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

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.

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.

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.

docmtl wrote:

Would the USAF ever buy it to replace their C-130 fleet ?

I don't see it happening. The USAF is deep into the C-130 program, and has the top end well stocked with C-17 and C-5. When one is packed up to the eyeballs with C-17s and C-130s, there's just no room in between for the C-390.

I have greater hope for the C-390 for rest-of-world operators, particularly ones who are willing to trade some rough field capability for lower operating costs. I would think many operators out there would find that appealing. I wish Embra-oeing luck.

Or is it Boe-aer?

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?

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.

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?

The USAF uses the C-130 primarily as a tactical, intra-theater airlifter. Speed isn't one of the top requirements for that role.

Rough field capability, STOL capability, and the ability to operate unsupported with a decent payload is of a higher concern.

The USAF has plenty of other aircraft that can perform a longer range role as a strategic airlifter.

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.

Just gonna cherry pick my who statement for this BS? The KC-390 has no place in the USAF. Like the user above said, its role is covered. Its no different than the A400M. Give it a rest. And I don't know what you do for a living but I would never wish you out of a job.

The 390 would be a great addition for the USAF.

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.

This site is full of aviation enthusiasts that think they know what’s best. This could not be further from the truth.

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.

Not saying this is true for the Herc but I would say that persisting in buying a product for reasons of sustainng employment discourages the manufacturer from developing new products. To me that is a risky game to play with the future job security of employees.

Sure, not much point in changing over for the hell of it. What if Boeing became involved in enhancing the 390 and manufacturing it in the US in long run?

art wrote:

...persisting in buying a product for reasons of sustainng employment...

You underestimate Congress!

art wrote:

What if Boeing became involved in enhancing the 390 and manufacturing it in the US in long run?

I still don't see that happening. C-390 is kind of like a C-17 wannabe but in C-130 size. The USAF has no interest in that, since it sits on a vast fleet of both C-17 and C-130. No room nor reason for in-between. But as I mentioned above, I would think there are many nations out there that wouldn't mind a C-17 wannabe in C-130 size. Eastern Europe in particular...

But USAF isn't looking in that direction. C-X is mucking about with what the next generation of airlifters will be, and to be honest some of the C-X chatter such as the ultra-STOL/VTOL talk smacks of similar projects in the 1950s and 1960s - you know, those projects that never went anywhere.

Right now the USAF has funding priorities that are not being funded or funded enough. The A-10 rewing did happen, but spare parts needs lots more funding, also the B-52 engines and wing skins, F-35's, etc. the list is endless. The only area where they are fully covered is the C-130 and C-17.

At the same time I hope the C-390 does well, it does a lot for its cost.

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.

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.

Another vital advantage the C130 has over the Embraer is its ability to operate on unimproved strips in poor conditions


That’s what tactical airlift is all about, the KC 390 has some limited capabilities in that respect but it’s just not as flexible

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.

TWA772LR outlines exactly why the US won't entertain the C390. It is not a knock against the capabilities of the 390, but rather, a testament to the full vetted and sourced capabilities of a truly versatile platform.

- Inter-department aircraft? Check!
(USAF, USMC, USN, USCG)
- Mission adaptable? Check!
(Search & Rescue {HC}, SpecOps {MC}, Tanker {KC}, Snow {LC}, Gunship {AC}, ElecWar {EC}, WXRecon {WC}, Drone Control {DC}, Maritime Patrol {PC})
- Proven supply chain? Check!
- Low operating costs? Check!
- Low unit costs? Check!
- Looks only a mother could love? Check!

Depends what you want to do with it. If it did everything the C-130 does in and around the mainland USA and Hawaii the C-130 would not be missed. And there would also be missions that it could repladr the C-17 in and save hours on those frames.

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.

Further, many countries aren't even interested in medium or heavy transport aircraft. There's not really much demand and for many use cases, even the old An-12 will do.

The Army wants to operate it’s own quad tilt-rotor/wing, is the truth. If that happens, there’s not really a need for a C-130, as the Army has helped it’s case buying ludicrously outsized/armored troop transports. As a tactical transport it’s actual utility is quite limited moving forward as to what airspace it can get near with drone/hypersonic missiles etc. anyway. The C-390 could make for a useful theater transport if the engine could be found which would be used elsewhere in USAF service, but I think this is doubtful.

art wrote:

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.

Can you back up those claims with numbers?

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.

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.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

art wrote:

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.

Can you back up those claims with numbers?

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.

Sorry, my mistake. I was referring to the superceded Hercules not the J Super Hercules version so indeed my figures were misleading.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And the option of third party MRO's that are qualified to do major overhauls on the C-130; the two big names I'm familiar with are Cascades Aerospace here in Abbotsford, Canada, and Marshall Aerospace in the UK. Plus there are C-130 Hercules service centres across the globe that are qualified to conduct scheduled maintenance and engine work.

Also, having the US Military operate the C-130 is a big bonus; you can also lean on the US DoD for assistance with training and support, on top of OEM support.

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).

Anyway, Flightglobal with Richard Aboulafia has a pretty decent summary of the competition.

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://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0j-458256/

Also Aboulafia on CNN:

And 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."

https://money.cnn.com/2017/07/20/news/c ... index.html

From above assumption of 56 units produced per year by 2027, this probably splits around:
2 C-2
6 A400M
24 C-130J/L-100
10 C-295/C-235
8 KC-390
6 Other

Who in 2020 would prefer a modernized Lokheed Electra over an Airbus A319? In long run the answer is already known.

Nean1 wrote:

Who in 2020 would prefer a modernized Lokheed Electra over an Airbus A319? In long run the answer is already known.

Completely different role and economics.

