Hey guys,
On Wednesday 12 July, I drove to Sydney Airport to see the second prototype of Embraer's KC-390 overnighting there on its way back from New Zealand.
Viewing the plane got me thinking...
I know that Brazil and Portugal have ordered the aircraft, and I believe that Chile, Argentina, the Czech Republic and Colombia have all apparently said that they will order it for their air forces... but there were only four flags painted under the cockpit windows! What is the status of these countries' commitments to the KC-390? Who else is considering it? I know it is under evaluation by New Zealand to replace their Hercules and some roles of their 757s, and has been evaluated and rejected by Canada for its FWSAR requirement. I have read reports of Sweden and the UAE being interested but that was years ago.
Are there still plans to build a stretched version, aimed predominantly at the civil market (I believe)?
I hope this plane is a success, and with Embraer's good record I feel that this plane will be more of an E-jet success than an CBA-123 Vector failure!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

By the way, my opinions of the KC-390 changed when I saw it. I had thought that it looked a bit ungainly and hunchbacked in photos, and a bit like a hotch-potch of design elements from other planes (C-17 tail, ATR-42/-72 nose, BAe 146 wings for example). I was pleasantly surprised to see that the plane looked much better in real life. It was also smaller than I was expecting.

A lot of interesting data can be found here:

http://www.embraerds.com/media_center/B ... 390_EN.pdf

Maybe the most interesting topic is about the semi-prepared airfields: ".. In terms of airfield roughness level, the KC-390 is capable of operating from the maximum
(worst) semi-prepared runway defined by MIL-A-008866B and, for soft field operations, perform10 passes at a CBR 4 airfield (loose fine sand or soft clay) ..."

Sweden is to replace the old herc. it will be new Hercs or KC-390..... A400 is to big and expencive.

SAS A340 wrote:

Sweden is to replace the old herc. it will be new Hercs or KC-390..... A400 is to big and expencive.

Wasn't the KC-390 almost a done deal as it is linked to the SAAB JAS-39 deal with Bazil?

For NZ I think it will largely come down to if doing the CHC-Antartica run with no point of no return is a requirement. If that is put in as a must have then I think the RNZAF will be looking very seriously at the KC-390 and C-2. So there's a very real chance of NZ picking a few up as Herc and 757 replacements.

Big, big plus is that Embraer has a global infrastructure ready to support the aircraft. Second big plus is propulsion. No make-work political fudgeprops, just engines straight off the A321 with IAE global support and overhaul capabilities.

That has to make the KC-390 a strong contender in any sales contest. It also hasn't needed a typical US or European bloated test program to bring to readiness so cost at the factory gate will be competitive.

Sadly, I really can't see my country, Argentina, ordering brand new aircraft in the foreseeable future. When we do, it's gotta be fighter jets.

Some time ago there was some talk about C295 or Spartans, don't know what happened to that.

Dutchy wrote:

SAS A340 wrote:

Sweden is to replace the old herc. it will be new Hercs or KC-390..... A400 is to big and expencive.

Wasn't the KC-390 almost a done deal as it is linked to the SAAB JAS-39 deal with Bazil?

You could think so but nope. sweden will make some sort of a upgrade to the old C-130H to make them fly a year or two beyond 2020, but then i would be very surprised if there would be anything else than the KC-390.

SAS A340 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

SAS A340 wrote:

Sweden is to replace the old herc. it will be new Hercs or KC-390..... A400 is to big and expencive.

Wasn't the KC-390 almost a done deal as it is linked to the SAAB JAS-39 deal with Bazil?

You could think so but nope. sweden will make some sort of a upgrade to the old C-130H to make them fly a year or two beyond 2020, but then i would be very surprised if there would be anything else than the KC-390.

Ok, thanks for the update.

Far too early in the production cycle to make any predictions about the viability of this aircraft. Military procurement always takes longer than civil anyway as air forces have to shake the Government money tree to get purchases authorised, so future purchases are going to be hard to predict and will be spread out anyway as it's a low volume per year product from Embraer themselves.

To me it's the tanker ability that is going to be the feature that interests the Air Forces, especially if the plane can be developed to include additional tanks. I was thinking about something like the "strike tankers" the Israeli Air Force developed; fast reaction smaller aircraft designed to meet combat planes and get them back to base. The various big twins are often too much plane so would this slot into requirements for other air forces?

