docmtl wrote:Hi, folks
Now that Boeing took charge of the Embraer KC-390 and renamed it C-390 Millenium, are you expecting a stronger market penetration for this plane ?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-boeing-and-embraer-rebrand-transport-as-c-390-462350/
It's supposed to replace the venerable yet reliable Lockheed C-130 Hercules, and it won't be an easy task for the new Boeing Embraer Defence joint venture...
Would the USAF ever buy it to replace their C-130 fleet ?
Your thoughts are most welcome,
DocMtl
Ozair wrote:docmtl wrote:Hi, folks
Now that Boeing took charge of the Embraer KC-390 and renamed it C-390 Millenium, are you expecting a stronger market penetration for this plane ?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-boeing-and-embraer-rebrand-transport-as-c-390-462350/
It's supposed to replace the venerable yet reliable Lockheed C-130 Hercules, and it won't be an easy task for the new Boeing Embraer Defence joint venture...
Would the USAF ever buy it to replace their C-130 fleet ?
Your thoughts are most welcome,
DocMtl
We have discussed this at length in the KC-390 thread.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1368295&p=21636383&hilit=%22KC+390%22#p21636383
I personally don’t expect the USAF to pick it up. The investment in the C-130 and their existing strategic fleet means they don’t really have an operational need for the aircraft. The C-390 won’t be able to take any of the new IFVs that are being built for the Army or Marines so in that context I think it doesn’t have a market there.
Plenty of opportunity for other nations, especially now it has the backing and global support of Boeing.
docmtl wrote:Would the USAF ever buy it to replace their C-130 fleet ?
426Shadow wrote:Ozair wrote:We have discussed this at length in the KC-390 thread.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1368295&p=21636383&hilit=%22KC+390%22#p21636383
I personally don’t expect the USAF to pick it up. The investment in the C-130 and their existing strategic fleet means they don’t really have an operational need for the aircraft. The C-390 won’t be able to take any of the new IFVs that are being built for the Army or Marines so in that context I think it doesn’t have a market there.
Plenty of opportunity for other nations, especially now it has the backing and global support of Boeing.
Excellent point. And beyond that, the KC-390 does not have any skin in the US economy at the moment. The C-130 keeps the vast majority of the 7000 plus high payed economic boosting people here at Marietta employed, not to mention the thousands more between Meridian, other US sites and India. Taking our jobs away for some that don't even exist doesn't make sense no matter how good the KC-390 looks.
The C-17 going away was a result of no more orders, and Boeing had a place to send lots of those people tho not all. If we shut down the C-130 in favor of something else, we don't have a place to go. And trust me, compared to the economic burden on the US taxpayer for the F-35, the C-130 is a drop in a bucket so no need for all the "best for the taxpayer" whining.
This isn't Boeing vs Airbus where there are orders for 10-15 years out. We are in a constant state of Multiyear orders to keep the lights on. And this sentiment is not mine alone. Ask any other the other 10,000 plus people this program ultimately feeds.
426Shadow wrote:Taking our jobs away for some that don't even exist doesn't make sense no matter how good the KC-390 looks.
art wrote:426Shadow wrote:Ozair wrote:We have discussed this at length in the KC-390 thread.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1368295&p=21636383&hilit=%22KC+390%22#p21636383
I personally don’t expect the USAF to pick it up. The investment in the C-130 and their existing strategic fleet means they don’t really have an operational need for the aircraft. The C-390 won’t be able to take any of the new IFVs that are being built for the Army or Marines so in that context I think it doesn’t have a market there.
Plenty of opportunity for other nations, especially now it has the backing and global support of Boeing.
Excellent point. And beyond that, the KC-390 does not have any skin in the US economy at the moment. The C-130 keeps the vast majority of the 7000 plus high payed economic boosting people here at Marietta employed, not to mention the thousands more between Meridian, other US sites and India. Taking our jobs away for some that don't even exist doesn't make sense no matter how good the KC-390 looks.
