil is comparatively not a large exporter and doesn’t have a lot of agreements or track record with countries in that area.

Nean1 wrote:
Ozair,
Your line of reasoning confuses me a little. First, you say that the US does not need the best equipment, and then you say that any solution made to the US will be technically cutting-edge, above the requirements of other countries.

I thought that point was clear but I will try again.

If we look at what the US has, in some areas its weapons and systems dominates, in others it does not. Overall, the US would probably be classed as the most proficient and combat capable military, but that proficiency is not directly related to high end military equipment being operated in every category.

Take the USMC for example. It has the MV-22, a top end high tech cutting edge piece of equipment., expensive to acquire, costly to operate but it comes with great capabilities. On the flip side, it operates the UH-1 in various forms. A good helicopter but no world breaker.

In a similar fashion the USMC operate the AAV-7 which is not a modern piece of equipment and we could probably find better armed and armoured vehicles in service with other nations. How the Marines use it, and how the AAV-7 fits into their overall battle concept and how often and realistic they train, allows them to compensate for any perceived deficiencies against other systems.

Nean1 wrote:
I believe you meant that "We can spend a lot of time employing obsolete equipment (B-52, C-130, KC-135 ...) until we can design and produce something in America that will revolutionize the industry."

No. I was considering that a future US tactical transport aircraft for the USAF has a chance of being, for example, VTOL. That won’t come cheap and will likely be reasonably complex to maintain but will fulfil the requirements the USAF has. I don’t see that type of airframe appealing to the large number of existing C-130 operators so exports may be limited.

Nean1 wrote:
Japan: (1) The country has no tradition as an arms exporter and (2) the fact that the C-2 is not designed to operate on semi-prepared runways. This puts C-2 in the strategic transport category, a very small and expensive niche. Any western customer would try before buying some used C-17 or A400.

What we don’t see are used large military transports on the international market, no chance of a used C-17 anytime soon that is for sure. Perhaps used German Air Force A400M given they have already indicated they are willing to sell but that market is limited.

I agree though, at the moment Japan has a limited defence export industry. How that changes over the next 15 years will directly impact the C-2 as a potential, albeit heavyweight, competitor to the KC-390.

We have had an extensive discussion in the A400M thread about semi-prepared runways and the requirement to land on them. I think there is a market for transports that do not have that capability as so few nations require it, but only time will tell if that is true.

Nean1 wrote:
Russia: Il-76 has an impressive capacity, but few recent exports and a good part of them for a market that will close (China). The Il-276 (ex-Il-214) looks a lot like the KC-390, but there are doubts as to whether this troubled project will be implemented.

The IL-76 had the largest manufactured fleet of any modern military transport above C-130 size. The new IL-76, or IL-476, has every chance of being an export success given the large number of current operators and an established Russian military export program.

Nean1 wrote:
China: The Y-20 belongs to another category of aircraft (2.5 x KC-390), a very disputed segment. With Russian turbofans, the efficiency and durability of turbines appears as a point of fragility.

I already indicated the Y-20 was on the big size to compete. I still expect we will see something out of China in the next ten years for the smaller transport segment, whether an updated Y-8 or turbofan aircraft will have to wait and see.

Nean1 wrote:
Ukraine: With all the political and industrial problems, the traditional manufacturer Antonov should not have a competitive product. The A-178 is perhaps a bit small for the task.

Hence why I didn’t list Ukraine.

Nean1 wrote:
I believe the actual competitors are the C-130J and Chinese Y-8.

Well NZ is a perfect example of a nation that has a fleet of C-130 that they are looking to replace. They have expressed interest and are looking at four different aircraft, the C-130J, KC-390, A400M and the C-2. I think for some customers all four will compete but for others the two smaller airframes may be preferred.


Ozair,

The list of the 20 largest arms exporting countries presents some quite problematic. There are China, South Korea, Turkey and Belarus, with the proverbial difficulty with the command of the English language. Also appears the Ukraine that follows in a civil war. Also on the list is Israel, with bad or no connection with much of the Islamic world. On the other hand Brazil has good relations practically all over the world.