Hello,

Portugal will start very soon efective negotiations regarding the buying of up to 5+1 (optional) KC-390, the goverment decret as already been issued. They are expected to also be used as "firefighter" planes during the hot summer, the "fire season".

Also, the portuguese goverment is also evaluating the suspension of the modernization of the C130H currently operating in PoAF fleet.

Here´s the link (portuguese only, but google translate is your friend): http://www.defesanet.com.br/kc390/notic ... es-KC-390/

I think this plane will have great sucess, not because Portugal is gonna have them but because there are a lot of countries with not that much money to spend that eventualy will need 2 or 3 of them, because as someone said before, the A400 is too big and expensive.
Maybe I´m being to optimistic here but in 10 years I can see between 100 and 120 sold.
Just my 2 cents....

Embraer has declared that its KC-390 transport/tanker aircraft now has the initial capabilities required for the Brazilian Air Force (Força Aérea Brasileira: FAB) to accept the aircraft into service in 2018.

http://www.janes.com/article/76553/embr ... for-kc-390

Hopefully Sweden makes a call for 6 or 8

The Embraer KC-390 is a medium-size, twin-engine jet-powered military transport aircraft under development by Brazilian aerospace manufacturer Embraer Embraer Defesa e Segurança - EDS) along with the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) who fully financed the project. Inicially the aircraft would be based on the EMB-190, but FAB demanded a clean sheet design. Portugal, Czech Republic and Argentina joined the program. The aircraft will also be certified for civilian aviation. Embraer stated that the KC390 has a potential of selling 700 units in the military field and 250 in the civil in the next 10 years;



Image Source: Uol Airway

MISSIONS:
Airlift (max. payload 26 metric ton)
Airdrop (high and low altitude)
Aerial Assault (high altitude)
Aerial Refueling (fighters and helicopters)
Aerial Firefighting
Aeromedical Evacuation
Humanitarian Aid
Search and Rescue

Features and Specifications


Cargo Configuration


Range


source: Embraer
http://www.embraerds.com/media_center/Brochuras/Brochura_KC-390_EN.pdf

Would the US armed forces be interested in getting a few dozens when Boeing acquires Embraer?

Dutchy wrote:

Would the US armed forces be interested in getting a few dozens when Boeing acquires Embraer?

I believe so.

The hercules, even with advanced upgrades, is a 70 year old designer aircraft.

It will have to be retired eventually.

I believe the US would want a platform with tactical landing capability if replacing the C-130. the quite conventional landing gear as well as the relatively low turbofan engines are not ideal for landing and takeoff into semi-prepared runways.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

For NZ I think it will largely come down to if doing the CHC-Antartica run with no point of no return is a requirement. If that is put in as a must have then I think the RNZAF will be looking very seriously at the KC-390 and C-2. So there's a very real chance of NZ picking a few up as Herc and 757 replacements.

Can the KC390 even do the 4000 km CHC-Antartica run with any significant payload? Apart from range-payload, are 2 engine operations on this sector possible?

Catfry wrote:

I believe the US would want a platform with tactical landing capability if replacing the C-130. the quite conventional landing gear as well as the relatively low turbofan engines are not ideal for landing and takeoff into semi-prepared runways.

Capability which the KC390 will have.

Its being made to land on semi-prepared runaways, this was a FAB demand on the project because they have mission on Antartic and on those bad runaways in the middle of the amazon.

The wings are very high (so are the engines) so bad runaways wont be a problem.

BawliBooch wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

For NZ I think it will largely come down to if doing the CHC-Antartica run with no point of no return is a requirement. If that is put in as a must have then I think the RNZAF will be looking very seriously at the KC-390 and C-2. So there's a very real chance of NZ picking a few up as Herc and 757 replacements.

Can the KC390 even do the 4000 km CHC-Antartica run with any significant payload? Apart from range-payload, are 2 engine operations on this sector possible?

26tons = 2111km
23tons = 2815km
14tons = 5055km

Oh ok. I was confused by the appearance of the main landing gear in flight, where it seems to have a low hanging pair of trailing wheels, typical of conventional single strut landing gear bogies. But now I read that the gear is supposed to be designed for low CBR value runways so in that case i guess it isn't a single strut bogie setup after all. I'm still curious of what sort of main landing gear it is, I haven't been able to find any pictures.

Dutchy wrote:

Would the US armed forces be interested in getting a few dozens when Boeing acquires Embraer?

