The Kawasaki C-2 is a long range twin-engine transport aircraft. In comparison with the older C-1 that it replaces, the C-2 can carry payloads up to four times heavier, such as MIM-104 Patriot surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries and Mitsubishi H-60 helicopters, and possesses six times the range.

The C-2 is being developed to meet the following requirements of the Ministry of Defense: a minimum payload of 26 tonnes, 120 metric ton (264,552 lb 132.275 short ton) take-off weight, ability to takeoff/land on short runways, (Requirement: 500m, almost same as C-1, e.g. Tachikawa—900 m, Kamigoto—800 m, Hateruma—800 m), a maximum payload of 37,600 kg whilst taking off from a 2,300 m Take-off Field Length at a 141 tonnes (310,851 lb 155.42 short ton) take-off weight, ability to fly international airroutes (Requirement: Mach 0.8+; JDA ruled out C-17 as a candidate by its lower cruising speed.

Conventional cargo aircraft cannot cruise at optimum altitude on commercial airroutes because of their lower cruising speed and are often assigned to lower altitude by ATC., in-flight aerial refuelling and forward looking infrared systems.

The C-2 is powered by a pair of General Electric CF6-80C2K turbofan engines. While sharing fuselage components with the Kawasaki P-1, the fuselage of the C-2's is substantially larger to accommodate a vast internal cargo deck, which is furnished with an automated loading/unloading system to reduce workloads on personnel and ground equipment. The forward fuselage and horizontal stabilizer is made of an internally-designedcomposite material, KMS6115. A tactical flight management system and head-up display is installed to reduce the challenges involved in flying at low altitudes or close to mountainous terrain. The C-2 is equipped with a fullglass cockpit, fly-by-wire flight controls, a high-precision navigation system, and self protection systems

While the fiscal 2014-18 procurement plan calls for 10 C-2 transport planes, contractor Kawasaki Heavy Industries is running about five years behind schedule. Funds have been budgeted for only seven of the planes so far. A dearth of C-2s, used to carry combat vehicles and midsize helicopters in addition to personnel, could hinder Japan's efforts to defend outlying islands and respond to disasters.

Japan’s air force said on Friday it will send its new C-2 long-range heavy lift military cargo plane overseas for the first time to show it off to potential buyers in the Middle East and New Zealand.
Built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries, the C-2 will fly to the United Arab Emirates on Nov. 8 to participate in the Dubai Airshow and will be on display in New Zealand from Nov. 25 to Dec. 1, the Japan Air Self Defence Force said in a news release.
A C-2 sale would secure Japan its first major overseas arms contract.
“A number of nations have shown interest in the C-2 and we want to show off our advanced technology,” Japan’s Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera told a regular media briefing.

The test bed of Japan’s intelligence gathering version of the Kawasaki C-2 airlifter has broken cover, with photographs emerging of the aircraft undergoing taxi tests.
The photo, taken Tuesday at the Japan Air Self-Defense Force base at Gifu, shows a C-2 with enlarged fairings on the nose, tail, top and sides of the rear fuselage. According to documents released by Japanese Defense Ministry’s acquisition agency, the aircraft variant will have an electronic intelligence/communications intelligence suite.

Kiwirob wrote:

I think it has a pretty decent chance in NZ, whoever is the first export customer will probably get a fairly significant discount.

Max Q wrote:

This airlifted market is starting to get a bit crowded, we have the C130J, A400, E390, C2 and the C17 all chasing a similar mission

Max Q wrote:

Where exactly does the C2 fit in ?
Can it operate on unimproved airfields?

Max Q wrote:

I’m sure it’s a well built, solid product but why would any other country buy it bearing
in mind the limited production run and difficulty with global support and spares
availability?

bunumuring wrote:

Hey Ozair,
I read in the current issue of 'Air International' magazine that one Y-20 was offered to Bangladesh recently in a package of military planes from China, so I guess the Y-20 is now available for export.

bunumuring wrote:

I agree that NZ looks likely to be the first export customer for the C-2. I just can't see it effectively replacing the two 757s in the RNZAF fleet....
Cheers
Bunumuring

Ozair wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

I agree that NZ looks likely to be the first export customer for the C-2. I just can't see it effectively replacing the two 757s in the RNZAF fleet....
Cheers
Bunumuring

Why do you think the C-2 cannot replace the 757 in NZ service? From a capability perspective the C-2 has a longer range with the same payload and can carry outsize payloads included NZ helicopters and AFVs. It won't impress the NZ public as much at airshows given the NZ 757s had built quite the reputation for demos but that clearly shouldn't be a determining factor.

