RJMAZ wrote:

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.

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.

Ozair wrote:

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needs to do that and introducing a new sub type, as was seen with the C-27J which lasted only a few years before it was withdrawn from service (for various reasons), is not necessarily the right answer, even if that new type has some unique or enhanced features.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.

YuriMG2 wrote:

You should do a little more research on the country military techs.

YuriMG2 wrote:

Brazil is not a first world advanced 1 trillion dollar defense budget country, but its no Haiti either

Nean1 wrote:

Ozair,
Your line of reasoning confuses me a little. First, you say that the US does not need the best equipment, and then you say that any solution made to the US will be technically cutting-edge, above the requirements of other countries.

Nean1 wrote:

I believe you meant that "We can spend a lot of time employing obsolete equipment (B-52, C-130, KC-135 ...) until we can design and produce something in America that will revolutionize the industry."

Nean1 wrote:

Japan: (1) The country has no tradition as an arms exporter and (2) the fact that the C-2 is not designed to operate on semi-prepared runways. This puts C-2 in the strategic transport category, a very small and expensive niche. Any western customer would try before buying some used C-17 or A400.

Nean1 wrote:

Russia: Il-76 has an impressive capacity, but few recent exports and a good part of them for a market that will close (China). The Il-276 (ex-Il-214) looks a lot like the KC-390, but there are doubts as to whether this troubled project will be implemented.

Nean1 wrote:

China: The Y-20 belongs to another category of aircraft (2.5 x KC-390), a very disputed segment. With Russian turbofans, the efficiency and durability of turbines appears as a point of fragility.

Nean1 wrote:

Ukraine: With all the political and industrial problems, the traditional manufacturer Antonov should not have a competitive product. The A-178 is perhaps a bit small for the task.

Nean1 wrote:

I believe the actual competitors are the C-130J and Chinese Y-8.

YuriMG2 wrote:

Yes, Brazil is not a main military exporter. But there is something it can do is build good aircrafts as history has shown.

Canada is in that chart u posted but its BBD couldnt compete with Embraer, so u may be underestimating the company ability to build a good product because the country has no history of being a military exporter.

Nean1 wrote:

RJMaz,

Thanks for the link, I did not know it. In the short comparison I used the same sources (Wikipedia), so that someone should be presenting bad information.

RJMAZ wrote:

The C-130J can lift more by weight, lift more by volume, fly further, land on a shorter runway and then takeoff from a shorter runway. All on the one mission. It can even loose an engine due to enemy fire and still get the job done.

The KC-390 will be a very hard sell. Low end militaries will go used herc's. High end militaries will use new herc's as a tactical airlift and for the speed part they have a larger faster C-17's.

New Zealand is probably the only country I can think of that would prefer the KC-390. It flies relatively long flights to Australia where its speed would be an advantage. New zealand would rarely send aircraft to the front line of a war zone where the extreme tactical performance of a C-130 would be required.

RJMAZ wrote:

Nean1 wrote:

RJMaz,

Thanks for the link, I did not know it. In the short comparison I used the same sources (Wikipedia), so that someone should be presenting bad information.

Turboprops have a very big advantage when it comes to fuel burn. Generally to travel say 1000nm a turboprop will consume 75% of the fuel. The turboprop will take longer to travel that distance but it will do so using less fuel.

KC-390
81T max takeoff.
38T empty weight.

C-130J
79T max takeoff.
35T empty weight

Now let's say the KC-390 filled up with 20T of fuel bringing its weight to 58T. That leaves 23T before hitting max takeoff weight.

The C-130 to travel the same distance would burn only 15T of fuel due to its 75%. That would bring it's weight up to 50T. That leaves a massive 29T for payload before hitting the 79t maximum takeoff weight. This shows the headroom the C-130J has for emergency and war situations.

Payload is limited for peace time purely to increase airframe life. The C-130J for instance at maximum payload must land if its fuel capacity in the wings drops below 50%. This is reflected by the C-130J's relatively low range at max payload. The weight of the fuel is used to reduce wing root bending movement purely for peace time airframe life. This restriction is not all bad news it means the C-130J has plenty of fuel to return from the combat zone which is very realistic.

