Military Aviation News and Discussion

SolarisKenzo

Well-Known Member
It can happen,

Netherlands and Austria sign joint procurement of C390 with Embrear. The number of procurement is 9 divided into 5 for Netherlands and 4 for Austria. For me what's more significant is continuesly C390 deal mostly to replace legacy C130.

This means Embrear manage to reduce LM C-130J market. Not that means it is going to be problem yet for C-130J, as their sales still outstrip C390. However means it is increasingly eating their pie.

So far mostly it is still in Europe. However if they manage to get South Korea, it is potentially outstrip Euro deal so far. If they manage to get India (which already J's user) for their next batch medium airlifter deal, it is potentially going to be more contagious them ROK deal to other current Asian C-130 legacy users.
KC-390 can only sell to customer with short-range and mostly personnel-transfer needs.
Not a single country that actually needs to move cargo around has bought the plane.
I never liked it and when I asked an officer from italian air force what he thought about the Embraer... He started laughing.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The USAF and USMC might adapt EMALS and AAG for use on land. Power requirements and cost may be a concern albeit there are advantages.

 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member

Very interesting article on the AIM-174B. I missed the news about its initial outing to the public.

Sounds like this will be a very useful tool for the US's naval air force and would be a real headache for China, with its AEW&C aircraft being more vulnerable and therefore less impactful on the potential battlefield.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I am beginning to like the F-15EX. Now that its price is only somewhat higher than a F-35A, I like it even more. The huge payload and superior range capabilities are significant as well. The attached link suggests the second seat option should be considered for CCA operations with the F-15EX.

Considering the huge F-35 order backlog and continuing TR3/block 4 problems, a fleet of 12-18 F-15EXs for the RCAF should be considered. The superior range would be useful for Arctic operations. I suspect the USAF/NORAD team would agree.

USAF Should Look At China's Future Multi-Crew Fighter Model For F-15EX (twz.com)
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Here’s a real pathetic opinion article for keeping the full production plan) for 179 KC-46s. No mention about the numerous problems or the fact Boeing has lost over $7 billion on the contract.

Tankers are important so the USAF should get some MRTTs. Yes, a mixed fleet is a PITA but this is offset by having a reliable tanker that has better capability for the Pacific theatre.

 
Last edited:

OldTex

Well-Known Member
The USAF seems to have always operated a mixed fleet of tankers, being one of the advantages perhaps of having a very large air force. Given the problems that are appearing with the KC-46 it should be a no-brainer that an alternative tanker is available in the fleet. The problem will be convincing the Congress to fund that alternative especially as it would effectively be a non-American aircraft (despite the pantomime of a contract potentially being awarded to a US prime, such as L3 etc).
The danger for the USAF is that if the KC-46 fails then it becomes much harder for Boeing to get future military contracts. This danger will be reflected in the competitions for contracts like the NGAD etc.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The USAF seems to have always operated a mixed fleet of tankers, being one of the advantages perhaps of having a very large air force. Given the problems that are appearing with the KC-46 it should be a no-brainer that an alternative tanker is available in the fleet. The problem will be convincing the Congress to fund that alternative especially as it would effectively be a non-American aircraft (despite the pantomime of a contract potentially being awarded to a US prime, such as L3 etc).
The danger for the USAF is that if the KC-46 fails then it becomes much harder for Boeing to get future military contracts. This danger will be reflected in the competitions for contracts like the NGAD etc.
My understanding was Airbus planned to build A330neos in Alabama for the MRTT US bid.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Covered this before so in short.
First neither KC45 or LMXT are actually A330MRTT. They were significantly modified packages, and to meet the USAF requirements KC45 would have faced many of the same setbacks. As the USAF mandated the vision system and boom.
My understanding was Airbus planned to build A330neos in Alabama for the MRTT US bid.
Yes it was planned to do assembly and conversion in the U.S. as the KC45A had it entered production would have had more built to the KC45 spec and USAF mission than the entire A330MRTT order book internationally.

Next adding another A330MRTT derivative to the order books of the USAF won’t help the USAF. The USAF is currently running the Sentinel ICBM program with a cost overrun, VC25B behind schedule, E4C (SOAC) just started, NGAD, CCA, F15EX, F35A, multiple air to air missile replacement, MH139 Greywolf, Hypersonic missile programs, B52J, B21, C130J, KC46, E7, T7A, F16V modernization and a partridge in a pear tree…
And onto this you want to throw a KC-Y redux. No. The logistics the Support and maintenance the whole thing wouldn’t work because end game is you end up with less tankers. Less because to pay for the maintenance and upkeep to sustain A330MRTT you buy less of it and KC46A. What you gained is less too because although KC45 is larger but by as much to makeup for the loss.
KC-Y doesn’t make sense unless the tanker can do something significant that KC45 cannot. A330MRTT can’t do anything that KC45 really can’t. To try and sell it LM and AB’s LMXT banked on raw fuel capacity but that wasn’t enough. L3’s potential pitch was a KC390 which could have offered a C130J replacement platform but the USAF wasn’t ready yet.
So it made sense to scrap KC-Y and move on to KC-Z a stealthy tanker program which obviously A330MRTT would not be suitable for.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Here is an optionally manned CCA from NG/Scaled Composites. As per the article, it is uncertain if a manned version will be produced in quantity. There are some advantages wrt testing and ferrying. As NG is working on the USN’s NGAD requirement, the optionally manned CCA might be an advantage for naval operations.