Max Q wrote:

Can’t really see how you can replace the 757 and C130 with one
type

They are built for two totally different purposes

Max Q wrote:

C130 J and the 788 is the answer here

Install a cargo door
Reconfigure the cabin interior for an 11 freight pallet capability
Install a cargo handling system able to accommodate numerous cabin configurations
Provide a VIP and AME capability
Install air stairs and crew access ladder
Upgrade aircraft communications and navigation systems
Install a package of military communications and cabin LAN equipment
Install a package of cabin noise-reduction features
Engine thrust upgrade.

Ozair wrote:

problem being the A330 is probably too big.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The only thing the C-2 doesn't do out of the box is the passenger/ministerial transport bit. And that can either be a limitation accepted by the NZ government or they could always buy a single different aircraft to fulfill that role.

Ozair wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Can’t really see how you can replace the 757 and C130 with one
type

They are built for two totally different purposes

It is NZ we are talking about, they aren't storming around the Pacific bringing wayward tropical islands into line.

Max Q wrote:

C130 J and the 788 is the answer here

The C-130J is a good possibility given NZ already have a fleet of Hercs but not sure why the 788.

Ozair wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Can’t really see how you can replace the 757 and C130 with one
type

They are built for two totally different purposes

It is NZ we are talking about, they aren't storming around the Pacific bringing wayward tropical islands into line.

Max Q wrote:

C130 J and the 788 is the answer here

The C-130J is a good possibility given NZ already have a fleet of Hercs but not sure why the 788.

The NZ 757s had the following modifications,

Install a cargo door
Reconfigure the cabin interior for an 11 freight pallet capability
Install a cargo handling system able to accommodate numerous cabin configurations
Provide a VIP and AME capability
Install air stairs and crew access ladder
Upgrade aircraft communications and navigation systems
Install a package of military communications and cabin LAN equipment
Install a package of cabin noise-reduction features
Engine thrust upgrade.

http://www.airforce.mil.nz/projects/boeing757.htm

Given none of that is available for the 787 family I don't see it as an option for NZ. The A330 MRTT would be a better fit if NZ really want another commercial airlifter that encompasses the roles the 757 is used for, problem being the A330 is probably too big.

Max Q wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Can’t really see how you can replace the 757 and C130 with one
type

They are built for two totally different purposes

It is NZ we are talking about, they aren't storming around the Pacific bringing wayward tropical islands into line.

Max Q wrote:

C130 J and the 788 is the answer here

The C-130J is a good possibility given NZ already have a fleet of Hercs but not sure why the 788.

The NZ 757s had the following modifications,

Install a cargo door
Reconfigure the cabin interior for an 11 freight pallet capability
Install a cargo handling system able to accommodate numerous cabin configurations
Provide a VIP and AME capability
Install air stairs and crew access ladder
Upgrade aircraft communications and navigation systems
Install a package of military communications and cabin LAN equipment
Install a package of cabin noise-reduction features
Engine thrust upgrade.

http://www.airforce.mil.nz/projects/boeing757.htm

Given none of that is available for the 787 family I don't see it as an option for NZ. The A330 MRTT would be a better fit if NZ really want another commercial airlifter that encompasses the roles the 757 is used for, problem being the A330 is probably too big.

Interesting, I didn’t realize these 757’s had
been so extensively modified


It’s hard to tell from the picture but it looks
like the built in airstairs are incorporated into the right rear door which is unusual
as these are normally installed on L1 or 2


And where is this ‘crew access ladder’
installed and what is it exactly?

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The biggest capability requirement I see is being able to do CHC to Antarctica with no point of no return and a reasonable payload.

After carrying almost 6000 passengers and 2.5 million lbs of cargo to McMurdo Base the RNZAF Boeing 757 has made the last Antarctic flight of the season.