During the evacuation of Vietnam the C-130's regularly took off with over 30T payloads. The newer C-130J could lift 35T a short distance if it had to.

The C-130J can lift more by weight, lift more by volume, fly further, land on a shorter runway and then takeoff from a shorter runway. All on the one mission. It can even loose an engine due to enemy fire and still get the job done.

The KC-390 will be a very hard sell. Low end militaries will go used herc's. High end militaries will use new herc's as a tactical airlift and for the speed part they have a larger faster C-17's.

New Zealand is probably the only country I can think of that would prefer the KC-390. It flies relatively long flights to Australia where its speed would be an advantage. New zealand would rarely send aircraft to the front line of a war zone where the extreme tactical performance of a C-130 would be required.

Nean1 wrote:

RJMAZ,

There is a problem with your numbers....

Max take-off weight (2.5g). . 164,000 lb / 74,389 kg
Payload (2.5 g) *. . . . . . . . . . . . 41,224 lb / 18,699 kg
Operating weight empty. . . . 87.276 lb / 39.588 kg
Zero fuel weight **. . . . . . . . 128,500 lb / 58,287 kg
Landing distance (135,000 lbs.). . . . . . . . . . 3,100 ft
Maximum cruise speed. . . . . 325 KTAS / 605 km / hr

Nean1 wrote:

obs: Unlike the KC-390 there is no probe for the KC-130J to be refueled in flight..

Nean1 wrote:

As a matter of justice, I ask you what would be the carrying capacity of KC-390 if only the laws of physics needed to be respected? Theoretically, a device without fly-by-wire, larger wingspan and lower wing fuel load, such as C130J, would be at a disadvantage.

Ozair wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

You should do a little more research on the country military techs.

I’m generally not the guy you accuse of not doing any research…

YuriMG2 wrote:

Brazil is not a first world advanced 1 trillion dollar defense budget country, but its no Haiti either

I don’t think anyone referred to Brazil as Haiti. What we do know is that Brazil does not rank in the top 20 for arms exporters globally and most exports from Brazil comprise smalls arms and ammunition which are reasonably low tech exports.



Brazil has every opportunity to increase that and the KC-390 probably has a big role to play in that increase, but right now Brazil is comparatively not a large exporter and doesn’t have a lot of agreements or track record with countries in that area.

Nean1 wrote:

Ozair,
Your line of reasoning confuses me a little. First, you say that the US does not need the best equipment, and then you say that any solution made to the US will be technically cutting-edge, above the requirements of other countries.

I thought that point was clear but I will try again.

If we look at what the US has, in some areas its weapons and systems dominates, in others it does not. Overall, the US would probably be classed as the most proficient and combat capable military, but that proficiency is not directly related to high end military equipment being operated in every category.

Take the USMC for example. It has the MV-22, a top end high tech cutting edge piece of equipment., expensive to acquire, costly to operate but it comes with great capabilities. On the flip side, it operates the UH-1 in various forms. A good helicopter but no world breaker.

In a similar fashion the USMC operate the AAV-7 which is not a modern piece of equipment and we could probably find better armed and armoured vehicles in service with other nations. How the Marines use it, and how the AAV-7 fits into their overall battle concept and how often and realistic they train, allows them to compensate for any perceived deficiencies against other systems.

Nean1 wrote:

I believe you meant that "We can spend a lot of time employing obsolete equipment (B-52, C-130, KC-135 ...) until we can design and produce something in America that will revolutionize the industry."

No. I was considering that a future US tactical transport aircraft for the USAF has a chance of being, for example, VTOL. That won’t come cheap and will likely be reasonably complex to maintain but will fulfil the requirements the USAF has. I don’t see that type of airframe appealing to the large number of existing C-130 operators so exports may be limited.

Nean1 wrote:

Japan: (1) The country has no tradition as an arms exporter and (2) the fact that the C-2 is not designed to operate on semi-prepared runways. This puts C-2 in the strategic transport category, a very small and expensive niche. Any western customer would try before buying some used C-17 or A400.

What we don’t see are used large military transports on the international market, no chance of a used C-17 anytime soon that is for sure. Perhaps used German Air Force A400M given they have already indicated they are willing to sell but that market is limited.

