Is the end in sight for the C130's 60 yrs production run? I think the legendary C130 is on low rate production for years already.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-embraer-boeing/boeing-embraer-to-build-kc-390-military-cargo-jet-in-u-s-newspaper-idUSKCN1MB2PI

The KC390 specifications seem superior & cheaper than the C130J.

It can carry bigger heavier vehicles & it is cheaper .

The KC-390 is designed for rugged terrain, can fly above weather is faster & quieter and it has credible tanker capability without a dedicated variant.



If Boeing takes over Embraer & offers to build it in the US it offers the USAF / Marines a credible affordable option.

Will LM sit on their hands?

keesje wrote:

Is the end in sight for the C130's 60 yrs production run? I think the legendary C130 is on low rate production for years already.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-embraer-boeing/boeing-embraer-to-build-kc-390-military-cargo-jet-in-u-s-newspaper-idUSKCN1MB2PI

The KC390 specifications seem superior & cheaper than the C130J.

It can carry bigger heavier vehicles & it is cheaper .

The KC-390 is designed for rugged terrain, can fly above weather is faster & quieter and it has credible tanker capability without a dedicated variant.



If Boeing takes over Embraer & offers to build it in the US it offers the USAF / Marines a credible affordable option.

Will LM sit on their hands?

What USAF/USMC stated requirement is this fulfilling?

Where is the budget to acquire another transport when US Forces currently have more transports than required and so many other acquisition priorities?

There are still a couple hundred h model hercs in the various DoD fleets, not sure what ozair is referencing. Boeing did the avionics upgrades to many of them, so I’m sure they are familiar with the longevity.

Air Mobility Command, Air Force Materiel Command and the Air Force Research Lab are still defining requirements for the C-X next generation airlifter program to replace both the C-130 and C-17. The Globemaster in particular has also been getting flown many hours, and of course is out of production permanently.

If requirements are decided for operating in contested airspace, Air Force procurement of C-130s would end by the end of the decade to not have them serviceable by the 2030. The J model is, amazingly, already about 20 years old itself.

Development of the airlifter depends heavily on the Army's "tactical and operational maneuver" plans. Two different planes could be acquired to separately perform tactical and strategic missions: my guess is this is what Boeing is gambling on. A derivative of the kc390 with newer engines and perhaps more fuel is my prediction, for their future actual offering to the USAF.

It is an attractive option for the next batch, but it needs to be quite a quantity to have the economy of scale.

Serious question, could they develop a boom system, instead of the rear ramp, for a dedicated tanker variant? With the 767 production line...perhaps in it's twilight years after 2025, I was just curious if even a containerized/package tanker could be built from this platform, rather than the hose and drogue pod one (USN and others) use. That might add plenty of scale if a slightly larger/re-engined variant could also fill USAF KC needs flexibly.

One challenge is that the Embraer/Boeing joint venture divests Embraer's military segment. Or perhaps more accurately, Boeing's JV with Embraer only includes the commercial products. Would require a new agreement with Brazil's government for this to happen I believe.

trpmb6 wrote:

One challenge is that the Embraer/Boeing joint venture divests Embraer's military segment. Or perhaps more accurately, Boeing's JV with Embraer only includes the commercial products. Would require a new agreement with Brazil's government for this to happen I believe.

Would it require a new agreement? The original military transport agreement between Boeing and Embraer was based on two separate companies and that would not change.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

One challenge is that the Embraer/Boeing joint venture divests Embraer's military segment. Or perhaps more accurately, Boeing's JV with Embraer only includes the commercial products. Would require a new agreement with Brazil's government for this to happen I believe.

Would it require a new agreement? The original military transport agreement between Boeing and Embraer was based on two separate companies and that would not change.

bt

I was not aware of the original MT agreement B and E had or may still have. I was thinking in regards to the JV they're currently working on since I believe that is what the OP was referring to.

It’s not the recent joint venture/merger stuff, they’ve been cooperating on the kc390 for over six years. It’s always seemed a bit odd, but was sort of the dating phase I guess.

I was thinking of this:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... st-449964/

This is the continuing cooperation that would not be impacted by the commercial merger.

bt

I think the KC390 needs to prove itself for several years of actual operations before the US Military feels comfortable considering it as a C-130 replacement.

11Bravo wrote:

I think the KC390 needs to prove itself for several years of actual operations before the US Military feels comfortable considering it as a C-130 replacement.