Embraer Services & Support supports more than 2000 aircraft in all the world. It has recently been reorganized to support all business areas (commercial, executive and defense). As I said in 15 years Embraer started from a 0% stake in the executive segment to customer satisfaction levels rivaling Gulfstream, a traditional leader.

In the KC-390 program Boeing has a partnership with Embraer for sales and after-sales support in markets where its share is strong. If the association with Embraer goes ahead, it is also natural that Boeing should dispute head-to-head with LM, including for the US Armed Forces inventory. The same Boeing is on the T-X program with an ambitious proposal, with a totally new trainer aircraft.

With regard to Russian Il-76 and its successors I am quite skeptical about the their ability to adapt the aircraft to contemporary needs, produce it in significant quantity and provide the expected customer support. I think the Chinese Y-20 will take its place.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:08 am

Nean1 wrote:

Ozair,

The list of the 20 largest arms exporting countries presents some quite problematic. There are China, South Korea, Turkey and Belarus, with the proverbial difficulty with the command of the English language. Also appears the Ukraine that follows in a civil war. Also on the list is Israel, with bad or no connection with much of the Islamic world. On the other hand Brazil has good relations practically all over the world.

I didn’t make that list up, it is based on data collected by a respected international organisation. Who comprises that list ten years from now will likely be different. As for your claims on China, South Korea, Turkey etc command of English that clearly isn’t an issue given their export success.

If we took South Korea as an example, they have had great success exporting the K-9 SP Howitzer. They have exported systems to India, Finland, Norway, Poland, Estonia, will co-manufacture with Turkey and may get an Egyptian contract this year.

For a small country who apparently don’t speak good English they seem to be very successful on the global export market…

Nean1 wrote:
Embraer Services & Support supports more than 2000 aircraft in all the world. It has recently been reorganized to support all business areas (commercial, executive and defense). As I said in 15 years Embraer started from a 0% stake in the executive segment to customer satisfaction levels rivaling Gulfstream, a traditional leader.

Which is great and should put them in a good position to sell the aircraft broadly but typically when these acquisitions occur they are made at the government to government level.

Nean1 wrote:
In the KC-390 program Boeing has a partnership with Embraer for sales and after-sales support in markets where its share is strong. If the association with Embraer goes ahead, it is also natural that Boeing should dispute head-to-head with LM, including for the US Armed Forces inventory. The same Boeing is on the T-X program with an ambitious proposal, with a totally new trainer aircraft.

I personally think the matchup with Boeing is being oversold. If Embraer has such a global footprint as you state, then I see little incentive for Boeing to assist except in the areas I have already indicated, which is the understanding and history of dealing with military export, which Embraer clearly lacks.

For the US inventory, I still don’t get why you keep pushing this. Boeing cannot create a need from the US Military for a KC-390 transport, it requires years of US military internal requirements definitions and needs analysis and results in a tender process, at which point Boeing, and LM and whoever else can bid.

Nean1 wrote:
With regard to Russian Il-76 and its successors I am quite skeptical about the their ability to adapt the aircraft to contemporary needs, produce it in significant quantity and provide the expected customer support. I think the Chinese Y-20 will take its place.

Russia continues to export equipment around the world despite their reportedly poor post acquisition sustainment.

As for the IL-76
Lieutenant General Vladimir Benediktov, head of Russia’s military transport aviation command (Voyenno-Transportnoy Aviatsii, VTA), announced at the beginning of October that the Russian Air Force would require 150-200 new Il-76MD-90A transports by the end of the 2020s.
The announcement was made by Lt Gen Benediktov while visiting the Aviastar-SP factory at Ulyanovsk Vostochny Airport in the Ulyanovsk Oblast, where he inspected a number of different aircraft types currently under construction at the plant. He also stated that the Ministry of Defence is happy with the progress being made in the development, with a reported 25% or more efficiency increase over the legacy Il-76 models.
The current production plan is to have 39 delivered by 2021, with a rate of 21 a year from then on. This is approximately four years later than planned; the original government resolution was issued in 2006. The delays are believed to have been due to Aviastar-SP having to redevelop static test procedures when aircraft production was transferred from Tashkent TAPO in Uzbekistan to Ulyanovsk.
The VTA currently has 144 Il-76 transports in service, the oldest of which was delivered to the Soviet Air Force around 1981. Up to 14 of them have been upgraded to the MD-90 standard with new PS-90A-76 engines in the last 10 years. Despite this, it is estimated that more than 50% of the current Il-76 fleet is grounded in a non-airworthy condition. This is putting an ever increasing strain on the ones that are airworthy.
It is believed that five MD-90A variants have been completed, the first four as test aircraft and the fifth delivered to the VTA's 610th Centre for Combat Employment and Personnel Retraining at Ivanovo Air Force Base.