 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Some updated information about recent Osprey crashes. Bell and Boeing didn’t manage Univeral Stainless apparently poor QA on gear parts but clearly the Joint Program Office and NAVAIR didn’t either. No training changes were effectively communicated to operators either by the Air Force or USMC. It isn’t only Boeing and Bell that victims families should be taking to court.

 

swerve

Super Moderator

Ananda

The Bunker Group

At lakes

Well-Known Member
An article celebrating 70 years of Hercules aviation history.

attach is an article on the first flight with photo's of the original YC130A. There is a rumor that during the flight a couple of jet aircraft, unsure what type, wanted to know what an aircraft with prop's was doing over 25000 feet.

 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Thailand has eventually chosen to order the JAS39E/F instead of the F-16. It seems that they order new fighters not to replace the F-5E/F, but the 12 F-16A/B of the first batch. This is probably because the F-5s were upgraded a couple of years ago, and these F-5s are planned to stay with the RTAF until 2031.

 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This article discusses several developments wrt boom refuelling pods for smaller aircraft. The F-15's size and extra cockpit seat makes it the preferred initial jet for this but other jets and UAVs are potential candidates as well. For the Pacific theatre, boom pods are very attractive for the USAF. The article does point out that boom refuelling is more difficult and usually requires specialised operators so it will be interesting to see how this progresses. Using F-15s as buddy tankers has the same drawback as Superhornet buddy tankers, namely wear and tear on frontline combat aircraft performing non-combat missions. Hopefully UAV and small transport/business jets can utilise these boom pod systems.

Aerial Refueling Boom Pods That Could Go On F-15s In The Works (twz.com)
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group


The talk of Egypt will take J-10C in replacing their F-16 seems increasing.


VOA still doubt that, however if this happen then basically Egypt goes from Mirage 2000 and F-16, toward Rafale and J-10C. This will be the second export order for J-10C after Pakistan. I don't really count Mig 29 on Egyptian AF Inventory as seems the backbone still relied toward Mirage 2K and F-16. Thus if this deal is really aim on replacing F-16, then the AF backbone really shifting, at least big part of it.


Now I can only speculate if this is happening as part of Egypt reducing their dependency toward US, as part of what happens in Palestine and disagreement with US Policy. However considering that most of Egypt latest procurement also back by Saudi and UAE (we can see on their LHD deals), means at least Saudi also give consent on this.

Will this part of bargain against Washington, or balancing Beijing, will remain to be seen on the progression of this deal. Something that interesting to see is how Paris continue got more deal in the region with mostly on the costs toward Washington and even London MIC deals.
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member


The talk of Egypt will take J-10C in replacing their F-16 seems increasing.


VOA still doubt that, however if this happen then basically Egypt goes from Mirage 2000 and F-16, toward Rafale and J-10C. This will be the second export order for J-10C after Pakistan. I don't really count Mig 29 on Egyptian AF Inventory as seems the backbone still relied toward Mirage 2K and F-16. Thus if this deal is really aim on replacing F-16, then the AF backbone really shifting, at least big part of it.


Now I can only speculate if this is happening as part of Egypt reducing their dependency toward US, as part of what happens in Palestine and disagreement with US Policy. However considering that most of Egypt latest procurement also back by Saudi and UAE (we can see on their LHD deals), means at least Saudi also give consent on this.

Will this part of bargain against Washington, or balancing Beijing, will remain to be seen on the progression of this deal. Something that interesting to see is how Paris continue got more deal in the region with mostly on the costs toward Washington and even London MIC deals.
Politics is a large factor for the decision to order the J-10C, but does it also means that Egypt regards the J-10C is better than the F-16? The amount of to be acquired J-10Cs is unknown, but probably the J-10C is intended to replace the first batch of 42 F-16A/B Block 15 delivered in the '80s during the Peace Vector I Program. So the J-10C seems to be good enough to replace the 40 years old F-16A/B Block 15.

I only wonder if Egypt considered to give the oldest F-16s an MLU.
 
Top