The USAF has basically been scaling down/putting off AMP modernization for hundreds of H model hercules for over a decade for various (pick your political rationalization/excuse) reasons but they aren't going to be allowed to fly through 2030 without major upgrades. Fewer, but more capable replacements have been the acquisition model for the past 50 years. I suspect Boeing is more 'in the know' than the average a.net poster on these realities/contingencies.

Being a twin has disadvantages for military ops as does being a jet versus a turboprop in austere, off prepared surface operations. Yes, it no doubt will be tested, but the real test is in Operations.

GF

Why stop with the USAF? They should ship American made Boeing [formerly Embraer] KC-390s all around the world. Boeing will probably gobble up Embraer's military division any day now. After the joint venture announcement, Boeing said they are looking into doing another separate deal for Embraer's military aircraft.

texl1649 wrote:

11Bravo wrote:

I think the KC390 needs to prove itself for several years of actual operations before the US Military feels comfortable considering it as a C-130 replacement.

The USAF has basically been scaling down/putting off AMP modernization for hundreds of H model hercules for over a decade for various (pick your political rationalization/excuse) reasons but they aren't going to be allowed to fly through 2030 without major upgrades. Fewer, but more capable replacements have been the acquisition model for the past 50 years. I suspect Boeing is more 'in the know' than the average a.net poster on these realities/contingencies.

On top of that, the USAF has been saddled with squadrons of C-130J's that Congress keeps buying that the USAF has never requested.

LockheedBBD wrote:

Why stop with the USAF? They should ship American made Boeing [formerly Embraer] KC-390s all around the world. Boeing will probably gobble up Embraer's military division any day now. After the joint venture announcement, Boeing said they are looking into doing another separate deal for Embraer's military aircraft.

Doesn’t mean Brazil will approve it. Everybody has wants...and a country losing a prestigious company never goes down well

Keesje
Octobe



The C130 no doubt has strongpoints, but it seems the KC390 has more. It can move bigger heavier vehicles. That is needed. The C130 is a great machine but shouldn’t handicap the USAF to move forward on newer technology. Congressman protecting the local assembly line / jobs shouldn’t put the men out there at risk unnecessarily.

keesje wrote:

Keesje
Octobe



The C130 no doubt has strongpoints, but it seems the KC390 has more. It can move bigger heavier vehicles. That is needed. The C130 is a great machine but shouldn’t handicap the USAF to move forward on newer technology. Congressman protecting the local assembly line / jobs shouldn’t put the men out there at risk unnecessarily.

As one of many thousands who's job depends on it (No C-130 No Marietta LM so no Marietta F-35), not just in the state of Georgia but all over the US and even in India let me say that it does matter. Using the C-130 isn't putting anyone at risk. Get off your KC-390 tirade.

Let me ask you, what do you do for a living. Please let everyone know so I can give you the same BS treatment you threw out there just because you have a hard-on for programs that take good paying US jobs.

Good planning/thinking by Boeing for the future. At this time the C-130 is ubiquitous with USAF/USMC/USN operations. I don’t see it’s replacement being a priority any time soon. Yes, it is an important segment but viewed as a “trash hauler” plain and simple. The adaptability and ruggedness of the C-130 is unparalleled. That’s not to say that it will serve forever. Just that it is so trusted and engrained in operations that it’s replacment/retirement will be a.........Herculean effort.

That graphic posted is incorrect and intentionally misleading.

The ferry range the KC-390 has fuel tanks in the cargo hold the C-130J does not.

The range with payload has the C-130J with 6T more payload. The KC-390 has to remove 6T of fuel to carry that same payload.

The C-130J will always fly further than the KC-390 with equal payload.

The C-130J will operate from shorter runways.

The C-130J will operate from rougher quality runways.

C-130J will do the same job while burning 25% less fuel. Over its 30 year life the C-130J will pay for itself in fuel saving.

The only advantage the KC-390 has is it is slightly larger and faster.

I'm surw they can put new engines on the C-130J in 10 years time and increase range performance by another 10%

The KC-390 simply has no chance.

I think the next transport the USA will buy will be a lifting body design. The idea of testing the concept in that application is just too good to miss.

seahawk wrote:

I think the next transport the USA will buy will be a lifting body design. The idea of testing the concept in that application is just too good to miss.