http://www.janes.com/article/74711/russ ... transports

Some Russian claims you take with a grain of salt but the production estimates, and the domestic need, signal a decent production run (even if they delivered only half that amount) for the new IL-76MD. That makes a good case for production efficiencies, and the opportunity for export. Given the previous aircraft sold very well and, with the Y-20, will be the only in production military transports above 40t payload, there is clearly a market segment to compete in. Whether the Y-20 or IL-76MD wins is up for debate but I would put my money on Russia and their extensive export network to see some success.
 
Nean1
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:17 am

RJMAZ,

1) "So besides a 40% higher cruising speed the C-130J is superior in every metric." We all know that is a total bull@@@hit.

2) "Lots of new C-130J's being purchased means lots of C-130H's being retired that can be refurbished."
To refurbish an C-130 is not easy and inexpensive task, there is a lot of work and new equipments. Meanwhile old C-130Hs can be quite dangerous, such as the last year fatal accident during a FAP training show us.

3) "During the evacuation of Vietnam the C-130's regularly took off with over 30T payloads. The newer C-130J could lift 35T a short distance if it had to.The C-130J can lift more by weight, ..."
This information is incorrect and you know that LM does not endorse this capability (35 ton). I await a correction.

4) "It can even loose an engine due to enemy fire and still get the job done."
You are aware that in the last 60 years the number considered ideal engines has been greatly reduced. Even the US Navy acepted a single-engine fighter (F-35C). The C-130 especially when loaded and with an external engine inoperative, is an aircraft of difficult control.

5) "You seem cherry picking data yo try and make the KC-390 look superior."
I did not compare the KC-390 with the KC-130J to seek to favor the Embraer aircraft, but because they are the most directly competing models. The LM aircraft has other advantages as the broad customer base and because there are specialized versions.

6) "Plenty of C-130J's are refueled in flight. The vast majority of countries that fly the C-130 have no inflight refueling aircraft anyway."

LM's KC-130 brochure makes it clear that it comes with optional equipment ie it is not an standard equipment, such as the KC-390.

"Optional fuselage tank available to increase fuel offload
Receive Fuel
• Receive fuel from a boom-type aerial tanker
• Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation (UARRSI)
• Receive fuel from a hose and drogue aerial tanker when equipped with an
Aerial Refueling Probe Installation System (ARPIS)"

Is quite rare to see a KC-130J with probe, and without them there is no way for a KC-130J to refuel another ( buddy-refueling). Few airforces uses Flying boom.

7) "Fly by wire doesnt allow the aircraft to lift more either."
The KC-390's FBY system gives the aircraft an envelope protection (Stol, VMO, bank, AOA,...) which avoids unnecessary structural stress. This may not change the load capacity according to civil certification rules but gives the possibility of reviewing the limits for military use. And also make de air-to-air refuelling easier


8) Please see: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... airlift-je
 
Nean1
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:52 am

There is a great deal of conformism to the leadership of the C-130, as if this were something recorded in the scriptures. If we thought that until very recently the only directly comparable equipment was the Chinese Y-8, maybe this mentality made sense.

From the moment the KC-390 is certified and can be produced in the US by Boeing, the C-130 monopoly ends. Some of the people who deny this possibility are the same ones who are convinced that the CS-100/300 will be produced by Airbus in Mobile-AL.

