Ozair, Florida would be an obvious, rational choise. And Embraer is a 100% rational company.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I would have assumed keeping production in Basil was one of the conditions of sale.

A second KC-390 was delivered yesterday to Brazilian Air Force.

One could think about specifications of a new version, 100% focused in transport. This C-390 would be lighter and less expensive aircraft.

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.[/quote
the C-390 just like the C130 could be useful in theatre operations delivering freight to the front lines or small stations, But it depends. Can the KC390 land as short as the C130? is the C390 able to approach a carrier? can it be configured to do so? Can it be used for Ocean surveillance? Does it have or can it be configured for short field takeoff performance? It would have to do all that the C130 does to even be considered to stand beside the C130. I remember that Boeing tried for YEARS to replace the
P-3 in Naval service, they built an ASW 707 and couldn't supplant Lockheed. They'll be trying even harder to supplant the C130 and It will take them even Longer Because the C130 does so many things so well. Their time may come though. But when?

It does have a usefully larger cargo .”box” for today's larger military equipment. The twin-engine design isn’t great—one engine problem and your small forward airbase goes to crawl or stops, one enroute failure and you have to divert to possibly a hostile country. Look up the C-130 lift in the build up to Desert Storm at Ar’ar, SA, a continuous stream of Herks.


Gf

It seems the C130 will be there for ever & congress will make sure. And the rest moves on I guess. Sounds like a plan.

https://www.flightglobal.com/kc-390-ach ... 42.article

New milestones reached, showing superior capabilities to those exhibited by other mid-size transport aircraft like the C-130J and the Shaanxi Y-9.

" ...The drop tests were conducted at the US Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. Key achievements included the airdrop of a 19t single platform, and the sequential aerial delivery of two platforms weighing a total of 24t.

...

The 2019 campaign also saw the delivery of 24 containers in one pass. Embraer adds that the aircraft’s fly-by-wire control system is effective at handling pitch and altitude changes both during and after each load release."

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.

Continuing to invest in incremental improvements, enhancements of mature platforms, 50-60 year old, is a proven tactic. Benefitting from commonality with existing aircraft facilities, supply chains, jobs. Boeing does it too, e.g. with the 737.

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.

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.

And unless said replacement is substantially better in all metrics, or the requirements significantly change, they won't replace the C-130.

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.

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.

Ok? John McCain won’t play much of a role though. Is this tirade about the C-130 replacement requirement that hasn’t been drafted? Or the A400M engine selection, or the German fighter selection, or the Canadian fighter selection?

A quad tilt rotor I think is most likely long term to replace the Herc. I don’t think it’s conspiratorial about the graybeards to say there’s no rush to write a spec for the C-390 because it would ‘benefit the warfighters’ (or Boeing).

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.

No, a piece of equipment needs to be substantially better than the one in service in order to justify setting up a new infrastructure chain for it.

Think about it; it's not just the price of the aircraft, or how much fuel it burns. Think about how much will it cost to train pilots and mechanics. Think about the costs of setting up a supply chain for all of the spare parts needed to keep the aircraft running. Think about the cost of tools and specialized infrastructure needed to maintain the aircraft.

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.

As per previous reply, it’s not about “is there something better available?” As much as it is “is this worth the transition process/costs?” For instance, the KC-135, C-5, and B-52 have soldiered on for the past 3 to 4 decades despite the obvious availability/readiness of industry to produce a superior successor.

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....

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.

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.

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...

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...

The USAF has never operated the 767 in any shape or form in the past. This is a brand new aircraft type for them.

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

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.

Isn‘t this latest Hercules order a blow to Boeing? They must have expected to cover this market with their new 390?

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.

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.

I am sure it is a sole sourced RFP to LM, but as you noted the number for 50 looks quite good at $3B or $60M per frame compared to other C-130J contracts.


Boeing would not have even expected this to go out as a competitive bid, its a top off order just like C-17 orders kept arriving for decades.

Noshow wrote:

Isn‘t this latest Hercules order a blow to Boeing? They must have expected to cover this market with their new 390?

With the way Boeing is handling things, they are going to have difficulty winning new contracts anyway.

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.

That is the point. The price would be the Unit Recurring Flyaway cost, which comes with engines/electronics etc but likely little else. The USAF has over 250 Js in service, the USMC over 50, both of which are the recipients of this order. They don’t need to order training and support as the fleet size now means they simply top up airframes for already established sustainment lines.

426Shadow wrote:

With the way Boeing is handling things, they are going to have difficulty winning new contracts anyway.

Boeing Defense has done a great job of winning US military sales campaigns lately, as per T-X, MQ-25 and AW-139. They clearly aren’t delivering well on KC-46 but the sales side of things is humming along.

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…

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…

It has been a very long time since any military ordered the A400's at any price, a check further indicates the A400's are significantly more than $130M.

smithbs wrote:

I wish Embra-oeing luck.
Or is it Boe-aer?

Embroeing.

This seems a good opportunity for the C-390 especially if they can compete on price. The C-130 may be the favourite given it is the incumbent but not a done deal yet. Thailand has shown an ability to acquire an eclectic mix of aircraft and a new transport could certainly add to that.

I don’t see the A400M being successful here, likely too much aircraft and too great a cost for Thailand.

Thai Air Force releases wish list for the next decade

...

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.

...

https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia ... xt-decade/

Noshow wrote:

Isn‘t this latest Hercules order a blow to Boeing? They must have expected to cover this market with their new 390?

How can it be a blow to Boeing exactly? The C130 has been round now since 1960 in one for or other? If Boeing hasn't defeated it by now?
Do you think they really Will? When I was in the Navy flying P3-C models Boeing used to come down every so often with their ASW-707. They has a super Radar installed on it but it didn't have the endurance to go out and stay out like the P-3. and even with the 737 They Still can't. But what they can do? Is get out on station Faster than any P3 and start their search sooner though there's no way they can loiter on station as long my longest duration was 17H 18M I left Moffett Field CA. and wound up at Misawa Japan where we spent the night and did it all again to land back at Moffett Field . each flight we were on Station over 6 hours. The navy and will come up with a different Basing strategy I'm sure as my old squadron is based in Hawaii. I'll bet the rest of the wing is now at JB McChord and Whidbey Island WA.