Hey Toby. Hows your job going as the Nth American sales agent for the C-390.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
I may be influenced by my cousin, now a retired aeronautical engineer who had worked with Lockheed Martin, and Boeing. its his opinion, not necessarily mine, that the American aeronautical companies should have built smaller airliners llke Embraer. Embraer stepped into an almost empty small airliner market with very good smaller jets....Hey Toby. Hows your job going as the Nth American sales agent for the C-390.
Yes, the Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules is an old workhorse which has become the standard for transport planes. But its an old workhorse newer technology can beat. Embraer is the first jet to compete ton per ton and size with the Hercules. Knowing Embraer as I do, I don't see a loser with the KC390, in fact, I see a huge winner.... Embraer has a history of being winners.... Especially when the faster jet of the same size and lift is half the price. And as a jet the Embraer should make a better air tanker as well.
I have been impressed at air shows of the C-17 short runway capacity. I would be satisfied If the KC390 matches the C-17's short runway performance. Embraer says they will beat the C-17 and match the C-130. We'll see. While the KC 390 has not flown as yet, I have no doubt it will within five years, and most likely beat the C-130 in every category of performance.
If Embraer sets its goals on the Hercules, why do you think they will fail? Have they failed before? Its not Embraer's fault New Zealand chose an APC which is one tonne or so too heavy....A Stryker would fit....
I
Last edited:
It will probably be a fine aircraft the C390, but as I and others have mentioned it wont have rough field capability, nor will it be as seemless into the proposed ANZAC Airlift organisation, nor is it US built which is now a strong political consideration which the C130J has as its primary advantages. The Stryker/LAV debate around C130 airlift is a red herring and not a primary capability requirement of the NZDF.
Your right about Embraer's street smarts and that the stateside aircraft manufacturers ignored the commuter/regional end of the passenger market. There are still niches in aviaition out there. I think Embraer are the only aircraft manufacturer making a turbo prop in the 20-40 pax market with the EMB-120. Beech only go up to 19 pax with the B1900 and their is pretty much that and daylight up until the Q400 now in Nth America.
The EMB-120 I like as an aircraft. An EMB- 120QC with the enlarged cargo door and incorporating a multi-mission pallet system as a low cost smaller alternative to the CASA HC-144A would be an interesting concept that the RNZAF would do well with. Small enough to cover multi-engine pilot training, yet larger enough to go beyond the limitations of the B1900.
That is exactly a problem I have, people judging a plane's capability before it even flies. When Embraer says their aircraft will use the same types of runways, paved and unpaved, as the C-130, why do so many doubt it? Don't it really come down to a similar undercarriage? Is it beyond Embraer's reach to fit a better undercarriage? Frankly, I will wait and see, but after sixty years advancement in technology, I find it hard to believe a Hercules undercarriage can't be beat....
The point about the KC-390 Toby is Embraer are specifically designing it not to have the rough field capability (and I mean a real rough 3rd world track which the C130H can handle), and that is the market niche they Embraer want. They are targeting it to a sizable market that don't need a light-medium lifter to do jungle runs but want to have a cross tanker/transport. They are saving costs by not having to further develop the HD undercarriage from the E-Jets. What is the point for us to have a small A2A tanker. If we needed tanker capability it would be substantially cheaper to retro fit an aftermarket plugin drogue sytem on the B757's.
Your wasting your time on this per the RNZAF Toby. The feedback from the White Paper submissions is from both public, NZDF and MoD is that the C-130J is the C130H ballgame. Another issue is that after all the risky aquistitions in the last 10 years the MoD have been told that the Government wants only proven, quality OTS solutions with no more suprises.
If you want to sell us the EMB-120 like I mentioned in the previous post then I would be interested in reading you ideas, but this KC390 RNZAF obsession is becoming embarrassing.
If you want the absolute reason why the KC390 is not a goer (and this has nothing to do with the aircraft itself) - it is because the US-NZ relationship is rapidly improving. There is nothing in it geopolitically for NZ and the US for us to buy Brazilian. You need to understand that it is the intangibles that swing defence deals.
And this is from Defence Talk's news site:
Embraer Launches KC-390 Military Transport Jet Program | Air Force News at DefenceTalk
On paper, the KC390 is not only less expensive to buy, but less expensive to operate as well with the similar Hercules short field capabilities. Which major media outlet reported otherwise? Link please....