That will not be nice to LM, no one likes to lose a monopoly. But the advancement of turbofans is inexorable.

If we go back to the time when the Boeing 737-200 / DC-9 eliminated the chances of four-engine turboprops like the Lockheed Electra we will see that the same JT-8 engines (~ 16,000 lbf) still did not serve properly for a tactical transport aircraft. The nice C-1 Kawasaki aircraft proved to be very unhelpful for the tiny load and range (Range: 1,810 nmi with max fuel & 2.300 kg) payload. Almost 50 years later, the turbofans used by single-aisle aircraft are much more powerful, economical and robust, which will allow the KC-390 to carry a 10x greater load for almost the same distance (Range: 1,520 nmi & 23.000 kg) !
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:05 am

The prototype that had a incident back in october will fly again tomorrow after some structural repair. Source is a user in the PoderAereo website.
 
bunumuring
Topic Author
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:16 pm

YuriMG2 wrote:
The prototype that had a incident back in october will fly again tomorrow after some structural repair. Source is a user in the PoderAereo website.


Thanks for that information.
Wonder if any modifications were made?
Cheers
Bunumuring
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:07 pm

Embraer e SkyTech assinam carta de intenção para até seis aeronaves multimissão KC-390

http://www.aereo.jor.br/2018/02/05/embr ... ao-kc-390/


SkyTech signed a intention to buy 6 KC-390.

The order took place in the Singapura Air Show today.

SkyTech is a HiFly (Portugal) and Adagold Aviation (Australia) joint venture (I think).

Image
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:33 pm

This makes 35 firm orders and 31 intentional order (plus Sweden with a undisclosed number)

Firm Orders
Brazil: 30
Portugal: 5

Intention
Portugal: 1
Colombia: 12
Chile: 6
Argentina: 6
Czech Republic: 6
SkyTech: 6
Sweden: Undisclosed

There are also negotiations with Italy, Bolivia, New Zeland and UAE.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:31 am

YuriMG2 wrote:
SkyTech signed a intention to buy 6 KC-390.

The order took place in the Singapura Air Show today.

How do you see Skytech using these, as contract military transport for rough field work for Africa, Middle East etc or in some commercial arrangement?

YuriMG2 wrote:
This makes 35 firm orders and 31 intentional order (plus Sweden with a undisclosed number)

The correct English terminology would be potential order, not intentional.

YuriMG2 wrote:
Firm Orders
Brazil: 30
Portugal: 5

Intention
Portugal: 1
Colombia: 12
Chile: 6
Argentina: 6
Czech Republic: 6
SkyTech: 6
Sweden: Undisclosed

There are also negotiations with Italy, Bolivia, New Zeland and UAE.

So of the potential orders we have a number that have been interested for a long period of time but have still not locked in a firm order. It is likely that a number are waiting for the aircraft to IOC, and potentially FOC, with the Brazilian Air Force before they order so perhaps in one to two years there will be some firming of this interest. I expect 2020 should be a good year for the KC-390.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 647
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:57 am

Ozair wrote:
YuriMG2 wrote:
SkyTech signed a intention to buy 6 KC-390.

The order took place in the Singapura Air Show today.

How do you see Skytech using these, as contract military transport for rough field work for Africa, Middle East etc or in some commercial arrangement?

A decent amount of previously military transports is used for commercial and civilian purposes. I expect there to be some demand for transporting outsized cargo that does not warrant an An-124, similar to what the An-12 does today.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:20 am

mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
YuriMG2 wrote:
SkyTech signed a intention to buy 6 KC-390.

The order took place in the Singapura Air Show today.

How do you see Skytech using these, as contract military transport for rough field work for Africa, Middle East etc or in some commercial arrangement?

A decent amount of previously military transports is used for commercial and civilian purposes. I expect there to be some demand for transporting outsized cargo that does not warrant an An-124, similar to what the An-12 does today.