The C-17 going away was a result of no more orders, and Boeing had a place to send lots of those people tho not all. If we shut down the C-130 in favor of something else, we don't have a place to go. And trust me, compared to the economic burden on the US taxpayer for the F-35, the C-130 is a drop in a bucket so no need for all the "best for the taxpayer" whining.
This isn't Boeing vs Airbus where there are orders for 10-15 years out. We are in a constant state of Multiyear orders to keep the lights on. And this sentiment is not mine alone. Ask any other the other 10,000 plus people this program ultimately feeds.
The C-390 has a much higher cruise speed (about 200mph faster than the Hercules).and carries a payload almost 50% greater. so it is quite a different aircraft. Would it not be better suited to do some jobs for the US military? If the US evaluated it and found it would fill a niche usefully, why not buy a few partially offset by the sale of some T-X trainers to Brazil?
VSMUT wrote:426Shadow wrote:Taking our jobs away for some that don't even exist doesn't make sense no matter how good the KC-390 looks.
Sounds like something that would be said in the USSR.
If a program isn't viable, the jobs need to go.
rlwynn wrote:The 390 would be a great addition for the USAF.
426Shadow wrote:rlwynn wrote:The 390 would be a great addition for the USAF.
As long as they keep ordering C-130’s I have no issue with that. Like having Airbus and Boeing in one airline. As long as they don’t just change over for the hell of it.
art wrote:...persisting in buying a product for reasons of sustainng employment...
art wrote:What if Boeing became involved in enhancing the 390 and manufacturing it in the US in long run?
TWA772LR wrote:Congress has looked at replacing the C130 before and they determined the best replacement is another C130. Nothing against the KC390, the C130 is just one of those few examples in technology where it was right the first time and is just an amazing piece of machinery that has stood the test of time and has been fitted and refitted to fulfill pretty much any role a fixed wing aircraft possibly can fulfill and can possibly see 100 years of continuous service.
Slug71 wrote:I don't think it will have any more penetration/appeal than it already had TBH. It may do slightly better with the backing of Boeing, but I just don't think the customer base is there. The C-130 is still extremely relevant and a formidable competitor. I don't think that will change anytime soon, but time will tell.
art wrote:Can you back up those claims with numbers?The C-390 has a much higher cruise speed (about 200mph faster than the Hercules).and carries a payload almost 50% greater. so it is quite a different aircraft.
Slug71 wrote:I don't think it will have any more penetration/appeal than it already had TBH. It may do slightly better with the backing of Boeing, but I just don't think the customer base is there. The C-130 is still extremely relevant and a formidable competitor. I don't think that will change anytime soon, but time will tell.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:art wrote:Can you back up those claims with numbers?The C-390 has a much higher cruise speed (about 200mph faster than the Hercules).and carries a payload almost 50% greater. so it is quite a different aircraft.
Here is what I'm seeing (on wikipedia)
Cruise speed; C-130J 400mph, C-390 540mph
You can have 140mph difference, but if you are going to round it out to the nearest hundred, the difference is 100mph (not "200mph")
Payload; C-130J data gives payload as 44,000 lb (20 tonnes), and useful load as 72,000 lb (33 tonnes)
I'm guessing "useful load" includes fuel, flight crew, sandwiches and coffee.
C-390 data offers "useful lift" as 57,320 lb (26 tonnes), but lists fuel separately as 50,700 lb (23 tonnes)
Assuming that we can aggregate those numbers without any trade-off, the total difference is indeed close to 50%
But actual payload is only 30% extra.![]()
That's good, but it's not "almost 50%"
(note; the stretched C-130J-30 takes a 1 tonne hit in terms of payload, but offers considerably more volumetric capacity allowing it to transport 40% more troops, placing it in a different league)
I also note that the 77% extra fuel in the C-390 does not appear to yield any additional range.![]()
Conclusion
The C-390 was designed as a 1-for-1 C-130 alternative (yeah, like we're all shocked by that news...)
I'm just reading the figures and I'm no expert, so if anybody here has better numbers, please update the above.