I don't see lifting body designs doing rough field landings.
Have any tests been done in that respect?

Main weakness for the Embraer
is it’s limited to a very low number
Of unimproved airfield landings in its lifetime


It just doesn’t have the ‘go anwhere
anytime’ ruggedness of the C130


It’s not ‘inevitable’ that all turboprops morph into jets
In this case they are an advantage
using far less fuel, much more resilient to Fod and quieter for
discreet operations


I would argue the Hercules is
such a good design it can be
continually updated and avoid
obsolescence indefinitely

The Hercules operating cost per hour is something like $25k. We could compare fuel burn per hour or trip, but I’d be shocked if the kc390 wound up doing any worse than a net 50 percent savings in operating costs. 4 jet turbines vs 2 isn’t that complicated to analogize to what’s happened in the civil market in the cost analysis game.

I don’t know why the 390 is being accused of not being able to land on rough strips, or why it’s asserted as some enormously important feature anyway, as I think the average Hercules has done this about twice in their careers.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/meet- ... 1649242405

Selling the KC-390 based on larger payload, speed and range is not the way to go. First, those stats as explained by RJMAZ often swing in the C-130's favor, and the USAF's huge C-17 fleet ensures that capacity and speed are well taken care of. Why go for a bigger, badder C-130 replacement when you already have a couple hundred C-17s, with C-5s as icing on top?

Taking that into account, the future C-130 replacement would need to keep its eye on rugged field operations and overall utility, and maybe capacity will not be as important. Not saying that it would shrink down to a C-27, although if you cut two engines then that's where you end up. Another two engine-solution could be along the lines of the C-160, which had similar (if not superior) capacity to C-130 but couldn't keep up on weight, which impacted fuel and range. In any case, I don't see how the KC-390 fits into the USAF scheme.

On the other hand, if you are a nation who doesn't have C-17s and is willing to give up the ghost a bit on the rough field stuff, then KC-390 is mighty tempting.

426Shadow wrote:

keesje wrote:

Keesje
Octobe



The C130 no doubt has strongpoints, but it seems the KC390 has more. It can move bigger heavier vehicles. That is needed. The C130 is a great machine but shouldn’t handicap the USAF to move forward on newer technology. Congressman protecting the local assembly line / jobs shouldn’t put the men out there at risk unnecessarily.

As one of many thousands who's job depends on it (No C-130 No Marietta LM so no Marietta F-35), not just in the state of Georgia but all over the US and even in India let me say that it does matter. Using the C-130 isn't putting anyone at risk. Get off your KC-390 tirade.

Let me ask you, what do you do for a living. Please let everyone know so I can give you the same BS treatment you threw out there just because you have a hard-on for programs that take good paying US jobs.

The post of someone questioning the weight of local jobs versus long term interest was deleted. That just doesn't smell right. Mods?

426Shadow wrote:

keesje wrote:

Keesje
Octobe



The C130 no doubt has strongpoints, but it seems the KC390 has more. It can move bigger heavier vehicles. That is needed. The C130 is a great machine but shouldn’t handicap the USAF to move forward on newer technology. Congressman protecting the local assembly line / jobs shouldn’t put the men out there at risk unnecessarily.

As one of many thousands who's job depends on it (No C-130 No Marietta LM so no Marietta F-35), not just in the state of Georgia but all over the US and even in India let me say that it does matter. Using the C-130 isn't putting anyone at risk. Get off your KC-390 tirade.

Let me ask you, what do you do for a living. Please let everyone know so I can give you the same BS treatment you threw out there just because you have a hard-on for programs that take good paying US jobs.

Of course I sympathize with your point of view. But it can never be an argument for keeping the C-130 line going. It needs to do the job best, in order to justify further examples to be bought.

Can it move the Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) ?



https://leehamnews.com/2014/10/13/embraers-big-bet-on-its-largest-airplane-yet/

426Shadow wrote:

Let me ask you, what do you do for a living. Please let everyone know so I can give you the same BS treatment you threw out there just because you have a hard-on for programs that take good paying US jobs.

Begging for a socialist jobs programme, aren't you? As an American? How faint.

WIederling wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

Let me ask you, what do you do for a living. Please let everyone know so I can give you the same BS treatment you threw out there just because you have a hard-on for programs that take good paying US jobs.

Begging for a socialist jobs programme, aren't you? As an American? How faint.