I don't see a need from the USAF for a KC-390 type platform. They have a large C-17 fleet for the strategic mission, which can pinch hit semi-prepared when necessary, and then they have the C-130J fleet, which continues to grow, to do the tactical movements and for the USMC A2A refuelling. The C-130J fleet is currently 170+ aircraft strong while the C-130H fleet, mostly operated by reserve squadrons, numbers over 200.

A new transport will likely arrive sometime in the 2030s. How that will look and what size it will be is still open for discussion but I highly doubt it will be a current in service or development aircraft.

Catfry wrote:

Oh ok. I was confused by the appearance of the main landing gear in flight, where it seems to have a low hanging pair of trailing wheels, typical of conventional single strut landing gear bogies. But now I read that the gear is supposed to be designed for low CBR value runways so in that case i guess it isn't a single strut bogie setup after all. I'm still curious of what sort of main landing gear it is, I haven't been able to find any pictures.

Its a new landing gear developed by Embraer subsidiary ELEB. The company already provides Landing Gear for Embraer business jets and regional jets. It also provided landiing gear for the AMX, ground attack aircraft design in a joint force by Brasil and Italy.

So besides a 40% higher cruising speed the C-130J is superior in every metric. It can fly further with any given payload. It can land on a shorter runway with any given payload.

I'm not sure the USAF would be even slightly interested.

The C-130J can land a 20T payload onto a 2000ft strip, unload and takeoff and fly a short distance. The KC-390 needs 3000ft. That's a huge difference for a tactical airlifter.

The KC-390's runway performance is similar to the heavier and more expensive A400m. Impressive for a jet.

Small air forces that operate C-130's as their largest transport in a more strategic airlift role would prefer the KC-390.

The KC-390 is not aimed to USAF. They are looking for the market that RJMAZ said: "Small air forces that operate C-130's as their largest transport in a more strategic airlift role would prefer the KC-390."

I understand, but military purchases aren't just about needs

In case anyone was interested, I found some pictures of the landing gear, although they are not very clear.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... 90-FAB.jpg

http://portaldefesa.com/home/wp-content ... 916119.jpg

It seems like each wheel pair is independently sprung by a damping strut connecting them to a single bogie per two wheel pairs. This is certainly better than a conventional bogie setup, and it is quite an complex and unique solution. I am satisfied that at least the landing gear is suited for soft field landings.

Catfry wrote:

In case anyone was interested, I found some pictures of the landing gear, although they are not very clear.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... 90-FAB.jpg

http://portaldefesa.com/home/wp-content ... 916119.jpg

It seems like each wheel pair is independently sprung by a damping strut connecting them to a single bogie per two wheel pairs. This is certainly better than a conventional bogie setup, and it is quite an complex and unique solution. I am satisfied that at least the landing gear is suited for soft field landings.

Last week i read a huge article about the company that developed this landing gear talking about it but i cant find it now. If I do I post it here.

YuriMG2 wrote:

Catfry wrote:

In case anyone was interested, I found some pictures of the landing gear, although they are not very clear.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... 90-FAB.jpg

http://portaldefesa.com/home/wp-content ... 916119.jpg

It seems like each wheel pair is independently sprung by a damping strut connecting them to a single bogie per two wheel pairs. This is certainly better than a conventional bogie setup, and it is quite an complex and unique solution. I am satisfied that at least the landing gear is suited for soft field landings.

Last week i read a huge article about the company that developed this landing gear talking about it but i cant find it now. If I do I post it here.

The company developing the landing gear is Héroux-Devtek. It's one of the largest companies in the world that specialize in developing landing gears.

ThePointblank wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

Catfry wrote:

In case anyone was interested, I found some pictures of the landing gear, although they are not very clear.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... 90-FAB.jpg

http://portaldefesa.com/home/wp-content ... 916119.jpg

It seems like each wheel pair is independently sprung by a damping strut connecting them to a single bogie per two wheel pairs. This is certainly better than a conventional bogie setup, and it is quite an complex and unique solution. I am satisfied that at least the landing gear is suited for soft field landings.

Last week i read a huge article about the company that developed this landing gear talking about it but i cant find it now. If I do I post it here.

The company developing the landing gear is Héroux-Devtek. It's one of the largest companies in the world that specialize in developing landing gears.