Agree and also the IL-76 but almost all of these are acquired second hand from surplus stocks while this appears to be a new purchase. LM had comparatively few takers for the civilian L100, MDD/Boeing had no interest for the CF-17, I don't see any interest in a commercial A400M and Japan is offering a commercial C-2 with little interest. The business case appears questionable to acquire a new build military transport when the use, commercial value and infrequent need for outsized cargo is low.
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:22 am

Ozair wrote:
How do you see Skytech using these, as contract military transport for rough field work for Africa, Middle East etc or in some commercial arrangement

The correct English terminology would be potential order, not intentional.

So of the potential orders we have a number that have been interested for a long period of time but have still not locked in a firm order. It is likely that a number are waiting for the aircraft to IOC, and potentially FOC, with the Brazilian Air Force before they order so perhaps in one to two years there will be some firming of this interest. I expect 2020 should be a good year for the KC-390.


Not really sure, I know little about this company. But the KC390 is expected to have a Civil certification too (Brazilian Postal Service wants them and in the Brochura u can see the KC390 with Fedex paint), maybe SkyTech wants the Civil KC390. If so this order will take time to became a firm order.

Thanks, I will edit that.

Most of the countries that signed a Potential Order are tight defense budget countries. If u take the 3 countries that are together with Brazil in the program, Portugal already confirmed the orders but I think TR and Argentina will still take some time, specially Argentina which is in a really bad shape right now.

Colombia and Chile as u said I think they will wait untill the aircraft becomes operational and in use with the FAB and FAP. Its a guess but I think the next country to make a firm order will be Sweden. The Grippen deal is doing fine so far so I guess Brazilian Government will make some pressure.

Its a total different world when you have low budget countries developing a program, its not like the A400 that those deep pocket nations just threw a lot of money in the program even with all the troubles until it worked. If what happened with the A400 happened with the KC390 the program wouldve been killed in the first year. lol
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:36 am

Image

That 5 + 20 was the potential order that Brazilian Postal Service made earlier, I dont know if that deal is still in negotiation.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11643
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:58 am

bunumuring wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm loving the discussion... Keep it up!
Just a minor point, the Kawasaki C-2 transitted Australia last last year on its way to NZ for demonstration fights, just like the KC-390 did earlier in the year to 'trigger' this thread.
Cheers,
Bunumuring


I believe C-2 has a much better chance in NZ than the KC-390. Although I think it's the A400 which will get the nod.
 
bunumuring
Topic Author
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:33 pm

Hey guys,
Re: the Skytech order.... Could some be headed to Antarctica?
This is certainly an interesting order.
Cheers,
Bunumuring
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:17 pm

Embraer Lands KC-390 Interest for Leasing Deals

Embraer Defense & Security has announced that it has received a Letter of Intent for up to six KC-390 multi-mission transports from aviation services company SkyTech, which intends to supply them to military customers under lease agreements similar to those employed in the commercial aviation sector. Negotiations are under way with a view to having the aircraft delivered starting late in 2020, and SkyTech envisions a potential market that could lead to further purchases.

SkyTech aims to acquire the aircraft in full NATO military specification, including optional inflight refueling capability, and lease them to air arms. They will remain the property of the company, but will be military-registered and operated by air force crews. Lease terms could vary, but would typically be 10, 12 or 15 years. A service provision arrangement would be entertained if a government required it, but the long-term lease offers the most attractive proposition for most potential customers.

For those customers, the arrangement not only greatly reduces start-up costs by removing the acquisition element, but would also permit upgrading at the end of the lease term, with SkyTech taking the outgoing aircraft and re-leasing them to other air forces at a lower rate. Meanwhile, the original lessee could acquire a fleet of much newer aircraft, allowing the force to maintain currency with technology and refresh the operational fleet at reduced intervals compared with a traditional outright acquisition program.

full article: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... sing-deals


thats interesting
 
Ozair
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:24 pm

YuriMG2 wrote:

thats interesting


I agree, very interesting. So we aren’t looking at a contract arrangement but a leasing option. Makes sense now and the mission of SkyTech becomes trying to find a home for six KC-390 in the next couple of years. I think this plan has a much greater chance of success than attempting to use the KC-390 commercially. Will be interesting to see if and where they place these and I could see two or three different customers for the six aircraft.
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:41 pm

Ozair wrote:
YuriMG2 wrote:

thats interesting


I agree, very interesting. So we aren’t looking at a contract arrangement but a leasing option. Makes sense now and the mission of SkyTech becomes trying to find a home for six KC-390 in the next couple of years. I think this plan has a much greater chance of success than attempting to use the KC-390 commercially. Will be interesting to see if and where they place these and I could see two or three different customers for the six aircraft.