Last time I checked, Lockheed Martin was as capitalist as they come for a Defense Contractor. Have you seen the stock?

That being said, why isn't anyone pushing this KC-390 on the rest of the world? Why does everyone have a hard on for the US military?

As a USAF veteran I have never felt that the C-130 was putting me or anyone else in danger. Because it isn't as advanced is the argument the OP is pushing. OK so lets run with that.

Lets stop producing the B737, the 767, the 747-8, and any other Boeing plane that isn't as advanced as what Airbus or whoever else is producing.

Lets put people out of work just for the sake of doing it.

Socialist program you say? Like all government jobs? Like all jobs that could easily be replaced by robots? Get off your high horse. This isn't about you, you are not the USAF and you can't speak for them.

When you work for someone and you don't own it, you are in a "socialist" job going by your logic. They don't need you, you are just a number just like I am for Lockheed.

Or would you rather this black man end up with a sub living wage job and end up falling into all the stereotypes that some of you would then just push on me?

I have a good job. The C-130 being produced is not getting rid of jobs, it is sustaining them. So what would you have the 7000+ people here at Marietta, plus the thousands and Meridian, and thousands of others who supply parts in the US and the thousands who supply parts in India do? You are not going to find any other jobs with our skillsets in Georgia that pay anything like Lockheed does unless you are willing to sell your house and move. We are talking about erasing over 20,000 jobs. And that isn't even taking into account the local economy and the impact losing all these high wage earning people will have on that.

You all are so quick to attack me because I don't want to lose everything I have for a cause that you all are pushing more than the actual customer the US Military. You people might be robots with no heart but again, what is your job? Because I can guarantee you wouldn't be so heartless and robotic if the shoe was on your foot.

And remember, I speak for THOUSANDS of people so stop trying to make this about me.

Dutchy wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

keesje wrote:

Keesje
Octobe



The C130 no doubt has strongpoints, but it seems the KC390 has more. It can move bigger heavier vehicles. That is needed. The C130 is a great machine but shouldn’t handicap the USAF to move forward on newer technology. Congressman protecting the local assembly line / jobs shouldn’t put the men out there at risk unnecessarily.

As one of many thousands who's job depends on it (No C-130 No Marietta LM so no Marietta F-35), not just in the state of Georgia but all over the US and even in India let me say that it does matter. Using the C-130 isn't putting anyone at risk. Get off your KC-390 tirade.

Let me ask you, what do you do for a living. Please let everyone know so I can give you the same BS treatment you threw out there just because you have a hard-on for programs that take good paying US jobs.

Of course I sympathize with your point of view. But it can never be an argument for keeping the C-130 line going. It needs to do the job best, in order to justify further examples to be bought.

One word for you.

KC-46.

How many of you think it was better for the job than the Airbus entrant?

How many people lost jobs in the US because the Airbus lost vs how many would have been gained vs the win? Again, if you were walking in our shoes.

And I bet a lot of you people voted for Trump but here we are with me being impaled for not wanting to lose my job "JUST BECAUSE".

The B-52 is still flying, and that is just as old as the C-130. Now there are replacements on the horizon but guess what, nobody is going to lose their job because of it.

Contrast that with the C-130 going out of production "Just because".

So the C-130 should just be made forever so Marietta does not go belly up? Sounds pretty socialist to me.

rlwynn wrote:

So the C-130 should just be made forever so Marietta does not go belly up? Sounds pretty socialist to me.

communist even. At one point or another, the C-130 line will be closed. When it closes, it is up to Lockheed to provide a good settlement with its employees or hopefully for them, a new product can be produced.

426Shadow wrote:

Because it isn't as advanced is the argument the OP is pushing. OK so lets run with that.

Lets stop producing the B737, the 767, the 747-8, and any other Boeing plane that isn't as advanced as what Airbus or whoever else is producing.

Meanwhile three home nations of that newfangled Airbus transport have cut back A400M orders and added C130J orders.

Go figure.

More of a question: 4 engines versus 2 engines are not always worse. One engine out scenarios favor the 4. Combat arenas may favor the 4. Situations where a catastrophic failure of an engine favors 2. Less bleeding edge engines may favor 4. Military is not highly concerned with high efficiency versus reliability - could favor either, but I suspect it favor the 4.

Revelation wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

Because it isn't as advanced is the argument the OP is pushing. OK so lets run with that.