Héroux-Devtek is developing and manufacturing some components of the landing gear. The Landing Gear itself is made by Embraer Subsidiary ELEB.

RJMAZ wrote:

So besides a 40% higher cruising speed the C-130J is superior in every metric. It can fly further with any given payload. It can land on a shorter runway with any given payload.

I'm not sure the USAF would be even slightly interested.

The C-130J can land a 20T payload onto a 2000ft strip, unload and takeoff and fly a short distance. The KC-390 needs 3000ft. That's a huge difference for a tactical airlifter.

The KC-390's runway performance is similar to the heavier and more expensive A400m. Impressive for a jet.

Small air forces that operate C-130's as their largest transport in a more strategic airlift role would prefer the KC-390.

It is probably worth adding that there is an existing upgrade market for C-130H aircraft that adds significant capability and airframe time.

The H model C-130s are considered “legacy” airplanes in the Air National Guard, crafted about 30 years ago. Newer J model aircraft are still being manufactured, but cost taxpayers a pretty penny. By making three separate engine-related modifications to improve the performance of the legacy models, the military is able to make good use of its budget, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its missions and better ensure the safety of men and women in uniform.

The upgrades include:

Installation of four Rolls-Royce T56 series 3.5 engines to improve aircraft performance, fuel efficiency and reliability through the use of redesigned air inlet housing, updated turbine and improved compressor blades and seals.
Implementing digitally-controlled Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation modular and composite eight-bladed propeller systems to replace four metal propellers and provide increased low-speed operational performance and decrease propeller maintenance time.
Replacing advanced electronic propeller control systems with hydraulic controls to increase propeller acceleration response while an in-flight propeller balancing system decreases maintenance down-time.

The successful modification of the legacy model demonstrates an ability to extend the life and usefulness of the decades-old aircraft by 30-40 years, Lyman said.

https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/local_ ... 35125.html

Adding another 30-40 years is probably factoring reserve unit annual hours but that is still an impressive upgrade and shows that there may be plenty of life left in the C-130H fleet, for the USAF and national Guard at least.

USAF wouldnt buy a foreign aircraft with a similar american in the market.

We all know that lol

YuriMG2 wrote:

USAF wouldnt buy a foreign aircraft with a similar american in the market.

Yes we've established that already but a C-130H upgrade program which will adds sufficient life to the jet at a reasonable cost potentially shrinks the market for the KC-390 as a C-130H replacement.

YuriMG2 wrote:

We all know that lol

If you think that then why in post #17 did you suggest that they will?

Ozair wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

USAF wouldnt buy a foreign aircraft with a similar american in the market.

Yes we've established that already but a C-130H upgrade program which will adds sufficient life to the jet at a reasonable cost potentially shrinks the market for the KC-390 as a C-130H replacement.

YuriMG2 wrote:

We all know that lol

If you think that then why in post #17 did you suggest that they will?

KC390 will still be cheaper than the 70 years old Herc, so there is market.

And I didnt know about the 30+ years upgrades so now i dont think usaf would even consider the kc390.

The KC-390 won't be cheaper than used and refurbished hercs. So the market will be small.

Lots of new C-130J's being purchased means lots of C-130H's being retired that can be refurbished.

YuriMG2 wrote:

Catfry wrote:

In case anyone was interested, I found some pictures of the landing gear, although they are not very clear.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... 90-FAB.jpg

http://portaldefesa.com/home/wp-content ... 916119.jpg

It seems like each wheel pair is independently sprung by a damping strut connecting them to a single bogie per two wheel pairs. This is certainly better than a conventional bogie setup, and it is quite an complex and unique solution. I am satisfied that at least the landing gear is suited for soft field landings.

Last week i read a huge article about the company that developed this landing gear talking about it but i cant find it now. If I do I post it here.

Please do if you can, I am very interested in this, I have never seen the configuration before, it might be a new innovation from the designer. It's quite rare to see actual new implementations in landing gear. It reminds me in some ways of railway bogies, with the shock absorbers between the wheels and the bogie.

Catfry wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

Catfry wrote:

In case anyone was interested, I found some pictures of the landing gear, although they are not very clear.

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uplo ... 90-FAB.jpg

http://portaldefesa.com/home/wp-content ... 916119.jpg

It seems like each wheel pair is independently sprung by a damping strut connecting them to a single bogie per two wheel pairs. This is certainly better than a conventional bogie setup, and it is quite an complex and unique solution. I am satisfied that at least the landing gear is suited for soft field landings.

