Kawasaki C-2 as A-400 Alternatives ?

[warriorsayz]

All sorts of aeronautical design factors come into play. As for load capability, the actual weight will depend on far that weight has to be transported. What are take-off and landing distances required? What is the surface of the runway? Bigger engines might allow a higher MTOW but they eat more fuel thus reducing range. Note that these transport planes site much better range performance for reduced loads.

Sorry to revive an old post back again, thanks for your explanation, could you elaborate a bit more so that I can understand more about what you mean by design factors. I understand the point you make about take-off and landing distances you make and apparently the customer had required a short take-off ability which might affect the payload factor. I was trying to compare it from a more on a normal runway operations scenario.
On the engine aspect, wouldn't 4x relatively older engines have less fuel efficiency as compared to 2x relatively advanced a commercial engine used on the C-2.
I understand what you meant by explaining how range negates the advantage one might get by having a higher thrust engine, but I was trying to understand specifically from a payload perspective as to how in spite of higher thrust it had less payload capability.

 

[warriorsayz]

I also had two other questions specifically related to C-2 and its nearest same class competitors A400 and An-70/188, I would be glad if someone could throw some light on it

1) What advantage does the C-2's get with a twin-engine setup when compared to the 4 engine set up in most of its competitors (A-400, An 70/188) which have similar MTOW's?

2) The next question is related to C-2's MTOW & payload - with a 145tn MTOW the An 70/188 has a max payload of 47tn but with a 141tn MTOW, the max payload of C-2 is a full 10tn less at 37tn. Also, considering that the dimensions are very close to each other what is the reason for such a huge difference. Again here I am assuming normal takeoff and landing operations

 

[John Fedup]

I am not an aeronautical engineer so I can only give an opinion. WRT to twin or 4 engine configuration, if a twin can get the job done, it offers reduced maintenance costs but 4 engines offer some additional backup, especially for tactical operations where the chances of enemy fire might damage an engine.

Modern turbo fans used in the C-2 and the turboprop units in the A400M have different fuel efficiency and I am not really sure about overall performance differences between the two aircraft. Certainly the C-2 engines have a well proven record whereas the A400M engine/gearbox system has been problematic. Can’t comment on the Russian option other than after sale support might be a concern.

One other point, many older designed aircraft are being built or re-engined with vastly improved new engines and propellers, e.g. C-130J. The half century old B-52s will be getting new turbofan jet engines with better performance and reduced operating cost.

 

[OPSSG]

Likewise not an aeronautical engineer.

1. Any military aircraft is a series of design compromises that is dictated by the specifications of its primary military users. The four engined Progress D-27 propfan An-70 being an east bloc design is not a big seller and many of the potential military users of the KHI C-2 or the Airbus A400M are not going to even shortlist the An-70 for consideration.

• How many of the AN-70s have been built? It had a prolonged development programme, with first flight 1994. Why is that?
• In 2013, Russia’s VVS recommended an withdrawal from the AN-70 program, in favor of the new IL-476. The Ukrainian government, in April 2014, announced that it would halt all military-technical cooperation with Russia. Without another country putting up serious money, Ukraine’s Antonov cannot deliver the proposed An-188. Why would a An-188 be any different from the issues that plague the An-70?
• Tactically, at a general level, a military transport with 2 engines has less resilience to FOD or battle damage than a 4 engine aircraft. In contrast to the An-70, at cruise speed, the KHI C-2 is a March 0.8 aircraft even when compared to the speedy Airbus A400M (which is a Mach 0.72 aircraft) but capable of landing in like soft field operations (aka land on certain beaches), which means a different undercarriage design philosophy and these are built by Safran Landing Systems — each of the main landing gears consists of three independent twin-wheel assemblies housed in the aircraft's aerodynamic fuselage sponsons.
• Both the KHI C-2 and the Airbus A400M landing gears are built in a twelve-wheel configuration for landings on unprepared terrain.
• To meet this Airbus A400M program requirement, the main landing gear shock absorbers have been designed to ensure a minimum distance between the ground and aircraft structure whatever the loading conditions, thus preserving the integrity of the aircraft structure.
• I note that both the KHI C-2 and the Airbus A400M are designed to fly higher at cruise speed and at regular civilian airspace when compared to the C-130J — which means that they are able to fly faster and further with a meaningful tactical load. I would ignore the overhyped max payload of the AN-70 (as any one-time use of this max payload would affect inspection cycles).

2. While the two engine KHI C-2 is likely to be capable of austere landing conditions, I suspect it will require more prep time and inspections before continued operations when compared to the Airbus A400M.

3. A turbofan aircraft like the KHI C-2 will also display flight envelope issues for austere landing conditions — the reason why tactical transport aircraft, like the Lockheed Martin C-130J, the Alenia C-27J and the EADS CASA C-295 (that cannot operate in at regular civilian airspace for routine flights), that use turboprops is because their drag allows them to decelerate rapidly at lower altitudes and thus perform a steep approach, flare and landing.

4. In 2019, I scratched my head over the inability of Europrop International GmbH (a JV of four main European aircraft engine manufacturers for the Airbus A400M), to get its act together. Hopefully these engine and gearbox issues will be resolved by 2020/2021.