Lets stop producing the B737, the 767, the 747-8, and any other Boeing plane that isn't as advanced as what Airbus or whoever else is producing.

Meanwhile three home nations of that newfangled Airbus transport have cut back A400M orders and added C130J orders.

Go figure.

You should rather compare this to Germany preferring end-of-line Eurofighters over the shiny new F-35, just to keep the line running. It's understandable from an economic standpoint and preserves jobs & knowledge but it's obviously not the most capable airframe for the money spent.

Now, lets assume that the KC-390 was built on the same FAL as the C-130J. Would that be an acceptable solution?
+ Jobs preserved
+ New aircraft that does everything the old one did, only better
+ Common civilian engine, blank-sheet design -> probably lower maintenance cost
+ comparable price
- Nothing
The US certainly have the volume to demand an own FAL, just like with the new trainer.

mxaxai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

Because it isn't as advanced is the argument the OP is pushing. OK so lets run with that.

Lets stop producing the B737, the 767, the 747-8, and any other Boeing plane that isn't as advanced as what Airbus or whoever else is producing.

Meanwhile three home nations of that newfangled Airbus transport have cut back A400M orders and added C130J orders.

Go figure.

You should rather compare this to Germany preferring end-of-line Eurofighters over the shiny new F-35, just to keep the line running. It's understandable from an economic standpoint and preserves jobs & knowledge but it's obviously not the most capable airframe for the money spent.

Now, lets assume that the KC-390 was built on the same FAL as the C-130J. Would that be an acceptable solution?
+ Jobs preserved
+ New aircraft that does everything the old one did, only better
+ Common civilian engine, blank-sheet design -> probably lower maintenance cost
+ comparable price
- Nothing
The US certainly have the volume to demand an own FAL, just like with the new trainer.

That's fine except you forgot one little caveat.... We all work for Lockheed Martin NOT Boeing. This isn't the 40's where different companies were making the same aircraft on multiple assembly lines.

If the C-130 is replaced by the KC-390 there will be a MASSIVE economic blow to an area of about 2000 square miles in Georgia. And we cant just go somewhere else.

When the C-5 stopped being produced back in the 80's and there was a 30,000 person mass layoff, the area's surrounding the plant, and indeed the state took a blow that is only recently being recovered from.

A full blown shutdown would be much worse, even with only 7,000+ people here, we have the economic weight of at least 40,000 minimum wake workers. Think about that.

Dutchy wrote:

rlwynn wrote:

So the C-130 should just be made forever so Marietta does not go belly up? Sounds pretty socialist to me.

communist even. At one point or another, the C-130 line will be closed. When it closes, it is up to Lockheed to provide a good settlement with its employees or hopefully for them, a new product can be produced.

I can tell you have never worked for a company like Lockheed.

If you look at what they said about the Tax break money, you would know they don't give a damn about us.

If Lockheed was going to make something to compete with the KC-390, you would already see it flying. There is no competitor in sight.

And you can call me all you want, it wont change my feelings nor the feelings of thousands of others, because you guys keep forgetting that its not just Marietta that makes the C-130 tick. Do a little research before you pipe in about things you know nothing of.

426Shadow wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

rlwynn wrote:

So the C-130 should just be made forever so Marietta does not go belly up? Sounds pretty socialist to me.

communist even. At one point or another, the C-130 line will be closed. When it closes, it is up to Lockheed to provide a good settlement with its employees or hopefully for them, a new product can be produced.

I can tell you have never worked for a company like Lockheed.

If you look at what they said about the Tax break money, you would know they don't give a damn about us.

If Lockheed was going to make something to compete with the KC-390, you would already see it flying. There is no competitor in sight.

And you can call me all you want, it wont change my feelings nor the feelings of thousands of others, because you guys keep forgetting that its not just Marietta that makes the C-130 tick. Do a little research before you pipe in about things you know nothing of.

I understand perfectly, but the C-130 program isn't a job program right but a military program to deliver the right a/c for the job? Or do you believe it should be in production for the next 20 years and beyond, just to preserve the jobs there regardless of what is needed?

Dutchy wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

communist even. At one point or another, the C-130 line will be closed. When it closes, it is up to Lockheed to provide a good settlement with its employees or hopefully for them, a new product can be produced.

I can tell you have never worked for a company like Lockheed.