Last week i read a huge article about the company that developed this landing gear talking about it but i cant find it now. If I do I post it here.

Please do if you can, I am very interested in this, I have never seen the configuration before, it might be a new innovation from the designer. It's quite rare to see actual new implementations in landing gear. It reminds me in some ways of railway bogies, with the shock absorbers between the wheels and the bogie.

Found it... but its in Portuguese.

http://www.fab.mil.br/noticias/mostra/2 ... brasileira

And here is another one talking about the innovatons in the aircraft but its mainly about the landing gear.

http://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/kc-3 ... no-brasil/

Some other pics

thank you very much. Google translate did a good job translating the article.
What does "“Pode quebrar uma asa, mas não o trem de pouso”, compara Taucci sobre um eventual acidente. O que pode ocorrer é o trem dobrar, um recurso para evitar maiores danos ao avião." mean? The translation comes out as, "Taucci compares about a possible accident. What can occur is the double-train, a feature to avoid further damage to the plane."

Catfry wrote:

I believe the US would want a platform with tactical landing capability if replacing the C-130. the quite conventional landing gear as well as the relatively low turbofan engines are not ideal for landing and takeoff into semi-prepared runways.

Well the turbines are more than 2 meters off the ground! As for the main landing gear you will notice that it is much more robust than the C-130J, and there are 8 tires against only 4 in the Hercules, meaning less pressure on the ground.

RJMAZ wrote:

The KC-390 won't be cheaper than used and refurbished hercs. So the market will be small.

Lots of new C-130J's being purchased means lots of C-130H's being retired that can be refurbished.

The C-130 is an 50's aircraft with many points in common with the L-188 Electra, both produced by Lockheed. Electra was in commercial service in Brazil until 1992 and I flew on them a few times.

The KC-390 has a technological level very similar to the A-321ceo (2 pilots, FBY, turbofans) and is at least 2 generations ahead of Electra, considered a totally obsolete aircraft. How many L-188s still fly today?

With respect to USAF if the Boeing-Embraer partnership goes ahead Lockheed will have to lower their prices and improve their services because the competition will be tough.

It does not look like anything, but the world has changed a little bit in 60 years! There are relatively good runways everywhere, even in the Amazon. Pathfinder icons such as the DHC-5 Buffalo were replaced for more economical, comfortable and fast aircraft like the C-295.

RJMAZ wrote:

So besides a 40% higher cruising speed the C-130J is superior in every metric. It can fly further with any given payload. It can land on a shorter runway with any given payload.

I'm not sure the USAF would be even slightly interested.

The C-130J can land a 20T payload onto a 2000ft strip, unload and takeoff and fly a short distance. The KC-390 needs 3000ft. That's a huge difference for a tactical airlifter.

The KC-390's runway performance is similar to the heavier and more expensive A400m. Impressive for a jet.

Small air forces that operate C-130's as their largest transport in a more strategic airlift role would prefer the KC-390.

Do not be rushed, just try to see the bigger picture:

KC-390 vs C-130J:
- Larger critical dimensions in width (3.45 x 3.04 m) and height (2.95 x 2.74 m);
- Higher load capacity (26 x 20 t);
- Greater operational ceiling (36000 x 28000 ft);
- Better ergonomics (bathroom, paraquedist features);
- Easier to pilot (FBY)
- Faster (541 x 417 mph);
- Range (2730 nm @ 14 ton vs. 1800 nm @ 15.4 ton)
- Possibility of being refueled in flight (standard)

In 15 years which of the two will have better options of remotorization? Just see how competitive the fight is to power the A321.

Catfry wrote:

thank you very much. Google translate did a good job translating the article.
What does "“Pode quebrar uma asa, mas não o trem de pouso”, compara Taucci sobre um eventual acidente. O que pode ocorrer é o trem dobrar, um recurso para evitar maiores danos ao avião." mean? The translation comes out as, "Taucci compares about a possible accident. What can occur is the double-train, a feature to avoid further damage to the plane."

To literally translate, "A wing might break, but not the landing gear. What could occur is the gear bending, which would prevent further structural damage to the airframe."

Nean1 wrote:

Do not be rushed, just try to see the bigger picture:

In 15 years which of the two will have better options of remotorization? Just see how competitive the fight is to power the A321.

Wrong.