The total weight of cargo and people moved this season is more than 5 million lbs. It’s a massive joint operation between the US and New Zealand to provide airlift services to the Antarctic.

The US provides C-17 and LC-130 ski-equipped Hercules and New Zealand provides C-130, P3 and B757 aircraft, which land and take off without skis, to transport freight and passengers to the Antarctica.

The biggest risk for Antarctic flying is the remoteness. The weather is extremely changeable and can make the journey extremely difficult. Speed is essential in getting all passengers loaded and away as quickly as possible as the weather can change dramatically on the ice.

There is a strict criteria for aircraft serviceability and how to deal with malfunctions in remote areas. The B757 doesn’t have enough fuel to go to the Antarctic and return to New Zealand without refuelling. As the flight one way is approximately four and a half hours, the ‘point of safe return’ is three hours into the journey. After that point, if the weather deteriorates, or the aircraft malfunctions, the aircraft can only proceed South. It can’t turn back.

The B757 can take up to 156 military and civilian passengers including scientists and researchers heading to the base for research purposes and carries everything needed to make a Base work, such as chefs, cleaners, electricians, construction workers and operations staff to help build and maintain the facilities at Antarctica.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Ummmmm, the 757s and C-130s do not have the capability to do an Antarctica trip with no point of no return. As the highlighted point of your quote says.

mats01776 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Ummmmm, the 757s and C-130s do not have the capability to do an Antarctica trip with no point of no return. As the highlighted point of your quote says.

If I am not mistaken, both C-130 and C-2 have the in-flight refueling capability.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

I'm sure the C-2 will be capable of doing CHC-Antarctica with no point of no return. My wondering is more can it do that while carrying a useful payload. It is worth noting that the new fleet supply ship for the RNZN will be ice strengthend explicitly so it can do supply runs during the summer. This may lighten any requirement for heavy payload requirements.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Ummmmm, the 757s and C-130s do not have the capability to do an Antarctica trip with no point of no return. As the highlighted point of your quote says.

Max Q wrote:

Can’t really see how you can replace the 757 and C130 with one type
They are built for two totally different purposes
C130 J and the 788 is the answer here

mxaxai wrote:

I'm not sure how good the C-130 is for trips to Antarctica and the ranges the pacific demands. But at the same time, the C-130's rough field & STOL capability makes them unreplaceable for missions like disaster relief.

Ozair wrote:

The 757s have that capability

mats01776 wrote:

If I am not mistaken, both C-130 and C-2 have the in-flight refueling capability

Ozair wrote:

brianK73 wrote:

Found this photo:

Max Q wrote:

That’s a very nice looking cockpit, although a little ‘busy’ on the glare shield directly in front of the Pilots

Max Q wrote:

Still a bit puzzled about a design feature on this aircraft
If it’s not going to operate in and
out of unimproved fields why have ‘C130 like’ floor level side windows in the cockpit ?

brianK73 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

That’s a very nice looking cockpit, although a little ‘busy’ on the glare shield directly in front of the Pilots

They are HUDs.

Max Q wrote:

Still a bit puzzled about a design feature on this aircraft
If it’s not going to operate in and
out of unimproved fields why have ‘C130 like’ floor level side windows in the cockpit ?

Among other benefits on the ground where neither a marshaler nor wing walkers may be available, the lower windows allow the pilots to see the drop zone more directly during air drop operations,

Max Q wrote:

I wasn’t referring to the Head up displays, rather the number of switches and annunciators directly in front of both Pilots
on the glareshield

Skyrocketing costs in the unit price of an Air Self-Defense Force transport aircraft Japan is trying to produce on its own are shining a spotlight on the whole process of procurement, from cost accounting to cost management.

When the Defense Ministry first placed orders for the C-2 in fiscal 2011, each aircraft was priced at 16.6 billion yen ($150.2 million), according to government sources.

Since then, the cost has risen by 7 billion yen, or 40 percent. The ministry intends to acquire two of the aircraft this fiscal year.

Despite calls to switch to an alternative model, ministry officials clung to the argument that soaring costs were inevitable in light of rising prices for components and other factors.

According to insider documents and sources involved in the project, the unit price of the C-2 fell slightly to 16.5 billion yen in fiscal 2012, but has since risen sharply. It is currently priced at 23.6 billion yen.