Nean1 wrote:Slug71 wrote:I don't think it will have any more penetration/appeal than it already had TBH. It may do slightly better with the backing of Boeing, but I just don't think the customer base is there. The C-130 is still extremely relevant and a formidable competitor. I don't think that will change anytime soon, but time will tell.
If anyone believes that technology has a prominent place on the battlefields of the future, then they must recognize that the KC-390 has a decisive advantage over the venerable C-130.
ThePointblank wrote:Nean1 wrote:Slug71 wrote:I don't think it will have any more penetration/appeal than it already had TBH. It may do slightly better with the backing of Boeing, but I just don't think the customer base is there. The C-130 is still extremely relevant and a formidable competitor. I don't think that will change anytime soon, but time will tell.
If anyone believes that technology has a prominent place on the battlefields of the future, then they must recognize that the KC-390 has a decisive advantage over the venerable C-130.
The C-130 has been updated ever since, and is a more rugged, flexible and capable aircraft than the KC-390. Witness the many variants of the C-130, including gunships, electronic warfare, special operations, search and rescue, maritime patrol, fire tanker, and aerial refueler.
And the C-130J-30 can carry an additional pallet, or carry 48 more troops, or 23 more stretchers, or drop 26 more paratroopers than the KC-390.
Plus, there are plenty of C-130 qualified service centres around the world that are capable of overhauling and maintaining aircraft across the globe.
Slug71 wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Nean1 wrote:
If anyone believes that technology has a prominent place on the battlefields of the future, then they must recognize that the KC-390 has a decisive advantage over the venerable C-130.
The C-130 has been updated ever since, and is a more rugged, flexible and capable aircraft than the KC-390. Witness the many variants of the C-130, including gunships, electronic warfare, special operations, search and rescue, maritime patrol, fire tanker, and aerial refueler.
And the C-130J-30 can carry an additional pallet, or carry 48 more troops, or 23 more stretchers, or drop 26 more paratroopers than the KC-390.
Plus, there are plenty of C-130 qualified service centres around the world that are capable of overhauling and maintaining aircraft across the globe.
Not to mention a significant number of air forces are familiar with the aircraft. That's a huge selling point.
As of right now, the C-130 continues to outsell its competitors.
It may change now that the C-390 has entered service, but it has huge boots to fill. Even with the backing of Boeing, the C-130 is extremely versatile and improved through many years of service and missions.
ThePointblank wrote:And the C-130J-30 can carry an additional pallet, or carry 48 more troops, or 23 more stretchers, or drop 26 more paratroopers than the KC-390.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0j-458256/In fact, the military transportation market could shrink in the coming years. Teal Group projects that the market will reduce by some 42% to $3.62 billion by 2027. Total units produced across the market are projected to fall about 24% to 56 annually.
Compared with the hundreds of fighters and helicopters that roll off assembly lines each year, the military transport market is not big.
[...]
According to one Embraer case study, a fleet of six KC-390s flying 1,350nm (2,500km) round trips were able to deliver 500t and 1,000 passengers in less than two days. The company says that's 40% faster than the C-130J.
[...]
"My expectation would be that having to maintain what are essentially two commercial jet engines versus four turboprop engines is going to be cheaper," he says. "You may give up some level of operational flexibility. But if you don't find your air force constantly landing in rough strips you may be able to work around that."
That point might be moot with US Special Operations Command (SOCOM), which seems to prefer turboprops for their ruggedness. SOCOM is one of the world's largest buyers of tactical transports and could attest to the KC-390's value to foreign buyers, says Aboulafia.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/07/20/news/c ... index.htmlAnd the U.S. military's stamp of approval is no small hurdle to overcome. That's "more than just a product endorsement," Aboulafia said. It's a guarantee that spare parts will be plentiful around the globe and the C-130 will continue to be upgraded for decades to come.
[...]
Perhaps most essentially, Embraer thinks it can replace the C-130 for less money. The estimated price for each KC-390 would range between $50 million to $55 million, according to a 2016 report from the Teal Group -- around $15 million less than the Hercules.
It's "a fantastic cargo box for the price," said Aboulafia.