For Embraer to take on the legendary Hercules, you would think Embraer has gotta match or beat the Hercules in every performance category....
I am willing to admit its still a paper airplane. Brazil has ordered 36 aircraft trusting Embraer, and France intends to order 12. Brazil will pay for the plane's development, with possible/probable French help.
Last edited:
That article says, among other things -
But yes, still a paper aeroplane.
I don't think it has to meet or exceed the C-130 in everything. It has to meet the needs of customers better overall, & not all customers, but enough to make money from selling to. If that means that it's a little worse in some areas, that can be acceptable, if it enables it to exceed the C-130 more in other areas. The trick is in matching the strengths with what customers want most, & the weaknesses with what customers care less about.
But yes, still a paper aeroplane.
Though there are orders from Brazil and potential orders from France as a piggy back deal on French fighters there is still the issue of the 1.4 Billion development cost for the KC-390 which would mean major backing from the Brazilian Government and a lot more sustainability in terms of orders. Embraer say that they can reduce this by using OTS components and could raise the cost privately. We’ll see.
Ok so now Embraer are saying in their own marketing material / press releases to the media that it will have a form of semi prepared strip capability. I suppose that is the difference from the C to the KC. That’s fine. However, we still don’t know what they are basing this on. Is it a hypothetical grass, cinder, gravel, dirt, ice or a decommissioned WWII era pacific atoll tarmac strip? All of which confront the RNZAF’s tactical needs. What will be the aircrafts ground handling capabilities with an OTS turbo-fan? Will it be able to reverse thrust due to tight field parameters? What will the handling be like in the low slow drop zone environment? We all know what the C130J can do in this area.
With the massive resources of the EU having difficulty putting together the A400M program and this still a design concept I remain sceptical on whether this aircraft would meet NZ needs, will come in at an estimated price of USD50m and would be operationally suitable and politically viable.
Ok so now Embraer are saying in their own marketing material / press releases to the media that it will have a form of semi prepared strip capability. I suppose that is the difference from the C to the KC. That’s fine. However, we still don’t know what they are basing this on. Is it a hypothetical grass, cinder, gravel, dirt, ice or a decommissioned WWII era pacific atoll tarmac strip? All of which confront the RNZAF’s tactical needs. What will be the aircrafts ground handling capabilities with an OTS turbo-fan? Will it be able to reverse thrust due to tight field parameters? What will the handling be like in the low slow drop zone environment? We all know what the C130J can do in this area.
With the massive resources of the EU having difficulty putting together the A400M program and this still a design concept I remain sceptical on whether this aircraft would meet NZ needs, will come in at an estimated price of USD50m and would be operationally suitable and politically viable.
It's not the EU, it's a subset - and the A400M is a far more ambitious project, with a far more ambitious timescale. For example, a completely new engine.
As to whether the KC-390 will suit New Zealand, I have no idea. We'll see when (if) it actually flies.
We can get all hung up on literal nuances and pointsof comparitive relativity. I am fully aware of the A400 programs complexity and time-scale issues per the group of EU nations backing the project - yet the complexity for Brazil to do the KC-390 project would be of equal complexity in terms of scale.
These things don't scale in a linear fashion. It's not quite like pregnancy (it takes 9 months however many men you put on the job), but there are still irreducible minima. Airbus being bigger than Embraer, & the A400M consortium* collectively being much richer than Brazil, does not equate to being able to execute an n times more complex project than KC-390 at a speed of n/(A400M consortium wealth/Brazil wealth).
*Absolutely nothing to do with the EU, BTW: not all members are in the EU, & most EU members aren't in A400M.
The A400 is still struggeling getting ready for production and the KC-390 is still just in the design phase, so we haven't seen, which child diseases they will have to overcome.
A small country like New Zealand with a small defencebudget can't afford to take that kind of financial and operational risk, because it will be the only transportassets they will have.
So the C-130J has another big advantage over the other two. It is an of-the-shelf product, which has got rid of most of the childdiseases, so it dosen't represent the same risk.
A small country like New Zealand with a small defencebudget can't afford to take that kind of financial and operational risk, because it will be the only transportassets they will have.