Yes. What I understood is that SkyTech would buy the KCs and lease them to nations that couldnt afford now a Military Cargo Aircraft, and also providing maintance service and training for the country.

Am I wrong?
 
Noray
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:07 pm

Air&Cosmos speculate that the SkyTech deal may actually be the concretisation of the Portuguese order.

In this case SkyTech would lease the aircraft to Portugal (and possible other customers), and you'd have to remove the Portuguese order from your list.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:30 pm

YuriMG2 wrote:
Yes. What I understood is that SkyTech would buy the KCs and lease them to nations that couldn’t afford now a Military Cargo Aircraft, and also providing maintenance service and training for the country.

Am I wrong?

That is very feasible, essentially what SAAB has done with Gripen leases in Europe.
Noray wrote:
Air&Cosmos speculate that the SkyTech deal may actually be the concretisation of the Portuguese order.

In this case SkyTech would lease the aircraft to Portugal (and possible other customers), and you'd have to remove the Portuguese order from your list.

Interesting, thanks for that source.

This article http://observador.pt/2017/07/27/governo ... incendios/
from last year indicates that Portugal hasn’t actually firmed an order for the KC-390 yet and talks about a projected IOC date of 2021 if and when the order happens. That gels with the possibility of SkyTech, a part Portuguese company, leasing the jets to the Government.
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:58 pm

Speculation that anyone could've come with. Instead being the 6 Portugal wants, it could be another 6 for Australian, since the company is also Australian, its easy to speculate, see?

This article has no source, no indication of anything, just a guess.

Its not impossible but in a article says that this SkyTech has talked with governments air forces about this kind of market, so I dont think it would be just a kind of deal because Portugal is in a bad shape financially, but actually this company trying to find a niche.
 
Nean1
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:31 pm

[quote="YuriMG2"]Speculation that anyone could've come with. Instead being the 6 Portugal wants, it could be another 6 for Australian, since the company is also Australian, its easy to speculate, see?

This article has no source, no indication of anything, just a guess.

Its not impossible but in a article says that this SkyTech has talked with governments air forces about this kind of market, so I dont think it would be just a
 
Ozair
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:56 pm

Nean1 wrote:
YuriMG2 wrote:
Speculation that anyone could've come with. Instead being the 6 Portugal wants, it could be another 6 for Australian, since the company is also Australian, its easy to speculate, see?

This article has no source, no indication of anything, just a guess.

Its not impossible but in a article says that this SkyTech has talked with governments air forces about this kind of market, so I dont think it would be just a


Sure but there is nothing wrong with us guessing and filling in the gaps as more information becomes available, this is the KC-390 prospects thread after all...

Given the vague nature of SkyTech it should no surprise this type of speculation is occurring.
 
Noray
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:04 am

YuriMG2 wrote:
Speculation that anyone could've come with.
...
This article has no source, no indication of anything, just a guess.

It's an assessment made by a defence journalist. Air&Cosmos isn't just anyone. But of course the article says that it's just a possibility. Time will tell.

YuriMG2 wrote:
Its not impossible but in a article says that this SkyTech has talked with governments air forces about this kind of market, so I dont think it would be just a kind of deal because Portugal is in a bad shape financially, but actually this company trying to find a niche.

The Portuguese Air Force is a government's air force as well, and it' s much safer to start a new business model when you already have a large customer at hand.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:24 am

Commercial freight is very interesting.

It's a very tough market with cheap passenger to freight conversions of both the 767 and A330 families. Oversized cargo can go in Soviet era military transports or through the nose of existing 747 freighter.