If you look at what they said about the Tax break money, you would know they don't give a damn about us.

If Lockheed was going to make something to compete with the KC-390, you would already see it flying. There is no competitor in sight.

And you can call me all you want, it wont change my feelings nor the feelings of thousands of others, because you guys keep forgetting that its not just Marietta that makes the C-130 tick. Do a little research before you pipe in about things you know nothing of.

I understand perfectly, but the C-130 program isn't a job program right but a military program to deliver the right a/c for the job? Or do you believe it should be in production for the next 20 years and beyond, just to preserve the jobs there regardless of what is needed?

I absolutely don't believe it should go on for the next 20 years, just long enough for us to pick up enough work to keep this building operating with very minimal employment change.

We have some work prospects but you have to understand, this is not a small site. It would be like Boeing Seattle trying to stay in business with only the KC-46 FAL. It doesn't work.

We need SIGNIFICANT work to stay open here.

As for "Socialist Military Industrial Complex Charity", why do you think NG won the B-21? Why do you think Boeing won the Trainer? Despite what you might have read it is not about who bid the cheapest job, but more about the fact that NG needed a large project to stay relevant and Boeing needed another large project to stay in the military game because the KC-46 is a relatively short lived project once it goes into full rate. Lockheed wasn't in dire straights because we have the F-35 and C-130 programs. Make no mistake, Lockheed will get its turn in due time. But for now Aero needs the C-130 along with the F-35. We have been trying to get our foot into more Commercial projects for the simple reason that the pie is being sliced by more and more companies as time goes on. Us hourly workers are also in constant battle with the drive for automation.

426Shadow wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile three home nations of that newfangled Airbus transport have cut back A400M orders and added C130J orders.

Go figure.

You should rather compare this to Germany preferring end-of-line Eurofighters over the shiny new F-35, just to keep the line running. It's understandable from an economic standpoint and preserves jobs & knowledge but it's obviously not the most capable airframe for the money spent.

Now, lets assume that the KC-390 was built on the same FAL as the C-130J. Would that be an acceptable solution?
+ Jobs preserved
+ New aircraft that does everything the old one did, only better
+ Common civilian engine, blank-sheet design -> probably lower maintenance cost
+ comparable price
- Nothing
The US certainly have the volume to demand an own FAL, just like with the new trainer.

That's fine except you forgot one little caveat.... We all work for Lockheed Martin NOT Boeing. This isn't the 40's where different companies were making the same aircraft on multiple assembly lines.

If the C-130 is replaced by the KC-390 there will be a MASSIVE economic blow to an area of about 2000 square miles in Georgia. And we cant just go somewhere else.

When the C-5 stopped being produced back in the 80's and there was a 30,000 person mass layoff, the area's surrounding the plant, and indeed the state took a blow that is only recently being recovered from.

A full blown shutdown would be much worse, even with only 7,000+ people here, we have the economic weight of at least 40,000 minimum wake workers. Think about that.

Just a thought that may or may not work: Since you'd need new tooling, new supply chains, etc. anyway, and since Boeing doesn't exactly have tons of room to expand in Seattle, you might as well require them to build it in Georgia. I mean, it's a completely new model, so you can start from scratch and figure out the best solution. I doubt that Boeing would be put off by a requirement "FAL must be in Georgia".
Furthermore, if the C-130 line was indeed shut down, Lockheed might even agree to sell the plant / the transport division to Boeing. They wouldn't have a use for it themselves anymore.

mxaxai wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

You should rather compare this to Germany preferring end-of-line Eurofighters over the shiny new F-35, just to keep the line running. It's understandable from an economic standpoint and preserves jobs & knowledge but it's obviously not the most capable airframe for the money spent.

Now, lets assume that the KC-390 was built on the same FAL as the C-130J. Would that be an acceptable solution?
+ Jobs preserved
+ New aircraft that does everything the old one did, only better
+ Common civilian engine, blank-sheet design -> probably lower maintenance cost
+ comparable price
- Nothing
The US certainly have the volume to demand an own FAL, just like with the new trainer.

That's fine except you forgot one little caveat.... We all work for Lockheed Martin NOT Boeing. This isn't the 40's where different companies were making the same aircraft on multiple assembly lines.

If the C-130 is replaced by the KC-390 there will be a MASSIVE economic blow to an area of about 2000 square miles in Georgia. And we cant just go somewhere else.

