Re: Boeing C-390 vs Lockheed C-130
Ozair, Florida would be an obvious, rational choise. And Embraer is a 100% rational company.
Re: Boeing C-390 vs Lockheed C-130
Nean1 wrote:Ozair, Florida would be an obvious, rational choise. And Embraer is a 100% rational company.
Your claim is based on Embraer assembling the Phenom in Florida, that Embraer would assemble the C-390 there, if the US ordered it? What level of content in the current C-390 is from US suppliers? How will Embraer fulfil the Buy American Act requirements for 50% domestic content and local manufacture? Will they establish a US production line if the US Military doesn’t order it?
Given the likelihood the US will order the C-390 is very small Florida and any potential production is a rather pointless discussion. To acquire the C-390 the USAF would have to run a tender for selection of the aircraft and directly compete the C-390 against the C-130 and any other potential bidders. How successful do you think a C-390 tender would be noting they would have to establish a new assembly line and charge the US Government for all those costs compared to the C-130 which has an established line with no meaningful fixed costs being charged to the US Government for future orders?
If your insight about Florida is the sharing of internal Embraer company information into where production is planned to occur then great but you should really state that as such.
-
- JayinKitsap
- Posts: 1650
- Joined:
Re: Boeing C-390 vs Lockheed C-130
Not to mention the number of congressional districts that has C-130 suppliers. I couldn't find it just now, but it is an amazing list. That puts up a whole lot of resistance to any change from the C-130.
Re: Boeing C-390 vs Lockheed C-130
Every product at some point finds a better, more capable competitor. That moment came to the C-130. Worse, the KC-390 arrives with the powerful Boeing. Producing in Florida a new version version with 50% local content is totally possible, allowing for sale to the US Armed Forces, as well as overseas under the FMS scheme.
The KC-390 brings to A400 and C-2 a more effective competition for its speed and ability to carry helicopters and armored vehicles.
The KC-390 brings to A400 and C-2 a more effective competition for its speed and ability to carry helicopters and armored vehicles.
-
- ThePointblank
- Posts: 3256
- Joined:
Re: Boeing C-390 vs Lockheed C-130
Nean1 wrote:Every product at some point finds a better, more capable competitor. That moment came to the C-130. Worse, the KC-390 arrives with the powerful Boeing. Producing in Florida a new version version with 50% local content is totally possible, allowing for sale to the US Armed Forces, as well as overseas under the FMS scheme.
The KC-390 brings to A400 and C-2 a more effective competition for its speed and ability to carry helicopters and armored vehicles.
Except the C-130J is a proven aircraft that is more flexible, already in production and service, and can carry more.
Carrying vehicles and helicopters is not a normal job for the USAF C-130 fleet; the majority of cargo for the C-130 is bulk, palletized cargo and troops. There, the C-130J and the C-130J-30 have the advantage in payload weight and volume. Vehicles and helicopters are typically only flown on larger aircraft, which the USAF has plenty of, or via chartered air lift. And demand for that has actually declined over the years due to a decrease in deployments, and a less critical need to quickly transport vehicles overseas.
The US DoD won't touch the KC-390; it's not something that has interested them. And the USAF has plenty of C-130's in service, so they aren't interested in fielding a replacement anytime soon.
Re: Boeing C-390 vs Lockheed C-130
ThePointblank wrote:Nean1 wrote:Every product at some point finds a better, more capable competitor. That moment came to the C-130. Worse, the KC-390 arrives with the powerful Boeing. Producing in Florida a new version version with 50% local content is totally possible, allowing for sale to the US Armed Forces, as well as overseas under the FMS scheme.
The KC-390 brings to A400 and C-2 a more effective competition for its speed and ability to carry helicopters and armored vehicles.
Except the C-130J is a proven aircraft that is more flexible, already in production and service, and can carry more.
Carrying vehicles and helicopters is not a normal job for the USAF C-130 fleet; the majority of cargo for the C-130 is bulk, palletized cargo and troops. There, the C-130J and the C-130J-30 have the advantage in payload weight and volume. Vehicles and helicopters are typically only flown on larger aircraft, which the USAF has plenty of, or via chartered air lift. And demand for that has actually declined over the years due to a decrease in deployments, and a less critical need to quickly transport vehicles overseas.
The US DoD won't touch the KC-390; it's not something that has interested them. And the USAF has plenty of C-130's in service, so they aren't interested in fielding a replacement anytime soon.
You are waiting your breath on people who think that way. It's almost like they believe government contracts are akin to airline fleet selection. And you and I know it is nothing of the sort. You don't fix something that isn't broken in the US military the way you would replace a 7 year old aircraft in the civilian world just to save $100 in fuel costs per flight.
We are all just fanboys, our opinions don't make or break businesses.
Re: Boeing C-390 vs Lockheed C-130
I would have assumed keeping production in Basil was one of the conditions of sale.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: jetwet1 and 64 guests