Nean1 wrote:

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......."

Ozair wrote:

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.

Noray wrote:

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.

WIederling wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

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......."

The Bundeswehr currently seems to have nothing in their arsenal that they don't have issues with.

Cause is rather easy:

de Mezier ordered ( when on the job some years ago ) that spares may only be procured when they are
needed. ( making budget cuts possible ). That seems to include stuff for regular maintainance too.
( no sub is working, few helos are working ( independent of manufacturer. .. )
The only type reasonably available is the Airbus helo based on a civil version.
Those parts needed seem to be available on shorter notice from the civil market.

Ulla von der Lügen has not changed this. But is adamant that fault is with the manufacturers.
In the position she previously held she has spent more money on PR "to present her in the right light" than anything else.
an abomination.
Question is what does she want to achieve ? Introduce "more reliable" suppliers from abroad ?

so your statement
"The Airbus plane has not yet managed to get rid of a troublesome maintenance reputation. "
is wrong.

Nean1 wrote:

You may be satisfied with the 38% operational availability even after almost 5 years of the A400 getting into service.

Nean1 wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe all the blame should fall on the German air force. But before accepting this, I would like to have access to unbiased data on the actual availability of these aircraft as well as maintenance cost data.
There is a lot that is unique in the A400, an aircraft that is very focused on supporting combat operations. I see that New Zealand mainly needs bulky cargo carrying capacity, having little concern for tactical capability in wartime conditions.

Nean1 wrote:

Noray wrote:

While 38% doesn't look good,.

You may be satisfied with the 38% operational availability .

Nean1 wrote:

I am sure that Embraer engineers will be very disappointed if after the first year of service the KC-390 does not exceed 95% availability mark.

Nean1 wrote:

Ozair,
I think you should be less enthusiastic about C-2:

Nean1 wrote:

- This airplane in its original design was not intended to be exported and therefore did not take into account the needs of other countries;

Nean1 wrote:

- The use of Japanese avionics has been a great experience to absorb technology, but does not guarantee the availability levels of traditional suppliers;

Nean1 wrote:

- There are dozens of countries operating medium and large transport aircraft and few alternatives. No single aircraft caters adequately to all needs, there will always be some accommodation.

Nean1 wrote:

- The operation in Antarctica is an original requirement of the KC-390 not only for Brazil but also for countries like Argentina and Chile, potential customers.

Embraer returns damaged KC-390 to flight-test programme

One of Embraer’s KC-390 prototypes returned to flight over Brazil on 2 March, after being grounded for several months due to unexpected altitude loss during a stall test flight conducted last October, several flight tracking websites report.

Embraer confirms that the tactical transport involved in last year's mishap has resumed testing. The company’s first production aircraft is expected to enter service with the Brazilian air force’s 11th Wing in Rio de Janeiro later this year: a schedule that Embraer says will not be delayed by the prototype’s stall test incident and subsequent months of unavailability.

Full article
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ra-446533/

WIederling wrote:

Availability Improvements in New Transport Aircraft – The Case of the A400M:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1027711&p=20230097#p20230097

Noray wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

Noray wrote:

While 38% doesn't look good,.

You may be satisfied with the 38% operational availability .

Ha.

Nean1 wrote:

I am sure that Embraer engineers will be very disappointed if after the first year of service the KC-390 does not exceed 95% availability mark.

Ha Ha. Please don't stray into the field of blunt propaganda. No aircraft would ever reach 95% availability by the same standards that were used to calculate the above Luftwaffe numbers.

Of course Embraer avoided lots of trouble when they selected a proven engine. But still it's a new aircraft, and as a military system it's not proven. The military parts offer lots of room for trouble that Embraer engineers don't even dream of and Airbus engineers had to cope with already.

Ozair wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

Ozair,
I think you should be less enthusiastic about C-2:

I’m not overly for or against the jet, I just see it having a role and place in future military transport acquisition.

Nean1 wrote:

- This airplane in its original design was not intended to be exported and therefore did not take into account the needs of other countries;

Not correct. Kawasaki was investigating the use of the C-2 on the civilian market as far back as 2007. Hence consideration for the export of the aircraft in some form has always been a factor.

Nean1 wrote:

- The use of Japanese avionics has been a great experience to absorb technology, but does not guarantee the availability levels of traditional suppliers;

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that nations won’t buy Japanese technology? The primary customer for the jet will be ordering it is larger numbers than the primary customer of the KC-390. How does that not guarantee the availability of a traditional supplier?

Nean1 wrote:

- There are dozens of countries operating medium and large transport aircraft and few alternatives. No single aircraft caters adequately to all needs, there will always be some accommodation.

Correct, which is why both the C-2 and KC-390 are trying hard to sell to the market. Given they have reasonably difference payloads there won’t be a lot of cross over between customers. NZ is an example of a nation that has a reasonably unique set of requirements, and low budget, that allow both aircraft to compete.