Embraer is betting that politicians and taxpayers will give the KC-390 an advantage.
But Lockheed's motto is "the only replacement for a Herc is another Herc." The Brazilian rival may be less expensive, but there are attributes of the Herc that it can't match. The C-130's straight wing can get it off the ground faster in battle with more troops or cargo.
"If you're looking for combat lift, I think that the Herc's just going to have an advantage," Aboulafia said. "If you're looking to simply deliver stuff from one airfield to another, the KC-390's probably going to have better economics."
Nean1 wrote:Who in 2020 would prefer a modernized Lokheed Electra over an Airbus A319? In long run the answer is already known.
mxaxai wrote:ThePointblank wrote:And the C-130J-30 can carry an additional pallet, or carry 48 more troops, or 23 more stretchers, or drop 26 more paratroopers than the KC-390.
There is a trade-off here, though, depending on the mission. The extra volume will do you no good if your cargo is a heavy, bulky vehicle. Also note that while the C130J-30 can hold more seats, the cargo bay itself is smaller in every direction. I'm not sure why the KC-390 is making such poor use of its floor area.
Further, the KC-390 can fly a fair bit faster (up to M 0.8), so a similarly sized fleet can do more missions per day (or a smaller fleet can do the same job).
smithbs wrote:
Or is it Boe-aer?
docmtl wrote:Actually, what I was thinking when I started the post is the fact that military transports are more than just "the best plane available", but a mix of technical, logistical, political, and last but not least, military issues...
I'm supposing Boeing will throw its bargaining power and support to sell the plane worldwide, since it's the direct competitor to Lockheed's C-130 and a market positioning and a market share game.
docmtl wrote:And... I'm also assuming Boeing would eventually build it in the USA and create jobs in the country, get the political issues off the table and maybe (maybe...) even get to sell the plane to the US Armed Forces.
docmtl wrote:Finally, the name chosen: Millenium... It sounds awkwardly civilian to me for a military plane.
LightningZ71 wrote:... AND also travels on the fleet of KC- series tankers as they all have large cargo decks and are outfitted for pallet cargo usage.
JayinKitsap wrote:LightningZ71 wrote:... AND also travels on the fleet of KC- series tankers as they all have large cargo decks and are outfitted for pallet cargo usage.
I was quite unaware of the current transport of cargo on the KC series tankers. It doesn't have cargo locks currently (deficiency!) and I believe most of the KC-46's delivered so far are in training functions getting ready for deployment.
Ozair wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:LightningZ71 wrote:... AND also travels on the fleet of KC- series tankers as they all have large cargo decks and are outfitted for pallet cargo usage.
I was quite unaware of the current transport of cargo on the KC series tankers. It doesn't have cargo locks currently (deficiency!) and I believe most of the KC-46's delivered so far are in training functions getting ready for deployment.
I think LightningZ71 is referring to the KC-135/10 aircraft. You can see the loading pattern and specification for them, as well as other USAF transports and how they would expect to load civilian aircraft, in the following link, https://www.ustranscom.mil/dtr/part-iii ... _app_v.pdf
Nean1 wrote:The C-130 has never suffered such a direct threat to its domain. Not only for the product itself, where the KC-390 is much more modern and versatile, but also for Boeing's prestige and capabilities.
Nean1 wrote:The US Army's adoption of the KC-390 mandates local production, possibly in the state of Florida.
Nean1 wrote:In many missions, the KC-390 can replace other vectors more productively and at a lower cost per flight hour. Competitiveness, modernity and efficiency are the face of America, and Boeing knows it.
Ozair wrote:I also doubt the KC-390 is cheaper to operate than a C-130 per flight hour
Noray wrote:Ozair wrote:I also doubt the KC-390 is cheaper to operate than a C-130 per flight hour
I guess he wasn't referring to the cost per flight hour
Nean1 wrote:at a lower cost per flight hour.
Noray wrote:but to the cost per tonne-kilometre of aircraft that fly faster than the C-130 and carry heavier cargo.