C-130J has a range with 18,144 kg payload and MIL-C-5011A reserves of 2,835 nm / 5,250 km

The KC-390 has a range of 2730nm with only 14,000kg.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... -specs.htm

C-130J-30 has 25% more cargo volume than the KC-390. A 17.05m cabin length for the C-130J vs only 12.68m for the KC-390. Both excluding the ramp.

The C-130J while carrying its maximum payload can still carry its maximum fuel capacity.

The KC-390 with its maximum rated payload can only carry 50% of its internal fuel capacity. This is very misleading as it is exchanging fuel for payload. Fully fueled the KC-390 can't even lift 75% of the payload that the C-130 can.

Nean1 wrote:

The C-130 is an 50's aircraft with many points in common with the L-188 Electra, both produced by Lockheed. Electra was in commercial service in Brazil until 1992 and I flew on them a few times.
The KC-390 has a technological level very similar to the A-321ceo (2 pilots, FBY, turbofans) and is at least 2 generations ahead of Electra, considered a totally obsolete aircraft. How many L-188s still fly today?

Being obsolete isn’t really a concern for some militaries. There are for instance enough militaries still flying F-5s, MiG-21s, F-7s etc, (let alone the C-130Es and Hs still flying) all at least a couple of generations behind the current state of play. They fly them because they can continue to operate second hand aircraft for significantly cheaper than acquiring new aircraft, even when reasonably viable and reportedly cheap replacements (used F-16A, Gripen) are available on the market.

If we look at the current operators of the C-130 around the globe we should be able to make a decent estimation on the potential market for the KC-390 as a C-130 replacement. The list is here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_L ... _operators

I will have a go at this and post where I consider the KC-390 has a chance. It would be great seeing others thoughts on potential customers now the KC-390 is IOC.

Nean1 wrote:

With respect to USAF if the Boeing-Embraer partnership goes ahead Lockheed will have to lower their prices and improve their services because the competition will be tough.

I’m not so sure. In the 2018 USMC Aviation plan the USMC stated they plan to continue acquiring KC-130J aircraft until 2031, so 13 years from now. That is a long time for the current aircraft to remain in production and with such a large existing fleet of C-130J aircraft in the inventory, and an ongoing C-130H upgrade program, I don’t see potential for the KC-390 with the USAF/USMC etc. It may impact export sales but even then the current production line is very lean and can leverage continued US orders.

Additionally, as we see with some military acquisitions, the ability to leverage either export finance or in the US case the FMS program can heavily influence decisions. Will the Brazilian Government, Brazilian banks or Embraer offer long term low cost loans? Do they do that now for E-jets?

Nean1 wrote:

It does not look like anything, but the world has changed a little bit in 60 years! There are relatively good runways everywhere, even in the Amazon. Pathfinder icons such as the DHC-5 Buffalo were replaced for more economical, comfortable and fast aircraft like the C-295.

The KC-390 certainly has some great features like the right size as a transport replacement, can leverage the global experience of Embraer, a globally supported engine, rough field capability and A2A refuelling and I agree that a large replacement market is there.

The question is how viable is the KC-390 against either existing in production designs and upgrades of existing transports? Can the Brazilian military be an effective partner to other nations seeking to acquire the aircraft?

Ozair wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

The C-130 is an 50's aircraft with many points in common with the L-188 Electra, both produced by Lockheed. Electra was in commercial service in Brazil until 1992 and I flew on them a few times.
The KC-390 has a technological level very similar to the A-321ceo (2 pilots, FBY, turbofans) and is at least 2 generations ahead of Electra, considered a totally obsolete aircraft. How many L-188s still fly today?

Being obsolete isn’t really a concern for some militaries. There are for instance enough militaries still flying F-5s, MiG-21s, F-7s etc, (let alone the C-130Es and Hs still flying) all at least a couple of generations behind the current state of play. They fly them because they can continue to operate second hand aircraft for significantly cheaper than acquiring new aircraft, even when reasonably viable and reportedly cheap replacements (used F-16A, Gripen) are available on the market.

If we look at the current operators of the C-130 around the globe we should be able to make a decent estimation on the potential market for the KC-390 as a C-130 replacement. The list is here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_L ... _operators

I will have a go at this and post where I consider the KC-390 has a chance. It would be great seeing others thoughts on potential customers now the KC-390 is IOC.