Maybe being from Brazil the price can be attractive enough to make the numbers work. Usually military airlifters have inferior fuel burn compared to airliners due to the increased cruise drag of the STOL designs. I'm not sure if the newer engines in the KC-390 could make up for this.

Oversized freight demand to rural areas is probably increasing so maybe the commercial market could support the KC-390.

Does FedEx for example have any routes currently used by props that could be upguaged?

I would have thought any route that has significant freight demand would have an airport big enough to support a 767 freighter.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:01 am

YuriMG2 wrote:
Image

That 5 + 20 was the potential order that Brazilian Postal Service made earlier, I dont know if that deal is still in negotiation.



The KC-390 looks very nice in that blue/yellow Correios livery! Thanks for posting!
 
Ozair
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:27 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Commercial freight is very interesting.

It's a very tough market with cheap passenger to freight conversions of both the 767 and A330 families. Oversized cargo can go in Soviet era military transports or through the nose of existing 747 freighter.
Maybe being from Brazil the price can be attractive enough to make the numbers work. Usually military airlifters have inferior fuel burn compared to airliners due to the increased cruise drag of the STOL designs. I'm not sure if the newer engines in the KC-390 could make up for this.
Oversized freight demand to rural areas is probably increasing so maybe the commercial market could support the KC-390.

Agree, history tells us there is little commercial return in a military transport used for commercial purposes, the number of trade-offs to provide that transport with the specialized capabilities it requires makes it uncompetitive against commercial freighters from the majors.
The only niche cases are outsized cargo or rough field performance and frankly I don’t see a viable market to support those use cases that isn’t covered by existing providers, whose jets will continue to fly for many years to come.

RJMAZ wrote:
Does FedEx for example have any routes currently used by props that could be ungauged?

I would have thought any route that has significant freight demand would have an airport big enough to support a 767 freighter.

Painting a brochure is great free Fedex advertising but I don’t see any justifiable reason for Fedex to order the KC-390.
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:55 pm

Good news

1 - The prototype that had a incident in flying again.

https://www.flightradar24.com/PROVA341/10971d16

2 - FAB is already making preparations to receive 2 aircrafts this year.

In this link (in portuguese sorry) there is a lot of info. Like the aircraft program is 97% done. It already did the high temperature and artificial ice test. Next step is ice and snow for the antartida operation.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/2018/03/02/kc-3 ... ta-da-fab/
 
WIederling
Posts: 6835
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:55 pm

Ozair wrote:
Painting a brochure is great free Fedex advertising but I don’t see any justifiable reason for Fedex to order the KC-390.


An outspoken part of the audience here invariably ohs and ahhs any $best_airframer_model in $more_or_less_far_fetched_customers livery rendering.
( actually there is a whole website pandering to that leaning :-)

Where is your beef in someone posting just another hopeful rendering not even a single "777!" ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8376
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:12 pm

WIederling wrote:
Where is your beef in someone posting just another hopeful rendering not even a single "777!" ?

Wait, that can't be it, this is a military capable aircraft. The FedEX livery must be to disguise secret US military missions since the US is always intent on taking over the world, looking for anyway to perform a "first strike" and get away with it....

At least in your mind that is.

I do quite like the KC-390 and think it looks great in those schemes. I could see it being a good hauler for rough service areas etc. But the problem is there are cheaper aircraft for such areas (and I suspect the capacity and speed aren't needed as much for those ares either).

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
WIederling
Posts: 6835
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:23 pm

Tugger wrote:
At least in your mind that is.

What your minds thinks my mind thinks.
I'll have to ask my Eustace about this.

L100 has civil applications. French Post Office used C160 for a while.
Lots of C130 though operated by the military, are used for rural transport. what about privatization .-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8376
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:47 pm

WIederling wrote:
Tugger wrote:
At least in your mind that is.

What your minds thinks my mind thinks.
I'll have to ask my Eustace about this.

