anandaI do not see them as a valid player in this segment when compared to Embraer’s EMB-110 Bandeirante, Emb-120 Brasilia, ERJ-135/140/145 EMB-170/175/190/195 product lines that are currently being maintained and serviced by the company logistics and post-sales divisions all around the globe from 1973 on. Also we must recall that Embraer’s very first product was itself a light twin torboprop MILITARY CARGO PLANE, I know of a completely different weight class that was converted into a pretty successful regional commuter plane. Another issue is that it was this basic global support network in place that allowed Embraer to launch itself very successfuly into the Bizjet segment, a completely new area such as the military tactical jet market is new.
Do I make sense here?
Regards.
Hammer
@ Hammer, For my self I do not questions the ability for Embrear to support commercial airliner around the world, nor the attraction of Embraer products with civilian operators.
What my questions is, the attractiveness of Civilized Military Cargo like C-390 compared to Freighter versions of Civilian Airliner, for Civilian operators especially the Cargo Operators.Even you suggest that civilized C-390 can be used for feeder routes, well there also A-320 and B-737 Freighter (newly build not converted used ones) for that purpose.
Like I said, even Boeing (that I believe have more capability and attractiveness compared to Embraer in Civilian operators), seems dropping the idea of Civilized C-17 that they used to flaunted to the market by end of 90’s and early this decade.
I think C-390 have right recipe to be alternative for Air Forces that want to replace C-130, I know the Indonesian Air Force for one keep interested look to C-390 development as alternative for C-130 J, even-though right now officially they choose to upgrade existing C-130.
However the ability for C-390 to get significant boost on commercial civilian market, that I believe I don’t agree with you. Not because of C-390, but because the civilian freighters operators I believe will choose to get Freighter versions of Civilian Airliner rather than Civilized Military Cargo.
anandaIf the F-35C doesn’t happen – 50/50 at the moment? – here’s another option: buy MiG-29Ks, but with EJ200 engines and Western radar, avionics and weapons. STOBAR aircraft, so no need for expensive catapults.
No marinisation required, as that job has already been done.
How about F-18 E/F a.k.a Shornet ?
anandaNot sure if you are aware of whats going on in the States……but Sen McCain has stated he will introduce a bill that would kill the program. Not sure how much support he would have, but………the US is broke. Deffence WILL be cut……….just a matter of how much.http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/pentagon-cutting-f-35-would-be-complicated-costly-20110808
Isn’t the potential cancellation will be for B, while the A and C will continue ? Well if that happen it’s seems the Harrier will be given another life line. I wonder what will come in mind to a certain Mindef across the Atlantic Pond that decided to scrap Harier altogether ? hmm :rolleyes:
anandaLooks more like something you’d expect to see flying the Hammer and Sickle in the 1970’s or 80’s rather then a product of the 21st century.
Sorry what’s the SSB ? surely this not the boomers Right ?
anandaThe fact they bought used aircraft before does not automaticly garantee they’ll buy them again this time around… Things have changed significantly… Lower tier corporate aircraft owners used to buy turboprops, nowadays they are switching to light jets such as the Embraer Phenom 100/300s in droves. Just check out what company made this particular segment finally viable, one tip it was not Raytheon… 😉
I think their trend now is to buy new build freighter and not converting used ex civilian airline. Still my point is will they willing to consider civilized military transport or taking 737 NG Freighter or A-320 Freighter as feeder (as your argument say the usage for C-390 more to feeder routes for those big Cargo company).
Look I just questioning the soundness of civilian versions of Military Transport vs Freighter versions of Civilian airliner. Boeing already put concept of Civilized C-17 but also now development further on this. Perhaps Kawasaki experiences in aero business still much below Embrear (although in my personal experience I found out is never good to underestimate the Japanese capability to turn commercial deal), but certaintly you can’t say that to Boeing.
I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) the Civilized C-17 was being concept by Boeing with many parts (not just engine) going to be interchangeable with existing Boeing commercial fleet, in such beside the exterior look the aircraft will be more common with her commercial fleet cousins than her Military C-17 sister. But if Boeing did not pursue further, then I believe they must found out the acceptance of civilized military transport is much lower on commercial market than dedicated civilian freighter.