 

[ngatimozart]

One thing I would like to add to @OPSSG post is that some smaller militaries may utilise the C-2 more as a strategic air lifter rather than a tactical air lifter.

In my own opinion, the A400M is a riskier acquisition than the KHI C-2 because of the continual ongoing problems that it is having. The engine gearbox problem appears to be the biggest issue at the moment, however there are other problems such as capabilities that haven't been released yet by Airbus because of ongoing problems with their integration. The original customers have run out of patience and are tired of bailing the program out, especially the Germans. I think next time Airbus asks for an extension and bailout, the customers might say no, non & nein.

I think if they'd used four turbofans instead of the the turboprop engine and gearbox, they probably would have been well ahead of the curve by now. It is my belief that they promised to much relying upon far to much unproven technology.

With the C-2, KHI utilised MOTS & COTS technology and even though they struck problems with the ramp, eventually they solved those and now the aircraft is FOC with the JASDF. It is costly to acquire because it is of a small production run.

Like the other posters I am neither aircrew nor aircraft technical.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Propellers lose efficiency as aircraft speed increases, so turboprops are normally not used on high-speed aircraft above 0.6-0.7 Mach.

Unlike the relatively small diameter fans used in turbofan jet engines, the propeller has a large diameter that lets it accelerate a large volume of air. This permits a lower airstream velocity for a given amount of thrust. As it is more efficient at low speeds to accelerate a large amount of air by a small degree than a small amount of air by a large degree, a low disc loading (thrust per disc area) increases the aircraft's energy efficiency, and this reduces the fuel use.

So thats why turboprop aircrafts have often better STOL-capabilities.

 

[swerve]

With the C-2, KHI utilised MOTS & COTS technology ....

Like the other posters I am neither aircrew nor aircraft technical.

I understand that's exactly what Embraer has done with the KC-390, to keep down development cost & risk. I'm also unqualified in this area, but as far as I can see that policy seems to have worked quite well.

 

[John Fedup]

I understand that's exactly what Embraer has done with the KC-390, to keep down development cost & risk. I'm also unqualified in this area, but as far as I can see that policy seems to have worked quite well.

That seems to be the case. Looking forward to seeing this aircraft perform.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

A total of 28 production aircraft, worth BRL7.25 billion (USD3.26 billion in 2014), were ordered in May 2014 to replace the Lockheed Martin C-130M Hercules aircraft fleet. But now the amount of the Embraer KC/C-390 Millennium transport aircraft is decreased from 28 to 15 units after negotiations for a contract modification failed.

This will rise the price of each aircraft significantly, the order is almost cut with 50%. This will make it a less attractive alternative for the Kawasaki C-2.

Brazilian Air Force reduces KC/C-390 buy

The Brazilian Air Force (Força Aérea Brasileira: FAB) has reduced the contract for its acquisition of the Embraer KC/C-390 Millennium transport aircraft from 28 to 15...

www.janes.com

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Dubai Airshow 2021: Japan promotes C-2 to Middle East

Japan is pitching its Kawasaki C-2 airlifter to Middle Eastern customers, paying particular attention to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), senior Japanese defence sources...

www.janes.com

So Japan is pitching its Kawasaki C-2 airlifter to Middle Eastern customers, paying particular attention to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). That is remarkable because that country already has the C-130, A330 MRTT and the C-17, that means they still need more transport capacity.

 

[John Fedup]

Dubai Airshow 2021: Japan promotes C-2 to Middle East

Japan is pitching its Kawasaki C-2 airlifter to Middle Eastern customers, paying particular attention to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), senior Japanese defence sources...

www.janes.com

So Japan is pitching its Kawasaki C-2 airlifter to Middle Eastern customers, paying particular attention to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). That is remarkable because that country already has the C-130, A330 MRTT and the C-17, that means they still need more transport capacity.

More likely buying friends, hard to understand why UAE needs such a huge pool of strategic and tactical military airlift. The multiple types of fighters, probably bought for the same reasons although in times of crisis some suppliers may not support their product so backups may be understandable.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

I have my doubts that India is serious interested in the KC-390, with so many aircrafts like the An-32, C-17, C-130J, C295 and Il-76 in their fleet.

Brazil sees wide opportunities for KC-390 airlifter

Brazil is negotiating with several countries to sell the Embraer KC-390 Millennium tactical transport aircraft, Brazilian Air Force (FAB) commander Lieutenant Brigadier...

www.janes.com

 

[swerve]

Dubai Airshow 2021: Japan promotes C-2 to Middle East

Japan is pitching its Kawasaki C-2 airlifter to Middle Eastern customers, paying particular attention to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), senior Japanese defence sources...

www.janes.com

So Japan is pitching its Kawasaki C-2 airlifter to Middle Eastern customers, paying particular attention to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). That is remarkable because that country already has the C-130, A330 MRTT and the C-17, that means they still need more transport capacity.

There aren't any more C-17s, & I think the UAE's C-130s are C-130H, so possibly due for replacement. C-2 could be a replacement, though quite a lot bigger (but not in the class of C-17). C-130J or C-390 are closest to like for like replacement.