When the C-5 stopped being produced back in the 80's and there was a 30,000 person mass layoff, the area's surrounding the plant, and indeed the state took a blow that is only recently being recovered from.

A full blown shutdown would be much worse, even with only 7,000+ people here, we have the economic weight of at least 40,000 minimum wake workers. Think about that.

Just a thought that may or may not work: Since you'd need new tooling, new supply chains, etc. anyway, and since Boeing doesn't exactly have tons of room to expand in Seattle, you might as well require them to build it in Georgia. I mean, it's a completely new model, so you can start from scratch and figure out the best solution. I doubt that Boeing would be put off by a requirement "FAL must be in Georgia".
Furthermore, if the C-130 line was indeed shut down, Lockheed might even agree to sell the plant / the transport division to Boeing. They wouldn't have a use for it themselves anymore.

Lockheed doesn't own the plant, the USAF does. We have to get their permission to add almost anything, even something as simple as a handrail for stairs.

keesje wrote:

Can it move the Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) ?

Can it land 20T payload onto a shorter distance runway than a C-17?

RJMAZ wrote:

keesje wrote:

Can it move the Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) ?

Can it land 20T payload onto a shorter distance runway than a C-17?

I guess so. And probably at a quater of the costs. Doing 20t with C-17 seems a good idea when costs do not play any role.

426Shadow wrote:

....................<lost of screed>.........
..And remember, I speak for THOUSANDS of people so stop trying to make this about me.

I seem to have made a bulls eye hit?
( rememeber: you demanded that C130 production continue in view of all the jobs involved. )

keesje wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Can it land 20T payload onto a shorter distance runway than a C-17?

I guess so.

No chance.

keesje wrote:

And probably at a quater of the costs. Doing 20t with C-17 seems a good idea when costs do not play any role.

No chance. The C-17 can deliver that 20t payload direct to the front line from a friendly country. The KC-390 would be double handling in theatre which costs $$$.

There is little point buying a tactical airlifter that requires longer runways than a strategic airlifter.

No chance. The C-17 can deliver that 20t payload direct to the front line from a friendly country. The KC-390 would be double handling in theatre which costs $$$.

A C-17 is still in all dimensions twice the plane the KC-390 is.
i.e. Dream on. you won't land a C17 below ~~200t.
and you'll probably land it once and have a museum piece installed.

KC-390 MTOW is just 81.0 t !!!

WIederling wrote:

i.e. Dream on. you won't land a C17 below ~~200t.
and you'll probably land it once and have a museum piece installed.

KC-390 MTOW is just 81.0 t !!!

Wow!!

What has an aircrafts MTOW weight got to do with landing performance?

That would mean a 737 should take off and land in a shorter distance than a C-17.

Even the almighty C-130J requires a 2000m runway to take off at MTOW but only needs 500M when empty. A larger aircraft when empty will often takeoff in a shorter distance than a smaller aircraft at maximum weight.

The C-17 has blown flaps and enough reverse thrust to taxi backwards, the KC-390 has neither. The C-17 would not be taking off anywhere near maximum takeoff weoght to move 20T the same distance as the KC-390.

You are letting your strong anti-US veiw block common sense.

A KC390 with 20t payload is way below max payload. So with reduced fuel, and it's big wing, take-off performance should be ok.

keesje wrote:

A KC390 with 20t payload is way below max payload. So with reduced fuel, and it's big wing, take-off performance should be ok.

Ok isn't good enough.

The C-17 has a unique reverser system, it is a special kind of system only for the C-17. Since the aircraft is designed to takeoff and land on almost any runway, including unpaved runways, and its a turbofan powered airlifter, if you had conventional reversers found on airliners and the KC-390 you will be kicking up a heck of alot of dirt and that'll be sucked back into the engine and cause millions of dollars in damage.

So the C-17 reverser system is unique in that when it is engaged, the exhaust is thrusted forward and upwards away from the plane, in other words, no FOD damage.

With this system, you can keep the engines running and engage the idle reverser system and just immediately begin to load or unload without having to shut down and restart the engine. The C-17 was designed for missions where you land at an airfield, immediately unload and/or load troops and cargo and takeoff immediately. Jet engines take a while to start up and get them up to speed. Its basically a time saving measure and it also prevents your troopers and cargo from being blown all over the ramp.

The KC-390 is cheap and average. The USAF will not want it.