L100 has civil applications. French Post Office used C160 for a while.
Lots of C130 though operated by the military, are used for rural transport. what about privatization .-)

No worries WIederling, just haranguing you a bit and really there is no need for me to.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
User avatar
YuriMG2
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:54 pm

"KC-390 PT-ZNF back in the sky of Gavião Peixoto

Image

*article in Portuguese

http://www.aereo.jor.br/2018/03/02/pt-znf-volta-aos-ceus-de-gaviao-peixoto/"
 
WIederling
Posts: 6835
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:23 am

Tugger wrote:
No worries WIederling, just haranguing you a bit and really there is no need for me to.

Tugg

I'll wring your pen dry eventually :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Nean1
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 11:08 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:57 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
bunumuring wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm loving the discussion... Keep it up!
Just a minor point, the Kawasaki C-2 transitted Australia last last year on its way to NZ for demonstration fights, just like the KC-390 did earlier in the year to 'trigger' this thread.
Cheers,
Bunumuring


I believe C-2 has a much better chance in NZ than the KC-390. Although I think it's the A400 which will get the nod.


Kiwirob,

By logic the favorites are the C-130J, KC-390, A400 and C2, in this order.

The Airbus plane has not yet managed to get rid of a troublesome maintenance reputation. In the link below there is information about availability even worse than the worst suspicions, this in a high-level technical air force:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... va-446491/

"......These include the air force's Airbus Defence & Space A400Ms, which boasted a deployability rate of 38%, or just three of the service's 15-aircraft total......."

As for C-2, the price is expected to be much higher than the KC-390 (~ 136 vs 85 MM USD), as well as the operating cost. Its manufacturer has little to show in terms of customer technical support.
 
Noray
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:54 am

Nean1 wrote:
this in a high-level technical air force

It's actually a high-level bureaucracy air force plagued by a series of "reforms" (downsizings). The RAF seems to have a better experience with the A400M.

Nean1 wrote:

"a deployability rate of 38%, or just three of the service's 15-aircraft total......."

I don't know why they spread such nonsense about their own A400M fleet and make it look even worse than it is. "Three of the service's 15-aircraft total" would be 20%. But according to the original report, "three" actually is the average deployability for 2017. However, 15 is not an average, but the total they had received by the end of 2017. Eight of these were only delivered during the course of 2017, see A400M production list. So the average for 2017 is approximately 10 aircraft. It's more reasonable to say "or just three of the service's 10-aircraft average".

The report also states that eight aircraft were available on average (that's where the "38%" comes from), so an average of two were in retrofit or long-term maintenance.

While 38% doesn't look good, we're still at the beginning of the bathtub curve. New customers will receive aircraft that don't suffer from most of the defects that have caused the low deployability rate so far.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2965
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:39 am

Nean1 wrote:

As for C-2, the price is expected to be much higher than the KC-390 (~ 136 vs 85 MM USD), as well as the operating cost. Its manufacturer has little to show in terms of customer technical support.

That price diffence makes sense though given the C-2 has a longer range and a greater payload capacity (40% greater by weight) all in an airframe that has larger internal cargo dimensions. For NZ which has Antacticia considerations they are important requirements for a new transport aircraft.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11643
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Embraer KC-390 prospects

Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:48 am

Nean1 wrote:

Kiwirob,

By logic the favorites are the C-130J, KC-390, A400 and C2, in this order.

The Airbus plane has not yet managed to get rid of a troublesome maintenance reputation. In the link below there is information about availability even worse than the worst suspicions, this in a high-level technical air force:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... va-446491/

"......These include the air force's Airbus Defence & Space A400Ms, which boasted a deployability rate of 38%, or just three of the service's 15-aircraft total......."

As for C-2, the price is expected to be much higher than the KC-390 (~ 136 vs 85 MM USD), as well as the operating cost. Its manufacturer has little to show in terms of customer technical support.


I think the C130J has limited additional utility over the current C130H fleet and wouldn't be a good choice for an aircraft that will likely be in service for at least 30 years, which places it firmly at the bottom of the list. C-2 and A400 give the RNZAF the ability to transport an NH90 and NZLAV without too much disassembly, KC-390 and C130 can't. A400 and C-2 are also able to fly to Antarctica and return without landing. C-130 can't.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DarkKnight5 and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos