VnomadWhat you actually did was select the most favourable calculation method for the C-130, then use wrong numbers which greatly exaggerated its capability.
That was a typo. Should have read 140 cu m not 170 cu m. I ought to have scrolled up and taken another look after reading your first post, but anyway…
C-130J-30: 2.74 x 3.04 x 16.8 = 140 cu m.
KC-390: 2.95 x 3.45 x 12.7 = 130 cu m.
The C-130J-30 carries more, a point which remains unchanged.
What’s specifically designed or modified for the aircraft? And given the thousands of V2500s in service around the world, do you think that’s significant, even if applicable?
Embraer can’t just buy the engines off the shelf and hang them under the wings. They have to be integrated with the FCS which means IAE will have to provide and customize software to enable that which would bring all US contractors involved into the ambit of the ITAR.
The same business landed PWC/UT in very hot water culminating in a $75 million fine even though it too was dealing with (notionally) civilian engines.
As to the second part, I didn’t think it was significant nor was I the one who brought up ITAR. It doesn’t make any significant impact on a decision made by the IAF today and the KC-390 therefore doesn’t retain any specific advantage through COTS employment.
90% C-130J-30? Another false figure. About 60%, I think, which makes it the majority, but nowhere near 90%.
I haven’t included tanker or other special variants. Just the transport fleet. The numbers are available on Wikipedia. Add them up. 176 stretched variant vs 29 regular variants. A ratio of 85:15. Not including the 30 odd C-130J-30s expected to be delivered to the USAF till 2020.
Note that the greater volume of the C-130J-30 has some trade-offs. Range, service ceiling & speed are all less than the base model.
Same speed. Same range at max payload. Better range with a lighter payload. Service ceiling lower by just 2000 ft. USAF Fact Sheet.
No wonder most operators happily to accept the ‘trade-off’
You seem to be clutching at straws, bending arguments, using mistaken conversion factors & faking some figures. Tends to discredit your arguments, don’t you think?
All that through one typo. Fancy that.
Vnomadthere is zero option available. most of that $300m is spread out over couple of years with most of them spent on Indian labor from design team to manufacture.. where is that upfront payment nonsense?
There are plenty of more productive uses of $300 million (which doesn’t pay for a single operational aircraft). Far better to let Russia invest that ‘measly’ sum and if there’s still a pending requirement by the time the aircraft is ready, it can be considered for a direct import.
C-130J does not get job done as it is too slow, low altitude and aerodynamically obsolete. It is not multifunctional design from ground up like MTA which is sutiable from AWACS to MPA.
Now you’re just being stupid. There are eight operators of the C-130J outside of the US and far from whining about its oh-so-slow design, they’re all quite pleased with it (including the IAF). None of them would be willing to splurge $300 million for the opportunity to buy an aircraft that can go 150kph faster (different budget for the actual purchase).
As for AWACS & MPA; the IAF has the ERJ-145 for an AEW&C platform while the IN operates the 737-based P-8I which is to be supplemented by a smaller aircraft that should be able to do 300kts at 10,000ft according to the RFI. With the (supposedly non-multifunctional) Sea Hercules a leading contender for the contract. Jackass.
VnomadCommercial engine, sold to anyone & everyone. Thousands in service, all round the world. When has it ever been subject to ITAR?
When employed in a military aircraft, it becomes subject to ITAR.
Part 121, Category VIII, Part (b)
Military aircraft engines, except reciprocating engines, [and spacecraft engines] specifically designed or modified for the aircraft in paragraph (a) of this category. [Aircraft which are specifically designed, modified, or equipped for military purposes.]
In practice, it may not be possible to enforce it the ITAR regulations. But then in practice the threat of sanctions has also all but evaporated, resulting in the US overtaking Russia as the largest defence supplier to India.
Where did you get the cargo volumes from? The figure you give for the KC-390 appears to be almost identical to that of the basic C-130J, despite the wider, higher, & slightly longer cargo bay of the KC-390. And note that you’re comparing basic & stretch versions, & a stretch version of the KC-390 was proposed by Embraer some time ago.
I calculated the cargo volumes from dimensions on the net (Embraer’s site in the KC-390’s case). Did not include the volume over or behind the ramp in both cases (volume of largest possible cuboid).