The Finance Ministry took the unusual step of suggesting to the Defense Ministry in April, the start of the new fiscal year, that replacing the C-2 with a more cost-effective model "should perhaps be considered as an option.”

The proposal was made by a subcommittee of the Finance Ministry’s Fiscal System Council.

A spokesperson for Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., manufacturer of the C-2, declined to explain the reason for the price hike, saying “it is a contractual matter.”

A Defense Ministry official explained that soaring costs for the C-2’s engines, which are purchased from the United States, and the weaker yen on foreign exchange markets were partly to blame.

But experts point to structural problems in the defense industry, where the principle of competition barely exists because of the limited availability of companies that can undertake such projects.

The price assessment for the C-2 relies on a system called “cost calculation method,” whereby the contractor’s profit is added to the prime cost, including that of materials and labor.

Part of the prime cost, including processing expenses, is calculated on the basis of documents and materials prepared by the manufacturer. Some experts suggest that is an open invitation for soaring costs as contractors have few incentives for suppressing the prime cost.

LAX COST MANAGEMENT

This has spurred rising calls within the government for more thorough cost management efforts ahead of a revision late this year to National Defense Program Guidelines.

Markets have limited coverage in the defense industry because it is such an exclusive club, so “market prices” are often nonexistent.

This means the Defense Ministry has to rely on the cost calculation method.

“We don't accept contractors’ statements without question,” said a Defense Ministry official. “We check them scrupulously.”

One government official remains unconvinced.

“Prices ought to drop in the stage of mass production because of rising plant worker skills and growing work efficiency,” the official said. “The steep price hike we are seeing is not something that we can explain to taxpayers, although there are variation factors, such as foreign exchange rates.”

The Defense Ministry has put expensive items of its mainstay defense equipment, including the C-2, under a framework called “project management,” which consists in managing a “life-cycle cost,” or the total cost covering all five stages of (1) design (2) research and development (3) mass production and deployment (4) operation and maintenance, and (5) scrapping.

Although the system was introduced to ensure reasonable costing, the life-cycle cost per unit of the C-2 has risen from 43.2 billion yen in fiscal 2009 to 60.7 billion yen under a projection released last August. The cost per unit per year has almost doubled from about 1.1 billion yen in fiscal 2009 to 2 billion yen in the current plan.

“Cost management has obviously failed,” the government official said.

Revised National Defense Program Guidelines and a new Mid-Term Defense Program are scheduled to be drawn up late this year. The National Defense Program Guidelines outline the shape of Japan’s defense capacity over the coming decade or so, whereas the Mid-Term Defense Program defines, among other things, goals for the development of key defense equipment over a five-year period.

Putting the cost calculation method under constant review would likely make it more precise and enable more effective project management, experts say.

The Defense Ministry is now discussing new contractual terms with manufacturers to curb the surging costs for C-2 aircraft, a senior ministry official said June 27.

The ministry is weighing the option of a contract with a joint venture of makers involved.

Kawasaki Heavy Industries is currently listed as the primary contractor. According to ministry sources, KHI is responsible for final assembly of the aircraft using components manufactured by other companies, including the main wings and vertical tail fins made by Subaru Corp. and backward fuselages supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.

The C-2 transport aircraft is 44 meters long from nose to tail and has a wingspan of 44 meters. It stands 14 meters high. Development of the model began in fiscal 2001. The C-2 has about three times the payload, and about four times the cruising range of its predecessor, the C-1. The development cost was in the region of 250 billion yen.

Budgets have been set aside for 13 C-2 aircraft through fiscal 2018. Five has so far been deployed at the ASDF Miho Air Base in Tottori Prefecture.

The C-2 aircraft is designed to transport troops and equipment during a military contingency in Japan as well as supplies in times of disaster. It is also intended for use overseas in U.N. peacekeeping operations and humanitarian aid missions.

Ozair wrote:

Things are not so rosy at the moment for the C-2. A low production rate and claims of a lack of domestic competition in the Japanese Defence Industry has significantly increased the cost of the aircraft. If the production rate stays the same (essentially two per year) the acquisition cost is likely to be the same or higher than the A400M. The new price of 23.6 Billion Yen puts it at approx US$210 million per copy and probably now only within the budgetary reach of Middle East customers.

Lack of domestic competition cited in soaring defense costs

Skyrocketing costs in the unit price of an Air Self-Defense Force transport aircraft Japan is trying to produce on its own are shining a spotlight on the whole process of procurement, from cost accounting to cost management.

When the Defense Ministry first placed orders for the C-2 in fiscal 2011, each aircraft was priced at 16.6 billion yen ($150.2 million), according to government sources.

Since then, the cost has risen by 7 billion yen, or 40 percent. The ministry intends to acquire two of the aircraft this fiscal year.

Despite calls to switch to an alternative model, ministry officials clung to the argument that soaring costs were inevitable in light of rising prices for components and other factors.

According to insider documents and sources involved in the project, the unit price of the C-2 fell slightly to 16.5 billion yen in fiscal 2012, but has since risen sharply. It is currently priced at 23.6 billion yen.

The Finance Ministry took the unusual step of suggesting to the Defense Ministry in April, the start of the new fiscal year, that replacing the C-2 with a more cost-effective model "should perhaps be considered as an option.”

The proposal was made by a subcommittee of the Finance Ministry’s Fiscal System Council.

A spokesperson for Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., manufacturer of the C-2, declined to explain the reason for the price hike, saying “it is a contractual matter.”

A Defense Ministry official explained that soaring costs for the C-2’s engines, which are purchased from the United States, and the weaker yen on foreign exchange markets were partly to blame.

But experts point to structural problems in the defense industry, where the principle of competition barely exists because of the limited availability of companies that can undertake such projects.

The price assessment for the C-2 relies on a system called “cost calculation method,” whereby the contractor’s profit is added to the prime cost, including that of materials and labor.

Part of the prime cost, including processing expenses, is calculated on the basis of documents and materials prepared by the manufacturer. Some experts suggest that is an open invitation for soaring costs as contractors have few incentives for suppressing the prime cost.

LAX COST MANAGEMENT

This has spurred rising calls within the government for more thorough cost management efforts ahead of a revision late this year to National Defense Program Guidelines.

Markets have limited coverage in the defense industry because it is such an exclusive club, so “market prices” are often nonexistent.

This means the Defense Ministry has to rely on the cost calculation method.

“We don't accept contractors’ statements without question,” said a Defense Ministry official. “We check them scrupulously.”

One government official remains unconvinced.

“Prices ought to drop in the stage of mass production because of rising plant worker skills and growing work efficiency,” the official said. “The steep price hike we are seeing is not something that we can explain to taxpayers, although there are variation factors, such as foreign exchange rates.”

The Defense Ministry has put expensive items of its mainstay defense equipment, including the C-2, under a framework called “project management,” which consists in managing a “life-cycle cost,” or the total cost covering all five stages of (1) design (2) research and development (3) mass production and deployment (4) operation and maintenance, and (5) scrapping.

Although the system was introduced to ensure reasonable costing, the life-cycle cost per unit of the C-2 has risen from 43.2 billion yen in fiscal 2009 to 60.7 billion yen under a projection released last August. The cost per unit per year has almost doubled from about 1.1 billion yen in fiscal 2009 to 2 billion yen in the current plan.

“Cost management has obviously failed,” the government official said.

Revised National Defense Program Guidelines and a new Mid-Term Defense Program are scheduled to be drawn up late this year. The National Defense Program Guidelines outline the shape of Japan’s defense capacity over the coming decade or so, whereas the Mid-Term Defense Program defines, among other things, goals for the development of key defense equipment over a five-year period.

Putting the cost calculation method under constant review would likely make it more precise and enable more effective project management, experts say.

The Defense Ministry is now discussing new contractual terms with manufacturers to curb the surging costs for C-2 aircraft, a senior ministry official said June 27.

The ministry is weighing the option of a contract with a joint venture of makers involved.

Kawasaki Heavy Industries is currently listed as the primary contractor. According to ministry sources, KHI is responsible for final assembly of the aircraft using components manufactured by other companies, including the main wings and vertical tail fins made by Subaru Corp. and backward fuselages supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.

The C-2 transport aircraft is 44 meters long from nose to tail and has a wingspan of 44 meters. It stands 14 meters high. Development of the model began in fiscal 2001. The C-2 has about three times the payload, and about four times the cruising range of its predecessor, the C-1. The development cost was in the region of 250 billion yen.

Budgets have been set aside for 13 C-2 aircraft through fiscal 2018. Five has so far been deployed at the ASDF Miho Air Base in Tottori Prefecture.

The C-2 aircraft is designed to transport troops and equipment during a military contingency in Japan as well as supplies in times of disaster. It is also intended for use overseas in U.N. peacekeeping operations and humanitarian aid missions.

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201807100003.html

Slug71 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Things are not so rosy at the moment for the C-2. A low production rate and claims of a lack of domestic competition in the Japanese Defence Industry has significantly increased the cost of the aircraft. If the production rate stays the same (essentially two per year) the acquisition cost is likely to be the same or higher than the A400M. The new price of 23.6 Billion Yen puts it at approx US$210 million per copy and probably now only within the budgetary reach of Middle East customers.

Lack of domestic competition cited in soaring defense costs

Skyrocketing costs in the unit price of an Air Self-Defense Force transport aircraft Japan is trying to produce on its own are shining a spotlight on the whole process of procurement, from cost accounting to cost management.

When the Defense Ministry first placed orders for the C-2 in fiscal 2011, each aircraft was priced at 16.6 billion yen ($150.2 million), according to government sources.

Since then, the cost has risen by 7 billion yen, or 40 percent. The ministry intends to acquire two of the aircraft this fiscal year.

Despite calls to switch to an alternative model, ministry officials clung to the argument that soaring costs were inevitable in light of rising prices for components and other factors.

According to insider documents and sources involved in the project, the unit price of the C-2 fell slightly to 16.5 billion yen in fiscal 2012, but has since risen sharply. It is currently priced at 23.6 billion yen.

The Finance Ministry took the unusual step of suggesting to the Defense Ministry in April, the start of the new fiscal year, that replacing the C-2 with a more cost-effective model "should perhaps be considered as an option.”

The proposal was made by a subcommittee of the Finance Ministry’s Fiscal System Council.

A spokesperson for Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., manufacturer of the C-2, declined to explain the reason for the price hike, saying “it is a contractual matter.”

A Defense Ministry official explained that soaring costs for the C-2’s engines, which are purchased from the United States, and the weaker yen on foreign exchange markets were partly to blame.

But experts point to structural problems in the defense industry, where the principle of competition barely exists because of the limited availability of companies that can undertake such projects.

The price assessment for the C-2 relies on a system called “cost calculation method,” whereby the contractor’s profit is added to the prime cost, including that of materials and labor.

Part of the prime cost, including processing expenses, is calculated on the basis of documents and materials prepared by the manufacturer. Some experts suggest that is an open invitation for soaring costs as contractors have few incentives for suppressing the prime cost.

LAX COST MANAGEMENT

This has spurred rising calls within the government for more thorough cost management efforts ahead of a revision late this year to National Defense Program Guidelines.

Markets have limited coverage in the defense industry because it is such an exclusive club, so “market prices” are often nonexistent.

This means the Defense Ministry has to rely on the cost calculation method.

“We don't accept contractors’ statements without question,” said a Defense Ministry official. “We check them scrupulously.”

One government official remains unconvinced.

“Prices ought to drop in the stage of mass production because of rising plant worker skills and growing work efficiency,” the official said. “The steep price hike we are seeing is not something that we can explain to taxpayers, although there are variation factors, such as foreign exchange rates.”

The Defense Ministry has put expensive items of its mainstay defense equipment, including the C-2, under a framework called “project management,” which consists in managing a “life-cycle cost,” or the total cost covering all five stages of (1) design (2) research and development (3) mass production and deployment (4) operation and maintenance, and (5) scrapping.

Although the system was introduced to ensure reasonable costing, the life-cycle cost per unit of the C-2 has risen from 43.2 billion yen in fiscal 2009 to 60.7 billion yen under a projection released last August. The cost per unit per year has almost doubled from about 1.1 billion yen in fiscal 2009 to 2 billion yen in the current plan.

“Cost management has obviously failed,” the government official said.

Revised National Defense Program Guidelines and a new Mid-Term Defense Program are scheduled to be drawn up late this year. The National Defense Program Guidelines outline the shape of Japan’s defense capacity over the coming decade or so, whereas the Mid-Term Defense Program defines, among other things, goals for the development of key defense equipment over a five-year period.

Putting the cost calculation method under constant review would likely make it more precise and enable more effective project management, experts say.

The Defense Ministry is now discussing new contractual terms with manufacturers to curb the surging costs for C-2 aircraft, a senior ministry official said June 27.

The ministry is weighing the option of a contract with a joint venture of makers involved.

Kawasaki Heavy Industries is currently listed as the primary contractor. According to ministry sources, KHI is responsible for final assembly of the aircraft using components manufactured by other companies, including the main wings and vertical tail fins made by Subaru Corp. and backward fuselages supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.

The C-2 transport aircraft is 44 meters long from nose to tail and has a wingspan of 44 meters. It stands 14 meters high. Development of the model began in fiscal 2001. The C-2 has about three times the payload, and about four times the cruising range of its predecessor, the C-1. The development cost was in the region of 250 billion yen.

Budgets have been set aside for 13 C-2 aircraft through fiscal 2018. Five has so far been deployed at the ASDF Miho Air Base in Tottori Prefecture.

The C-2 aircraft is designed to transport troops and equipment during a military contingency in Japan as well as supplies in times of disaster. It is also intended for use overseas in U.N. peacekeeping operations and humanitarian aid missions.

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201807100003.html

That probably kills any chance of NZ acquiring the type. Even any ME customers too. Better news for the A400M (not that the C-2 had a lot of international interest) though.

Slug71 wrote:

That probably kills any chance of NZ acquiring the type. Even any ME customers too. Better news for the A400M (not that the C-2 had a lot of international interest) though.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Ouch. A price spike and no rough field capability. Yeah, I'd say its off the shortlist.

I'll have to look up and compare the KC-390 to the C-2 as they seem to be equivalentish from the outside.

The Japan Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) and Indian Air Force (IAF) are conducting their first joint air exercise, dubbed Shinyu Maitri-1 (“true” or “best friend”), focusing on joint mobility and humanitarian assistance & disaster relief (HADR) operations from December 3 to 7 in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, according to the Indian Ministry of Defense (MoD).

“The focus of the exercise is set for the IAF and JASDF crews to undertake Joint Mobility/HADR operations,” the MoD notes in a December 3 statement. “Display of heavy loading/ off-loading are also planned to be practiced during this exercise.” The IAF has dispatched Antonov AN-32 and C-16 Globemaster transport aircraft, while the JASDF has sent Kawasaki C-2 military transport aircraft to participate in the drill. According to Japan’s Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya, the goal of the exercise is to increase the air transport capabilities of the JSDF, and to enhance the “mutual understanding between Japan and India, and bolstering our relationship of trust.”

This is not the only activity of the JASDF this month in India. Notably, elements of the JASDF will also observe the first iteration of a U.S-India bilateral air warfare exercise known as Cope India in over a decade. The exercise is taking place from December 3 to 10 at Air Station Kalaikunda and Air Station Arjan Singh, both of which are in India’s eastern West Bengal state and will involve U.S. F-15C/D Eagle fighter jets, C-130 Hercules transport aircraft, as well as Su-30MKI Flanker-H, Mirage 2000 fighter jets, and Jaguar combat jets, among others, on the Indian side.

As my colleague Ankit Panda reported earlier, India and Japan also concluded their first land-based joint military exercise last month in the northeastern Indian state of Mizoram. “The primary focus of the exercise was to train and equip the contingents to undertake joint counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist operations in urban and semi urban terrain,” according to a November MoD press release.

While military cooperation between the Indian Army and the Japan Ground Self Defense Force as well as the two air forces remains in its infancy, the Indian Navy and Japan’s Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) have been forging closer ties for a number of years.

Notably, India and Japan have started formal negotiations over a so-called acquisition and cross-servicing agreement (ACSA) this year, which would allow the Indian Navy access to a Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) base in Djibouti, while the latter would be allowed to use Indian naval installations on, for example, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands located in the Indian Ocean, next to other naval facilities.