Nean1 wrote:

With respect to USAF if the Boeing-Embraer partnership goes ahead Lockheed will have to lower their prices and improve their services because the competition will be tough.

I’m not so sure. In the 2018 USMC Aviation plan the USMC stated they plan to continue acquiring KC-130J aircraft until 2031, so 13 years from now. That is a long time for the current aircraft to remain in production and with such a large existing fleet of C-130J aircraft in the inventory, and an ongoing C-130H upgrade program, I don’t see potential for the KC-390 with the USAF/USMC etc. It may impact export sales but even then the current production line is very lean and can leverage continued US orders.

Additionally, as we see with some military acquisitions, the ability to leverage either export finance or in the US case the FMS program can heavily influence decisions. Will the Brazilian Government, Brazilian banks or Embraer offer long term low cost loans? Do they do that now for E-jets?

Nean1 wrote:

It does not look like anything, but the world has changed a little bit in 60 years! There are relatively good runways everywhere, even in the Amazon. Pathfinder icons such as the DHC-5 Buffalo were replaced for more economical, comfortable and fast aircraft like the C-295.

The KC-390 certainly has some great features like the right size as a transport replacement, can leverage the global experience of Embraer, a globally supported engine, rough field capability and A2A refuelling and I agree that a large replacement market is there.

The question is how viable is the KC-390 against either existing in production designs and upgrades of existing transports? Can the Brazilian military be an effective partner to other nations seeking to acquire the aircraft?

Where some seek the cheapest solution others will think of the more economical solution. Maybe a refurbished C-130H is cheaper.

The USMC has chosen among the available options, but what if there are others? If America wants to have the most powerful military this means that performance and merit also matter.

With regard to export financing you probably know that military equipment does not follow the same restrictions applicable to civil aircraft (WTO, OECD), so I believe that BNDES may have competitive rates for government-to-government deals.

Embraer has proven itself to be able to offer high-quality support even in markets where it had no tradition, such as executive jets. Why couldn't they offer a good service to the KC-390s abroad?

I think the big outstanding question is which military transport aircraft of equal or bigger size than Hercules will still be produced 15 years from now. The C-17 ended production 20 years after its entry into service. I do not think the A400M will be in production in 2028. The KC-390 has many possibilities to maintain and receive better engines, compatible with the super-competitive single-aisle civil aircraft market. The last gear in the puzzle is called Boeing.

reffado wrote:

To literally translate, "A wing might break, but not the landing gear. What could occur is the gear bending, which would prevent further structural damage to the airframe."

Thanks, that's interesting.

Nean1 wrote:

Catfry wrote:

I believe the US would want a platform with tactical landing capability if replacing the C-130. the quite conventional landing gear as well as the relatively low turbofan engines are not ideal for landing and takeoff into semi-prepared runways.

Well the turbines are more than 2 meters off the ground! As for the main landing gear you will notice that it is much more robust than the C-130J, and there are 8 tires against only 4 in the Hercules, meaning less pressure on the ground.

I admit I was wrong about the landing gear capability of the kc-390, it seems more able than what I thought when i wrote that.
I'm not so sure whether it is more or less robust than the c-130. although the number of wheels is a good simple way of comparing there are other factors that determine the capabilities of it. For one, the size of the tires. The c-130 uses something like 48'' low psi tires which provide a greater footprint per tire. Each wheel has its own shock absorber, as compared with the pairwise sharing on the kc-390. This is a simplified description. Both planes have interesting and unique thrust frame designs that complicates the picture. It seems like the challenges of tactical designs often drive unique solutions.
At any rate I don't think it is simple to say which gear design is more capable, the c-130 has proven its abilities, and I look forward to seeing the newcomer show off what it can do in the real world.

The question of Fans vs props is something I haven't ever seen an authoritative definitive discussion about, but a lot of speculation and claims. I have heard an a400m pilot claim that props are more robust to foreign object debris. One thing that is known is that the US air force in publications has noted the dangers of FOD up-suck by the c-17 globemasters fan engines, especially during reverse taxiing, where the engines have a tendency to create a vortex strong enough to, in one documented instance pick up a manhole cover.