I agree though, at the moment Japan has a limited defence export industry. How that changes over the next 15 years will directly impact the C-2 as a potential, albeit heavyweight, competitor to the KC-390.

We have had an extensive discussion in the A400M thread about semi-prepared runways and the requirement to land on them. I think there is a market for transports that do not have that capability as so few nations require it, but only time will tell if that is true.

Nean1 wrote:

Russia: Il-76 has an impressive capacity, but few recent exports and a good part of them for a market that will close (China). The Il-276 (ex-Il-214) looks a lot like the KC-390, but there are doubts as to whether this troubled project will be implemented.

The IL-76 had the largest manufactured fleet of any modern military transport above C-130 size. The new IL-76, or IL-476, has every chance of being an export success given the large number of current operators and an established Russian military export program.

Nean1 wrote:

China: The Y-20 belongs to another category of aircraft (2.5 x KC-390), a very disputed segment. With Russian turbofans, the efficiency and durability of turbines appears as a point of fragility.

I already indicated the Y-20 was on the big size to compete. I still expect we will see something out of China in the next ten years for the smaller transport segment, whether an updated Y-8 or turbofan aircraft will have to wait and see.

Nean1 wrote:

Ukraine: With all the political and industrial problems, the traditional manufacturer Antonov should not have a competitive product. The A-178 is perhaps a bit small for the task.

Hence why I didn’t list Ukraine.

Nean1 wrote:

I believe the actual competitors are the C-130J and Chinese Y-8.

Well NZ is a perfect example of a nation that has a fleet of C-130 that they are looking to replace. They have expressed interest and are looking at four different aircraft, the C-130J, KC-390, A400M and the C-2. I think for some customers all four will compete but for others the two smaller airframes may be preferred.

Nean1 wrote:

Ozair,

The list of the 20 largest arms exporting countries presents some quite problematic. There are China, South Korea, Turkey and Belarus, with the proverbial difficulty with the command of the English language. Also appears the Ukraine that follows in a civil war. Also on the list is Israel, with bad or no connection with much of the Islamic world. On the other hand Brazil has good relations practically all over the world.

Nean1 wrote:

Embraer Services & Support supports more than 2000 aircraft in all the world. It has recently been reorganized to support all business areas (commercial, executive and defense). As I said in 15 years Embraer started from a 0% stake in the executive segment to customer satisfaction levels rivaling Gulfstream, a traditional leader.

Nean1 wrote:

In the KC-390 program Boeing has a partnership with Embraer for sales and after-sales support in markets where its share is strong. If the association with Embraer goes ahead, it is also natural that Boeing should dispute head-to-head with LM, including for the US Armed Forces inventory. The same Boeing is on the T-X program with an ambitious proposal, with a totally new trainer aircraft.

Nean1 wrote:

With regard to Russian Il-76 and its successors I am quite skeptical about the their ability to adapt the aircraft to contemporary needs, produce it in significant quantity and provide the expected customer support. I think the Chinese Y-20 will take its place.

Lieutenant General Vladimir Benediktov, head of Russia’s military transport aviation command (Voyenno-Transportnoy Aviatsii, VTA), announced at the beginning of October that the Russian Air Force would require 150-200 new Il-76MD-90A transports by the end of the 2020s.
The announcement was made by Lt Gen Benediktov while visiting the Aviastar-SP factory at Ulyanovsk Vostochny Airport in the Ulyanovsk Oblast, where he inspected a number of different aircraft types currently under construction at the plant. He also stated that the Ministry of Defence is happy with the progress being made in the development, with a reported 25% or more efficiency increase over the legacy Il-76 models.
The current production plan is to have 39 delivered by 2021, with a rate of 21 a year from then on. This is approximately four years later than planned; the original government resolution was issued in 2006. The delays are believed to have been due to Aviastar-SP having to redevelop static test procedures when aircraft production was transferred from Tashkent TAPO in Uzbekistan to Ulyanovsk.
The VTA currently has 144 Il-76 transports in service, the oldest of which was delivered to the Soviet Air Force around 1981. Up to 14 of them have been upgraded to the MD-90 standard with new PS-90A-76 engines in the last 10 years. Despite this, it is estimated that more than 50% of the current Il-76 fleet is grounded in a non-airworthy condition. This is putting an ever increasing strain on the ones that are airworthy.
It is believed that five MD-90A variants have been completed, the first four as test aircraft and the fifth delivered to the VTA's 610th Centre for Combat Employment and Personnel Retraining at Ivanovo Air Force Base.

