Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Nean1 wrote:Ozair, Florida would be an obvious, rational choise. And Embraer is a 100% rational company.
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.
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.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:Can you back up those claims with numbers?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.
keesje wrote:It seems the C130 will be there for ever & congress will make sure. And the rest moves on I guess. Sounds like a plan.
par13del wrote:keesje wrote:It seems the C130 will be there for ever & congress will make sure. And the rest moves on I guess. Sounds like a plan.
Well they did cease production of the C-141, C-17 and C5, so anything is possible.
426Shadow wrote:par13del wrote:keesje wrote:It seems the C130 will be there for ever & congress will make sure. And the rest moves on I guess. Sounds like a plan.
Well they did cease production of the C-141, C-17 and C5, so anything is possible.
Yes but the difference is, they weren't replaced while still in production, their orders were fulfilled. What you guys are talking about is killing off one for another. Not going to happen.
ThePointblank wrote:426Shadow wrote:par13del wrote:Well they did cease production of the C-141, C-17 and C5, so anything is possible.
Yes but the difference is, they weren't replaced while still in production, their orders were fulfilled. What you guys are talking about is killing off one for another. Not going to happen.
And unless said replacement is substantially better in all metrics, or the requirements significantly change, they won't replace the C-130.
keesje wrote:ThePointblank wrote:426Shadow wrote:
Yes but the difference is, they weren't replaced while still in production, their orders were fulfilled. What you guys are talking about is killing off one for another. Not going to happen.
And unless said replacement is substantially better in all metrics, or the requirements significantly change, they won't replace the C-130.
There only the issue of acceptance that there is something substantially better and facing greyheads that have other personal interests than the frontline people getting the best.
The political soap opera's with fluid requirements we saw during tanker selections.
keesje wrote:ThePointblank wrote:426Shadow wrote:
Yes but the difference is, they weren't replaced while still in production, their orders were fulfilled. What you guys are talking about is killing off one for another. Not going to happen.
And unless said replacement is substantially better in all metrics, or the requirements significantly change, they won't replace the C-130.
There only the issue of acceptance that there is something substantially better and facing greyheads that have other personal interests than the frontline people getting the best.
The political soap opera's with fluid requirements we saw during tanker selections.
ThePointblank wrote:There is a ton of other costs involved in introducing a new aircraft type into service, and if the aircraft isn't fundamentally better than the one in service, it's not worth it.
par13del wrote:ThePointblank wrote:There is a ton of other costs involved in introducing a new aircraft type into service, and if the aircraft isn't fundamentally better than the one in service, it's not worth it.
Somehow that never seemed to be accepted in the tanker threads when infrastructure was raised, wonder why....
ThePointblank wrote:par13del wrote:ThePointblank wrote:There is a ton of other costs involved in introducing a new aircraft type into service, and if the aircraft isn't fundamentally better than the one in service, it's not worth it.
Somehow that never seemed to be accepted in the tanker threads when infrastructure was raised, wonder why....
The difference is that for the C-130, there is already a product already in production, that is completely compatible with almost all the existing infrastructure and support chain; the C-130J.
With the tanker, it was accepted that we were going to have to introduce a new type anyways; it wasn't like the USAF could buy a brand new KC-135 off the production line today. Therefore, it was a matter of how much changes is the USAF going to accept for the new tanker.
strfyr51 wrote:ThePointblank wrote:par13del wrote:Somehow that never seemed to be accepted in the tanker threads when infrastructure was raised, wonder why....
The difference is that for the C-130, there is already a product already in production, that is completely compatible with almost all the existing infrastructure and support chain; the C-130J.
With the tanker, it was accepted that we were going to have to introduce a new type anyways; it wasn't like the USAF could buy a brand new KC-135 off the production line today. Therefore, it was a matter of how much changes is the USAF going to accept for the new tanker.
well? How many changes were made to the KC-46 from the 767? Loads of them! The USAF probably wouldn't buy an off the shelf tanker without them inputting something...
JayinKitsap wrote:Well the C-130 appears to be rolling along - up to 50 in the latest DOD order. Taking the $3B / 50 is a unit price of $60M, rather competitive it seems.
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 21.article
Noray wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Well the C-130 appears to be rolling along - up to 50 in the latest DOD order. Taking the $3B / 50 is a unit price of $60M, rather competitive it seems.
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 21.article
I'm wondering in which way it can be called "competitive" if that's the only aircraft in that class the US accepts (so there's no real competition), and other operators don't get such offers? Also, how do you even know that it's competitive as long as it doesn't say what's included in that sum? Judging by the prices other nations have to pay, I'd say that this is without engines and other essential equipment. For almost half the amount ($1.4B), Germany gets no more than SIX C-130Js with engines, electronics, training and support.
Noshow wrote:Isn‘t this latest Hercules order a blow to Boeing? They must have expected to cover this market with their new 390?
Noray wrote:Judging by the prices other nations have to pay, I'd say that this is without engines and other essential equipment. For almost half the amount ($1.4B), Germany gets no more than SIX C-130Js with engines, electronics, training and support.
426Shadow wrote:With the way Boeing is handling things, they are going to have difficulty winning new contracts anyway.
JayinKitsap wrote:It appears to be fly away cost, but that excludes R&D costs but should include the engines, no spares, no training just the aircraft. The reported typical foreign sales price is running between $100M and $167M. Yes it is still a lot of money but the A400 starts at around $130M.
Ozair wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:It appears to be fly away cost, but that excludes R&D costs but should include the engines, no spares, no training just the aircraft. The reported typical foreign sales price is running between $100M and $167M. Yes it is still a lot of money but the A400 starts at around $130M.
There is no military on the planet buying A400s at US$130 million…
smithbs wrote:I wish Embra-oeing luck.
Or is it Boe-aer?
...
The document describes how the southeast Asian nation will seek a dozen new airlifters, with the program split into three phases: four aircraft sought between 2022 and 2025, and a similar number planned for each of the remaining two batches, 2024-2026 and 2026-2029.
...
Noshow wrote:Isn‘t this latest Hercules order a blow to Boeing? They must have expected to cover this market with their new 390?