The B-52 is still as relevant in it's role as the C-130 is in it's. The USAF is currently debating an upgrade/re-engine for it when it could just replace the entire fleet with the B-21.

The Russians (while much less budget constrained) still operate the TU-95 in much the same way.

Many air forces still purchase 4+ gen fighters when many people say they are useless now that 5gen are available.

Sometimes things just work.

I could see the C390 in a support role with the US Navy and the Coast guard along with civilian freight haulers. As long as it has the Price and support of Boeing. Suffice to say it would be easier loading for intercity loads within the USA. Europe and Asia. where you could off load the airplane directly into trucks. The engines are hung below the winge giving easy access for ground servicing so there is an ease in maintenance. Especially should Boeing seek to civilian certify this aircraft.

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).

Vehicles, especially AFV's are generally not flown by air unless it's really necessary.

You only do it if there is an immediate and pressing need to do so and there's no other alternative; otherwise, they go by ground/rail/ship. Even the USAF with its vast fleet of transport aircraft avoids shipping vehicles by aircraft.

The bulk of cargo flown by military transport aircraft is bulk loads on pallets.

smithbs wrote:

Or is it Boe-aer?

Given how they named this thing Millennium I guess it’s Ok Boe-mer

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.

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.

Finally, the name chosen: Millenium... It sounds awkwardly civilian to me for a military plane.

And, adding to the above post about the bulk of military cargo being on pallets, a surprisingly large percentage of it travels both through commercial shipping methods AND also travels on the fleet of KC- series tankers as they all have large cargo decks and are outfitted for pallet cargo usage. The medium and heavy transports are often reserved for usage when there isn't another cargo transport method available, or there is some technical need for their use. They also get used more often than strictly needed so as to keep pilot flight hours up enough to ensure proficiency.

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.

That is the expectation, that Boeing will be able to leverage their global presence to better market the aircraft.

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.

So the general consensus is the USAF is unlikely to order the aircraft. Never say never but the business case is poor at best. In that context, it would take a significant investment from Boeing to move the production of a Brazilian aircraft to the US in the hope it wins a domestic order. US production likely doesn’t make the aircraft any cheaper for a nation to acquire (Boeing isn’t going to move the production line or start a new line in the US for free…) and the expertise for the aircraft will remain in Brazil, not transferred to the US, as well as the primary operator and likely largest fleet holder for some time will be in Brazil.

In that context, there is close to zero incentive for Boeing to move production to the US. The only reason is for a US Military order and for a production line to be set up that order would have to be 100+. In that context the C-390 simply doesn’t add enough additional benefit over the C-130 to make that a worthwhile endeavour.

docmtl wrote:

Finally, the name chosen: Millenium... It sounds awkwardly civilian to me for a military plane.

It sounds awkward in general...

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.

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

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

So right, the existing fleet of course!

What percent of flight hours is non-tankering for the 135 and KC-10. I thought it was like 10%

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. The US Army's adoption of the KC-390 mandates local production, possibly in the state of Florida.

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.

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 both airframes have their advantages and disadvantages. I don’t think one can be considered better or more versatile than the other.

What we do know is that New Zealand had the option for both and chose the C-130J. Being an existing C-130 operator likely played a very big role in that decision but that just validates what many here has suggested, that the existing market share held by the C-130 is very difficult to penetrate. Perhaps New Zealand would have been more amenable to the KC-390 had they known Boeing was going to take an active role but even then, without the US FMS program to support it, the C-390 will struggle even with Boeing support.

Nean1 wrote:

The US Army's adoption of the KC-390 mandates local production, possibly in the state of Florida.

Two big issues.

For starters the US Army doesn’t operate large transport aircraft. Just have a review of the C-27J saga to understand the politics of that decision and why it is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. In that context then, the US Army will likely never order an aircraft of this size until that aircraft has VTOL capabilities and can therefore be pushed/ordered as a rotary wing aircraft.

As for US production, why Florida? Boeing doesn’t end line manufacture in Florida and the existing A-29 relationship is with Sierra Nevada, not Boeing.

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.

If you are referring to the A2A refuelling capabilities then only a few nations actually require that and most of those already operate refuelling aircraft. For example Portugal, the only export customer to date, doesn’t operate a FW or RW aircraft that can currently be refuelled by the KC-390 (although a probe could be fitted to several transports the KC-390 will obviously never refuel the F-16).
I also doubt the KC-390 is cheaper to operate than a C-130 per flight hour but ultimately per flight hour costs are not a great factor in military acquisition. Interoperability and global spares availability play a larger role and having a much wider base of support and larger fleet makes the C-130 a more attractive proposition for military planners.

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 but to the cost per tonne-kilometre of aircraft that fly faster than the C-130 and carry heavier cargo.

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

Perhaps but his statement was pretty clear,

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.

Even if that is correct we don't actually know if it is true. The aircraft hasn't even IOC'ed with its first and primary operator so it seems very early to make that type of claim when there is literally no evidence to support it.

Most militaries outside the US and China can't afford, and certainly don't need, huge fleets of such aircraft. So C130 and C390 are competing for US orders on the one hand, and for many small orders of other countries on the other hand.

The US doesn't need to replace all its C130s with C390s, it can have fleets of both...

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.

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.

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.

Ok, them tell this to people from Florida.

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 would you like to tell us what Florida has to do with this discussion?

Where do you think a future assembly line in US would be? This is easy to answer.

Where do you think a future assembly line in US would be? This is easy to answer.

Nean1 wrote:

Where do you think a future assembly line in US would be? This is easy to answer.

There are 50 states in the US. Boeing doesn't have a manufacture line in Florida today, why would they build a hypothetical US C-390 assembly line in Florida?

Why not South Carolina where they already have a facility, or St Louis, or Washington State or anywhere else?