YuriMG2 wrote:

The prototype that had a incident back in october will fly again tomorrow after some structural repair. Source is a user in the PoderAereo website.

Embraer e SkyTech assinam carta de intenção para até seis aeronaves multimissão KC-390

http://www.aereo.jor.br/2018/02/05/embr ... ao-kc-390/

YuriMG2 wrote:

SkyTech signed a intention to buy 6 KC-390.

The order took place in the Singapura Air Show today.

YuriMG2 wrote:

This makes 35 firm orders and 31 intentional order (plus Sweden with a undisclosed number)

YuriMG2 wrote:

Firm Orders
Brazil: 30
Portugal: 5

Intention
Portugal: 1
Colombia: 12
Chile: 6
Argentina: 6
Czech Republic: 6
SkyTech: 6
Sweden: Undisclosed

There are also negotiations with Italy, Bolivia, New Zeland and UAE.

Ozair wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

SkyTech signed a intention to buy 6 KC-390.

The order took place in the Singapura Air Show today.

How do you see Skytech using these, as contract military transport for rough field work for Africa, Middle East etc or in some commercial arrangement?

mxaxai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

SkyTech signed a intention to buy 6 KC-390.

The order took place in the Singapura Air Show today.

How do you see Skytech using these, as contract military transport for rough field work for Africa, Middle East etc or in some commercial arrangement?

A decent amount of previously military transports is used for commercial and civilian purposes. I expect there to be some demand for transporting outsized cargo that does not warrant an An-124, similar to what the An-12 does today.

Ozair wrote:

How do you see Skytech using these, as contract military transport for rough field work for Africa, Middle East etc or in some commercial arrangement

The correct English terminology would be potential order, not intentional.

So of the potential orders we have a number that have been interested for a long period of time but have still not locked in a firm order. It is likely that a number are waiting for the aircraft to IOC, and potentially FOC, with the Brazilian Air Force before they order so perhaps in one to two years there will be some firming of this interest. I expect 2020 should be a good year for the KC-390.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
I'm loving the discussion... Keep it up!
Just a minor point, the Kawasaki C-2 transitted Australia last last year on its way to NZ for demonstration fights, just like the KC-390 did earlier in the year to 'trigger' this thread.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

Embraer Lands KC-390 Interest for Leasing Deals

Embraer Defense & Security has announced that it has received a Letter of Intent for up to six KC-390 multi-mission transports from aviation services company SkyTech, which intends to supply them to military customers under lease agreements similar to those employed in the commercial aviation sector. Negotiations are under way with a view to having the aircraft delivered starting late in 2020, and SkyTech envisions a potential market that could lead to further purchases.

SkyTech aims to acquire the aircraft in full NATO military specification, including optional inflight refueling capability, and lease them to air arms. They will remain the property of the company, but will be military-registered and operated by air force crews. Lease terms could vary, but would typically be 10, 12 or 15 years. A service provision arrangement would be entertained if a government required it, but the long-term lease offers the most attractive proposition for most potential customers.

For those customers, the arrangement not only greatly reduces start-up costs by removing the acquisition element, but would also permit upgrading at the end of the lease term, with SkyTech taking the outgoing aircraft and re-leasing them to other air forces at a lower rate. Meanwhile, the original lessee could acquire a fleet of much newer aircraft, allowing the force to maintain currency with technology and refresh the operational fleet at reduced intervals compared with a traditional outright acquisition program.

full article: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... sing-deals

YuriMG2 wrote:

thats interesting

Ozair wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

thats interesting

I agree, very interesting. So we aren’t looking at a contract arrangement but a leasing option. Makes sense now and the mission of SkyTech becomes trying to find a home for six KC-390 in the next couple of years. I think this plan has a much greater chance of success than attempting to use the KC-390 commercially. Will be interesting to see if and where they place these and I could see two or three different customers for the six aircraft.