Catfry wrote:

thank you very much. Google translate did a good job translating the article.
What does "“Pode quebrar uma asa, mas não o trem de pouso”, compara Taucci sobre um eventual acidente. O que pode ocorrer é o trem dobrar, um recurso para evitar maiores danos ao avião." mean? The translation comes out as, "Taucci compares about a possible accident. What can occur is the double-train, a feature to avoid further damage to the plane."

it means ''the wing may brake, but not the landing gear'', compare Taucci about a aventual accident. ''what may happen is the landing gear sort of fold out, which is a feature to avoid possible damage on the plane.''

Nean1 wrote:

Where some seek the cheapest solution others will think of the more economical solution. Maybe a refurbished C-130H is cheaper.

That equation is not black and white and will vary depending upon the requirements of the respective user, how far and wide they deploy forces, the extent of their road, rail and sea transport networks and their partners. Hence why a review of current C-130 operators would likely point to a potential size of the market for the KC-390.

Nean1 wrote:

The USMC has chosen among the available options, but what if there are others? If America wants to have the most powerful military this means that performance and merit also matter.

Having a powerful military doesn’t mean you need the best of everything. What often defines the capabilities of a military is the ability to manage, move and resupply that force. The US already has all that it needs to do that and introducing a new sub type, as was seen with the C-27J which lasted only a few years before it was withdrawn from service (for various reasons), is not necessarily the right answer, even if that new type has some unique or enhanced features.

Nean1 wrote:

With regard to export financing you probably know that military equipment does not follow the same restrictions applicable to civil aircraft (WTO, OECD), so I believe that BNDES may have competitive rates for government-to-government deals.

Military equipment financing is a whole other level of complexity over civilian aircraft.

Nean1 wrote:

Embraer has proven itself to be able to offer high-quality support even in markets where it had no tradition, such as executive jets. Why couldn't they offer a good service to the KC-390s abroad?

Militaries like to talk, interact with and work with other militaries. Even in the US FMS situation, the US has an FMS office that is run by the DoD to manage those interactions. While Embraer may be able to provide the support and sustainment the way the organisations interact in a military procurement is different. Not saying they can't do it, but there is a volume of input required by the Brazilian Air Force. The Brazilian acquisition of the Gripen could be seen in a similar vein where the Swedish Air Force as the primary customer has a lot of input.

Nean1 wrote:

I think the big outstanding question is which military transport aircraft of equal or bigger size than Hercules will still be produced 15 years from now. The C-17 ended production 20 years after its entry into service. I do not think the A400M will be in production in 2028.

Agree a good question. The respective market players
US - We know the US is looking at future transport options but there is no indication whether that will be a single aircraft across both strategic and tactical roles, ala A400M, or separate aircraft. I would bet on two separate aircraft covering the separate markets. Any US solution may also be priced above or more technically complex (vertical landing) than what most nations can afford or a willing to operate.

Airbus – Agree the A400M may struggle to move forward past 2028 but its fate may rest more on the replacement for Enders than on the market. I could see a new CEO of Airbus pruning the company back and the A400M would be an easy target and could leave the export market before it has much of a chance to get going

Japan – The C-2 has approx 40 domestic orders and some mild interest from a few other nations. It could be in production 15 years from now but would require a number of export customers to sign on for it to happen. The future influence of Japan on the international arms market also plays a factor here.

Embraer – The KC-390 currently has only two signed customers for 33 aircraft so clearly some further exports need to happen if the aircraft is to stay in production 15 years from now. Brazil remains a wildcard on the military arms market and will be seen as primarily an importer and not an exporter and I don’t expect that to change much in the next 15 years, even if the KC-390 is a runaway success.

Russia – The IL-76MD-90A is just starting production and there are enough global customers of the IL-76 that it is very likely to be in production in 15 years time. We may see a new turboprop aircraft around the KC-390 size but funding for new Russian equipment looks to be tight.

China – The Y-20 should be in production for many years to come but is on the big size to compete in the KC-390 market. A new jet or turboprop aircraft in the size range is probable out of China in the next 15 years.

Nean1 wrote:

The KC-390 has many possibilities to maintain and receive better engines, compatible with the super-competitive single-aisle civil aircraft market. The last gear in the puzzle is called Boeing.

The history of military aircraft is that most designs only refresh engines when the whole platform is refreshed. Few in service airframes are re-engined and if they do it is typically much later in their design life. From an export potential, introducing different engines to a KC-390 than what Brazil operates would likely introduce additional risk for a military customer. The preference would be to operate the same version as other users and take a % hit on fuel costs, which are only a small factor in military procurement and operational cost anyway.