I might be wrong, but seems that what I see. :confused:
anandaHi Fedaykin, I’m under the impression that Embraer,s idea for a civilian transport derivative goes WAY beyond replacing L-100s and vintage Russian cargo planes. From what I gather they would like to turn this into the standard aircraft for FedEx, DHL and other of the like. Do the math: there is probably a larger market here than in the military role!
Coments?
Hammer
If I may to comment:
1. Fedex, TNT and DHL probably will use Civilian Airliner derived cargo’s. After all, Locheed and Transall try to offer their plane for civilian operator but with little success.
2. If the potential for Military version cargo in civilian market, what makes Embraer KC-390 will be more successful than Kawasaki plan to sell civilian version of C-2 ? It’s bigger, and already fly.
anandaAny News or Info on possibility of Civilian C-X than Kawasaki sites already mentioned before ? I believe if this’s granted permission by Japanese Gov’t, then this’s the way out to export C-X.
Civilian C-X only need minimum adjustment I believe to be converted back to Military use. Well the attitude of Japan for dual use technology is somewhat different I believe then at time of C-1. For instances, they already donated several ex Japanese Coast Guard vessels to Indonesia (granted not to the Navy but to Ministry of Transportation). Still they now very well that if Indonesia wants. it’s not difficult to re-armed the vessels.
anandaI contend that even with the pain of a two weapons sets OR the cost of integrating UK kit, the F/A-18EF BII would be a more cost effective solution for the RN (can you imagine the cost of navalising a design never intended for CATOBAR spread over, what, 50 units?). Doesn’t mean I actually think SH BII IS the desirable choice for the RN. F-35C is far more capable.
If the population is only 50+ something than I agree there’s no point on developing your own carrier capable fighter platform. I also think that getting the F-18 E/F is the most cost effective way for RN on equipping their Flattop with capable fighters.
However if they can get other navy to be interested with Navalised Typhoon, then there’s potential better benefit for UK to equip RN with development for Typhoon in to carriers capable platform.
It’s a long shoot, but if India’s choose Typhoon, then I believe potential for navalised Typhoon will be there.
Despite they (India) already choose Mig 29K, but it’s more to equip the ex Gorskhov, while the next 2-3 indigenous carrier still need to be choose on the fighters platform (If my remember correctly India still has not decided if their next carrier still Stobar or Catobar). Despite talk on navalised LCA, I believe Indian navy wants something more capable than LCA as their main air asset for the future carriers.
Rafale got more point due to already available carrier capable platform. How much this can influence the decision on current race, I’m not sure. Still I do believe in some extent the Indian Min-def already calculating possibility the winner also can be integrated for carrier capable platform.
Even with India getting on the project the potential population still far bellow the potential of F-18 E/F or F-35C. The most with Indian 3 carriers and UK 2 CVF than we only talked population of 200+, but certainly enough to be economically feasible.
anandaChina confirms Varyag being refitted for research, training purposes. Fixed-wing aircraft on the carrier will use a ski-jump to take off of the vessel.
China refitting aircraft carrier body for research, training
That’s a very diplomatic way to say a Fully combat capable carrier as Research and Training ship 😉
It is a conventionally-powered medium-sized carrier that will be equipped with indigenous Chinese engines, ship-borne aircraft, radar and other hardware, Cao said.
Yep. it will be a combat capable carrier.
anandaSure compatibility is a plus but again, is it worth the substantial extra cost? Anyway with the F-35 (or F/A-18F for that matter) fleet support and spares can be shared with the USN and other partner nations, which helps to reduce cost.
I’ve read quite a longtime ago, from Dasault source that Marine Rafale shares more than 90% commonality with Air Force Rafale. Thus I presume the commonality level between Navalised Typhoon and existing Air Force Typhoon can be in that area. Thus it can be assumed the support infrastructure can also be shared with existing Typhoon fleet.