Aesma wrote:The US doesn't need to replace all its C130s with C390s, it can have fleets of both...
art wrote:Aesma wrote:The US doesn't need to replace all its C130s with C390s, it can have fleets of both...
Different capability to the old Hercules. Why not replace some retiring C-130 with C-390 and some with C-130J? C-390 is new, so should improve with time and become still more capable.
There are important correlations between fleet size and operating cost that should inform future procurement decisions. The most commonly cited operating cost metric, cost per flying hour, does not capture a fleet’s fixed operating and support (O&S) expenses. Total expenses (fixed plus variable costs) are not linear: Per aircraft average O&S costs rise dramatically when fleets are smaller than approximately 150 aircraft. Average O&S costs are far lower and level off in fleets larger than 150. This is generally true for all manned aircraft, regardless of mission type.
Ozair wrote:art wrote:Aesma wrote:The US doesn't need to replace all its C130s with C390s, it can have fleets of both...
Different capability to the old Hercules. Why not replace some retiring C-130 with C-390 and some with C-130J? C-390 is new, so should improve with time and become still more capable.
Guys, that doesn’t make any sense. The USAF is looking at removing smaller fleets of aircraft from their orbat because the smaller numbers are not economical to sustain. For example the KC-10 fleet will almost certainly be retired in the next 2-5 years, and potentially the B-1B. The fleet size is simply not economical and the USAF saves a significant amount of money by removing a whole type. The recent MITRE study indicated the optimal fleet size is above 150 aircraft.There are important correlations between fleet size and operating cost that should inform future procurement decisions. The most commonly cited operating cost metric, cost per flying hour, does not capture a fleet’s fixed operating and support (O&S) expenses. Total expenses (fixed plus variable costs) are not linear: Per aircraft average O&S costs rise dramatically when fleets are smaller than approximately 150 aircraft. Average O&S costs are far lower and level off in fleets larger than 150. This is generally true for all manned aircraft, regardless of mission type.
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... cific.aspx
There are of course plenty of airframes in USAF service that have smaller fleets than that 150 mark but that doesn’t justify adding additional types in small numbers. If you review how many C-130s the USAF has in service, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... y_aircraft you realise the scope of the fleet size, and how valuable that fleet size is to overall commonality as well as sustainment. Adding 50 or even 100 C-390s doesn’t improve the sustainment budget and likely uses more funding than the benefits the USAF would receive from the small incremental improvements the C-390 provides.
Nean1 wrote:Ozair wrote:art wrote:
Different capability to the old Hercules. Why not replace some retiring C-130 with C-390 and some with C-130J? C-390 is new, so should improve with time and become still more capable.
Guys, that doesn’t make any sense. The USAF is looking at removing smaller fleets of aircraft from their orbat because the smaller numbers are not economical to sustain. For example the KC-10 fleet will almost certainly be retired in the next 2-5 years, and potentially the B-1B. The fleet size is simply not economical and the USAF saves a significant amount of money by removing a whole type. The recent MITRE study indicated the optimal fleet size is above 150 aircraft.There are important correlations between fleet size and operating cost that should inform future procurement decisions. The most commonly cited operating cost metric, cost per flying hour, does not capture a fleet’s fixed operating and support (O&S) expenses. Total expenses (fixed plus variable costs) are not linear: Per aircraft average O&S costs rise dramatically when fleets are smaller than approximately 150 aircraft. Average O&S costs are far lower and level off in fleets larger than 150. This is generally true for all manned aircraft, regardless of mission type.
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... cific.aspx
There are of course plenty of airframes in USAF service that have smaller fleets than that 150 mark but that doesn’t justify adding additional types in small numbers. If you review how many C-130s the USAF has in service, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... y_aircraft you realise the scope of the fleet size, and how valuable that fleet size is to overall commonality as well as sustainment. Adding 50 or even 100 C-390s doesn’t improve the sustainment budget and likely uses more funding than the benefits the USAF would receive from the small incremental improvements the C-390 provides.
Ok, them tell this to people from Florida.
Nean1 wrote:Where do you think a future assembly line in US would be? This is easy to answer.