Nean1 wrote:

- The operation in Antarctica is an original requirement of the KC-390 not only for Brazil but also for countries like Argentina and Chile, potential customers.

While that may be the intent, for the NZ Antarctic use case the range of the C-2 significantly trumps the KC-390 across all payloads. NZ has a stated problem with having a point of no return and the KC-390 will almost certainly has a greater issue with that than the C-2, given the KC-390s much shorter range.

Nean1 wrote:

Ozair,

1) Good luck, you will need to find evidence that the C-2 project had in its design major concerns in generating a product attractive to overseas customers.
Tip: The meaning of the word "investigating"

Nean1 wrote:

2) The aviation segment is conservative and prefers to buy a product from one traditional supplier rather than another that sells only to the Japanese government. Does that sound logical?

Nean1 wrote:

There are Japanese companies and products of the highest quality but this occurs in markets facing international competition. The defense segment, like some others in Japan, is isolated from the competition. The typical result is high costs and below-average performance.

Nean1 wrote:

3) With a pair of KC-390, there are the possibility of fuel the other, greatly increasing the radius of the action. Even because this requirement is just one in so many others.

Nean1 wrote:

The current discussion turns to the needs of New Zealand, which is not in Europe, is not part of NATO and has no intention of waging long-distance wars.

Noray wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

Noray wrote:

While 38% doesn't look good,.

You may be satisfied with the 38% operational availability .

Ha.

Nean1 wrote:

I am sure that Embraer engineers will be very disappointed if after the first year of service the KC-390 does not exceed 95% availability mark.

Ha Ha. Please don't stray into the field of blunt propaganda. No aircraft would ever reach 95% availability by the same standards that were used to calculate the above Luftwaffe numbers.

Of course Embraer avoided lots of trouble when they selected a proven engine. But still it's a new aircraft, and as a military system it's not proven. The military parts offer lots of room for trouble that Embraer engineers don't even dream of and Airbus engineers had to cope with already.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Those cockpit windows are about the same size as the R1 door. O_O Damn they're big. Must be an amazing view out.

Nean1 wrote:

It explains why the KC-390 will have an operational availability far superior to competitors offers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FQsVGFitU

Nean1 wrote:

It explains why the KC-390 will have an operational availability far superior to competitors offers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FQsVGFitU

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

It explains why the KC-390 will have an operational availability far superior to competitors offers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FQsVGFitU

Huh, so that vid shows the aircraft with 3 ACTs. I wonder how much each tank increases range and affects payload. As that could be a deal maker for the NZ government.

Noray wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

It explains why the KC-390 will have an operational availability far superior to competitors offers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FQsVGFitU

Huh, so that vid shows the aircraft with 3 ACTs. I wonder how much each tank increases range and affects payload. As that could be a deal maker for the NZ government.

It shows auxiliary fuel tanks in the cargo compartment. I doubt that this is safe to be combined with other cargo or passengers. It's probably for the aerial refuelling role only, maybe for firefighting as well. You can't compare this to ACTs in the lower deck of an airliner.

YuriMG2 wrote:

Portugal just cancelled the modernization of its C130s fleet.

The money will now go to the maintenance and some modification of the fleet to wait for the KC390 to be fully operational.

Portugal made a firm order of 5 KC390 + 1 optional.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/2018/04/23/port ... dos-c-130/

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

I'm sure they could make it safe enough.

Noray wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

It explains why the KC-390 will have an operational availability far superior to competitors offers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FQsVGFitU

Typical marketing blurb that hardly differs from similar videos that were produced for other recent aircraft. Posts like this one make this forum look like an advertising platform.

Noray wrote:

Thanks for proving my point. Whenever I read your posts about this aircraft, I get the impression that I'm taking part in a sales pitch.
I understand that aircraft manufacturers need to post promotional videos, but what I don't get is that internet forums have turned into advertising platforms filled with marketing experts who try to sell military aircraft to anonymous web surfers like myself. I certainly have seen many fanboys in the past 20 years of the internet, but most of these at least understood that they can't look into the future, and they need to distance themselves from optimistic predictions. I'd expect a little caution so it doesn't become too obvious that there's no distance at all between the markting blurb and the poster's own positions.

Noray wrote:

Thanks for proving my point. Whenever I read your posts about this aircraft, I get the impression that I'm taking part in a sales pitch.
I understand that aircraft manufacturers need to post promotional videos, but what I don't get is that internet forums have turned into advertising platforms filled with marketing experts who try to sell military aircraft to anonymous web surfers like myself. I certainly have seen many fanboys in the past 20 years of the internet, but most of these at least understood that they can't look into the future, and they need to distance themselves from optimistic predictions. I'd expect a little caution so it doesn't become too obvious that there's no distance at all between the markting blurb and the poster's own positions.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Should a bigger engine have been used such as the RB211? Seems like the V2500 can get the job done but barely