Look, I know it will be more costly to build and integrate navalised Typhoon, rather than taking F-18 E/F or F-35 C. However for UK’s defence industry and long term commonality of UK’s Fighter fleet, I think there’s possibility to achieve saving in there.
Realistically with current budget issue in UK, I think getting F-18 E/F will be more economical. But if the choices still F-35C than perhaps the cost of integrating navalised Typhoon will not be that substantially larger (well I’m not expert on this, but considering F-35C still under development, by getting out from F-35C and start your own project with Navalised Typhoon, perhaps will not costing UK’s tax payers much larger, plus added bonus for local Industry)
The QE class was designed specifically to facilitate CATOBAR ops if needed. Converting a true STOVL carrier to CATOBAR is never a great idea, they really are different leagues.
I know I’m pushing more than a bit on the Catobar scenario’s for Italian Cavour 😀
anandaBut with such a small potential customer pool (the RN with one carrier, the IN with one carrier at the moment, three potentially) and four perfectly viable competitors (F/A-18F, F-35C, Rafale & MiG 29K) all with sunk development costs, larger fleets, potentially smaller aggregate costs and three already operational (not 100% sure on MiG 29K’s status though), why would anyone want to go through the substantial cost of a platform redesign?
How about long term compatibility with RAF Typhoon ? In sense with Navalised Typhoon, UK (RAF and RN) only have to maintain one type of Fighter, rather now plan F-35C for RN flat tops.
I know the plan is only to equip one carrier with fighters, while the other one will be in reserve. But if UK’s budget improve, the second carrier can also be equipped with full fighters capability, thus increase the number.
Well, if India choose Typhoon, then it can be more potential for Navalised Typhoon. But if they choose rafale, then it come back to RN alone. Still if French can do it, why not UK’s ? Who knows if F-35B cancelled or deemed to expensive, the Italian will change their carrier (cavour) to catobar. It will be cramped, but still doable I think.
anandaThe key for the FA-50 is Lockheed Martin. The FA-50 is of course, first and foremost, a KAI aircraft but as far as the light aircraft market goes, its just as much as an American aircraft and that means a lot to potential export customers
Yep, one of the main Indonesian logic when taking F/A-50 as LIFT replacing Hawk mk 53 is the better transition to F-16 (which’s more in future will be the main Indonesian Air Force asset with Flankers).
anandaWell, the FA-50 is supposed to be single-seat version, but this is not.
On KAI source the F/A-50 is the LIFT versions of T-50. Thus I believe this picture is F/A-50. From Indonesian source, the one that’s going to be delivered to Indonesia will be F/A-50 (or LIFT version of T-50).
There is proposed single seat variant supposed also to be called F/A-50. However seems now KAI called the LIFT versions also F/A-50. Seems KAI think the market for F/A-50 will be more available if the Light Fighters double also as Advanced Trainer thus LIFT.
anandaI thought the Navalised Typhoon being drooped since RN decided to go SVTOL with F-35 B. Now with CVF will be Catobar and although F-35C now being decided as the Fighter for CVF, could the UK tempted for Navalised Typhoon now ? (since Catobar now the choices for CVF/QE Class) ?
I know the costs for development Navalised Typhoon will be hindered if UK/RN is the only user. Still this can also in long term provide logistical benefit with RAF also standardize to Typhoon as the only Fighters for Future.
anandaor to be more exact, will there be more F-4s than MiG-29s?
with Malaysia looking for a replacement, and Bulgaria retiring theirs, there’s 2 less Air forces using the MiG-29.. Russia may retire theirs except for the SMT and Ks soon too.
F-4 users also retiring but large ones like S.Korea and Turkey unlikely to retire all of theirs soon.
I would say no. Simply because Mig still in the business of producing Fulcrum spares while Mc D (aka Boeing now) not. In other word the present F-4 now flying until the last inventory of spares running out, whille Mig 29 users still can expect spares productions from Mig after 2020.
Besides with India still upgrading their mig 29 and acquiring Naval Mig 29, it provide room for Mig to open their line for smaller customers (especially the current Third world Mig 21 users).
Sign In