YuriMG2 wrote:

Yes. What I understood is that SkyTech would buy the KCs and lease them to nations that couldn’t afford now a Military Cargo Aircraft, and also providing maintenance service and training for the country.

Am I wrong?

Noray wrote:

Air&Cosmos speculate that the SkyTech deal may actually be the concretisation of the Portuguese order.

In this case SkyTech would lease the aircraft to Portugal (and possible other customers), and you'd have to remove the Portuguese order from your list.

Nean1 wrote:

YuriMG2 wrote:

Speculation that anyone could've come with. Instead being the 6 Portugal wants, it could be another 6 for Australian, since the company is also Australian, its easy to speculate, see?

This article has no source, no indication of anything, just a guess.

Its not impossible but in a article says that this SkyTech has talked with governments air forces about this kind of market, so I dont think it would be just a

YuriMG2 wrote:

Speculation that anyone could've come with.
...
This article has no source, no indication of anything, just a guess.

YuriMG2 wrote:

Its not impossible but in a article says that this SkyTech has talked with governments air forces about this kind of market, so I dont think it would be just a kind of deal because Portugal is in a bad shape financially, but actually this company trying to find a niche.

YuriMG2 wrote:

That 5 + 20 was the potential order that Brazilian Postal Service made earlier, I dont know if that deal is still in negotiation.

RJMAZ wrote:

Commercial freight is very interesting.

It's a very tough market with cheap passenger to freight conversions of both the 767 and A330 families. Oversized cargo can go in Soviet era military transports or through the nose of existing 747 freighter.
Maybe being from Brazil the price can be attractive enough to make the numbers work. Usually military airlifters have inferior fuel burn compared to airliners due to the increased cruise drag of the STOL designs. I'm not sure if the newer engines in the KC-390 could make up for this.
Oversized freight demand to rural areas is probably increasing so maybe the commercial market could support the KC-390.

RJMAZ wrote:

Does FedEx for example have any routes currently used by props that could be ungauged?

I would have thought any route that has significant freight demand would have an airport big enough to support a 767 freighter.

Ozair wrote:

Painting a brochure is great free Fedex advertising but I don’t see any justifiable reason for Fedex to order the KC-390.

WIederling wrote:

Where is your beef in someone posting just another hopeful rendering not even a single "777!" ?

Tugger wrote:

At least in your mind that is.

WIederling wrote:

Tugger wrote:

At least in your mind that is.

What your minds thinks my mind thinks.
I'll have to ask my Eustace about this.

L100 has civil applications. French Post Office used C160 for a while.
Lots of C130 though operated by the military, are used for rural transport. what about privatization .-)

Tugger wrote:

No worries WIederling, just haranguing you a bit and really there is no need for me to.

Tugg

Kiwirob wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
I'm loving the discussion... Keep it up!
Just a minor point, the Kawasaki C-2 transitted Australia last last year on its way to NZ for demonstration fights, just like the KC-390 did earlier in the year to 'trigger' this thread.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

I believe C-2 has a much better chance in NZ than the KC-390. Although I think it's the A400 which will get the nod.

Nean1 wrote:

this in a high-level technical air force

Nean1 wrote:

"a deployability rate of 38%, or just three of the service's 15-aircraft total......."

Nean1 wrote:

As for C-2, the price is expected to be much higher than the KC-390 (~ 136 vs 85 MM USD), as well as the operating cost. Its manufacturer has little to show in terms of customer technical support.

Nean1 wrote:

Kiwirob,

By logic the favorites are the C-130J, KC-390, A400 and C2, in this order.

The Airbus plane has not yet managed to get rid of a troublesome maintenance reputation. In the link below there is information about availability even worse than the worst suspicions, this in a high-level technical air force:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... va-446491/

"......These include the air force's Airbus Defence & Space A400Ms, which boasted a deployability rate of 38%, or just three of the service's 15-aircraft total......."

As for C-2, the price is expected to be much higher than the KC-390 (~ 136 vs 85 MM USD), as well as the operating cost. Its manufacturer has little to show in terms of customer technical support.