In the fall of 2017, the Indian Navy and JMSDF also held an air-based anti-submarine warfare exercise in the Indian Ocean. Furthermore in 2015, Japan also became a permanent member of the Malabar naval exercise involving aircraft, ships, and personnel from the Indian, Japanese, and U.S. navies. The 22nd rendition of the naval exercise took place in June 2018 off the coast of Guam.

According to a report in the Yomiuri Shimbun, Tokyo plans to adapt the Kawasaki C-2 tactical transport aircraft as an EW platform, with deployment planned for 2027.

Citing sources, the report adds that the P-1 maritime patrol aircraft may also be adapted for the electronic warfare mission. Other media reports have suggested that Tokyo is interested in acquiring the Boeing EA-18G Growler, the EW variant of the F/A-18F Super Hornet.

Tokyo’s recently approved Medium Defence Program reportedly calls for a greater emphasis on electronic warfare.

There is a precedent for adapting the C-2 platform for other uses. In February 2018, images and video of a C-2 modified for electronic intelligence appeared on social media. The aircraft was conducting test flights from Japan’s Gifu air base.

Modifications included large blisters aft of the wing, several antennas under the fuselage, and a dome on the upper part of the fuselage, aft of the cockpit and forward of the wings. In addition, the top tail was modified with an additional fairing, while the radome is larger than on the baseline C-2.

Japan’s strategic rival, China, is also boosting its electronic warfare capabilities. Among other efforts, it is developing a two-seat variant of the Shenyang J-15 and J-16 fighters with pods that resemble the Northrop Grumman AN/ALQ-216 wingtip pods used on the EA-18G.

In addition, US ally Australia has 11 EA-18Gs – the 12th was lost in an engine fire during takeoff. In 2018, L3 Technologies secured an $83 million deal from Canberra to upgrade two Gulfstream G550s to the MC-55 electronic warfare version.

Flight Fleets Analyzer shows that the Japan Air Self-Defence Force operates a fleet of eight C-2s, with an additional 14 examples on order.

The Kawasaki C-2 transport aircraft made its first public appearance in Australia after a flight from Japan via the Philippines.

The twin-engined aircraft appeared in the static park near the Airbus Defence & Space A400m, to which it is the most similar in size.

The aircraft was one of the rarer large aircraft at the show, with only eight in service with the Japan Air Self Defense Force. The JASDF has a budget for five additional examples, and the total fleet is expected to grow to 20 examples.

That does not include the electronic warfare variant, now undergoing testing, says a representative of Japan’s Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA), which developed the aircraft.

The purpose of the type’s visit to air shows, he says, is not to promote exports, but to demonstrate Japan’s advanced technology to the world.

The C-2 has unique features for a military transport, including a cargo compartment that is even higher than that of the Boeing C-17. In addition, it has two lavatories, and shares a number of common elements with the P-1 maritime patrol aircraft, such as the large windscreen, which affords excellent views from the cockpit.

...

And should the budget pass, Kawasaki Heavy Industries will be able to keep its aircraft production lines open, with the ministry seeking funds to acquire three more P-1 anti-submarine aircraft and six C-2 airlifters at $213.4 million and $599 million respectively.

...

Mat1776 wrote:

Gifu Airbase, November 12, 2020.

According to Japan's Sankei newspaper Kawasaki conducted a C-2 flight test to determine if C-2 can safely land on a non-paved landing strip.
This test is apparently a part of a possible sale of the C-2 to UAE.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQMKJSyGvdk&feature=emb_logo

The JASDF announced the induction of the RC-2 electronic intelligence (ELINT)-gathering aircraft at Iruma Air Base in the western suburbs of the Japanese capital Tokyo earlier this month.
The RC-2 electronic warfare (EW) jet is based on the Kawasaki Heavy Industries C-2 airlifter and has been heavily modified with multiple aircraft fairings that contain antennas for detecting, receiving and classifying electronic emissions. The aircraft made its maiden flight in early 2018, though the variant had been in development since at least 2015.

mats01776 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Ummmmm, the 757s and C-130s do not have the capability to do an Antarctica trip with no point of no return. As the highlighted point of your quote says.

If I am not mistaken, both C-130 and C-2 have the in-flight refueling capability.