So the C-130J has another big advantage over the other two. It is an of-the-shelf product, which has got rid of most of the childdiseases, so it dosen't represent the same risk.
Obviously I need to take care and not quickly fire off broad generic terms like “EU” backing when I really mean the geographic centralisation of the A400 consortium and not the Euro zone nations.
However, for Embraer to pull off the KC-390 will be a challenge. In my opinion it will be just as much a challenge as the consortium who are putting together the A400 project have run into. They will probably get there in the end but it wont be a walk in the park.
As for the theory relating to the economies of scale per R&D, HR, technical resources, production capacity, and access to capital, systems management orthodoxy generally says yes – that size is an advantage on the balance of probabilities when an organisation is executing a project comparative to another. Especially, when the larger organisation has better institutional knowledge than the smaller (or less well endowed).
And yes turning it back to the topic at hand the RNZAF after sidetracking somewhat – I understand that the current government wants safe bets when it comes to future acquisitions of major equipment and equipment that slots in seamlessly with the ADF.
To be fair, Airbus isn't having so many problems building the airframe, although its overweight, but building the new powerful propeller engines to meet spec. So far, it doesn't appear Airbus will ever overcome their obstacles. In fact they are rebooking the aircraft with new lower specs.
On the other hand Embraer is using off the shelf jet engines for the KC390. The engines are already designed and are being built. There are several engines which can be used which already exists. We'll have to wait to see if the plane is built to spec. At the moment its a paper airplane. However, Embraer has designed several aircraft which aren't overweight. It stands to reason this plane won't be overweight either. The world is watching....
As for the cargo equipment aboard the aircraft, there are a number of companies which can built the cargo equipment. I see no issues upcoming with the cargo equipment. Its been around for decades, by no means would one consider the cargo equipment new technology.
On the other hand Embraer is using off the shelf jet engines for the KC390. The engines are already designed and are being built. There are several engines which can be used which already exists. We'll have to wait to see if the plane is built to spec. At the moment its a paper airplane. However, Embraer has designed several aircraft which aren't overweight. It stands to reason this plane won't be overweight either. The world is watching....
As for the cargo equipment aboard the aircraft, there are a number of companies which can built the cargo equipment. I see no issues upcoming with the cargo equipment. Its been around for decades, by no means would one consider the cargo equipment new technology.
You could have said the same about Airbus & A400M . . .
The A400M engines are working, but not delivering all the power they're supposed to. The FADEC software audit trail issue (has anyone been fired with extreme prejudice? If not, why not?) appears to have been resolved. The airframe is overweight. Weight reductions have been worked out, but not enough to cut it to the design weight. Airbus say that it'll still deliver the payload specified in the contract: they have some slack between the contract & design aims, & there's no MTOW specified, so if they can increase the MTOW a bit, that gives them more slack. But then there's the engine power . .
Ah well, we'll see. But I'm afraid this isn't relevant to the RNZAF, so we should probably shut up about it. And I know, I've been as guilty as anyone of digressing.
I disagree. The A400 was a disaster in the making from the outset. No proven engine, no air frame, just a blank sheet of paper. That is not what Embraer is doing - this company is smart. They are working from a proven base, the E series jet. I think NZ should wait and see, this appears to be the perfect solution in terms of bang for buck for RNZAF.
An E-series basis for KC-390 was the initial proposal, but it was abandoned as impractical. All that's left is a statement that it will incorporate technology from the E-jets, & there's not even a mention of that in the brochure - Embraer Defense Systems
Paris 2009 Special Report by AVIATION WEEK
It's obviously lower risk than the A400M, using OTS engines, for example, but it is a completely new aircraft.
Yes, its a new airplane, existing only on paper today. However, New Zealand does have some time, more than five years, before they have to buy any replacements for their C-130s. Embraer hopes to have the first three flying during the 2012-13 time frame, well within New Zealand's requirements.
As I said before, if Embraer is able to deliver the aircraft to its paper specifications, and at a cost half that of a Hercules, there will be many, many buyers.... as there are up to 700 Hercules reaching the end of their service lives within the next five to fifteen years....
As I said before, if Embraer is able to deliver the aircraft to its paper specifications, and at a cost half that of a Hercules, there will be many, many buyers.... as there are up to 700 Hercules reaching the end of their service lives within the next five to fifteen years....