The stretched variant of the KC-390 is still on paper and AFAIK no operator has signed onto the project. In contrast, 90% of the orders for the C-130J have been for the -30 variant (including the dozen for India) arguably making it the ‘default’ model of the C-130J.
Vnomad300 million reasons? you don’t have a single reason. MTA is using the most powerfull engines in its class. it is likely most aerodynamically efficient plane. and off course built on the cheapest industrial chain and most effective R&D.
$300m is peanuts to enter into cargo lifter project.
All other options are available without upfront investment in peanut futures. The IAF doesn’t need something with the strongest engine and bestest airframe. The C-130J gets the job done without unnecessarily diversifying the fleet. That’s good enough.
VnomadEmbraer pursued the KC-390 project because they assessed it would be able to deliver significant improvements over existing options in that class (i.e. C-130J) and thereby secure much of the market going forward, amongst customers not already committed to C-130J. You can be ‘skeptical’ of that, if you like, but beyond downplaying the significance of the advantages we already know the platform to have, that skepticism is ultimately based not on evidence, but rather the simple belief and assertion that Embraer are wrong.
The KC-390 project is being driven by the captive market i.e Brazil and to a lesser extent friendly South American states. It is not reliant on export orders for survival. Point being, it has a (relatively) secure future even if it doesn’t outperform the C-130J.
Also, the assertions about the KC-390’s lower operating cost come only from the vendors. AFAIK no customer has verified that through a competition (all its export successes have been political buys).
Personally I don’t have it at all difficult to believe that a clean-sheet 21st century aircraft can improve significantly on a souped-up 1950s airframe. Nobody (apart from perhaps JSR) seems to be arguing that the new Il-76 is an attractive prospect vs. modern airframes like A400M, A330, C-17 and (in future) Y-20. I’m not sure why C-130J should be immune to similarly modern challengers in its own class.
The Boeing 737 is a ‘souped up’ 1960s airframe. The company is still delivering 42 of them every month in 2015.
The KC-390 was not designed with the overriding objective of beating the C-130J on operating cost, evidenced by the choice of turbofan propulsion over more economical turboprops. If that had been a priority, I’m sure Embraer could have done it. As things stand we have no real evidence of the KC-390 being cheaper.
VnomadKC-390 is intended to be cheaper to operate than C-130J, and it has a greater payload cross-section also. Brazil could also well be more accomodating on technology transfer and local manufacture, because they stand to gain relatively more from the sale.
As for C-130J, that India already operates it in small numbers is actually disadvantageous when it comes to securing a good deal from LM. LM would rightly perceive that they are in the driver’s seat in such negotiations, and their offer would therefore not be as competitive as it would’ve been 5yrs ago. And of course, the design itself is 5yrs older than it was 5yrs ago, and alternatives such as KC-390 and even MTA are that much closer to fruition.
Its possible that India could have gotten a better deal 5 years ago but I doubt we can say for certain. (Its still the best option even today.) Defence budgets weren’t as strained back then as they are today and LM was still servicing a fairly substantial order book, while orders are running out today. With multiple options available including the MTA, KC-390 and even the A400M, I’d say the leverage lies with the Indian MoD at the moment.
C-130 slowdown prompts cuts at Lockheed plant
Aug. 23, 2012
Lockheed Martin is cutting about 550 jobs at its Marietta plant as it slows production of its primary aircraft line.
.
The cuts in Marietta, though, have more to do with a recent dip in demand for the C-130J.
.
Lockheed workers churned out 36 C-130Js in 2011 to meet the U.S. government’s demand, but that number dropped to 32 this year and is set to fall to 24 per year starting in 2013. The company said global demand “remains high, but we must match our domestic and international customers’ contractual schedules.”
Aero India 2015: Lockheed Martin admits challenges, but sees bright future for C-130 in India
Lockheed Martin and the Indian Tata Group conglomerate announced the establishment of a joint venture (JV) to manufacture aerostructures for C-130s in February 2011. Paranjape said the structural components manufactured by the JV – named Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures – had been integrated into the global C-130 supply chain.
He added that further local manufacture and production could occur “if there’s the business case, if the numbers are right.”
VnomadPlease . . . . look at it before commenting. As Rii says, it’s supposed to be cheaper to operate & it has a bigger cargo cross section. It also has a slightly bigger payload, a higher service ceiling, & is supposed to be ITAR free (lots of COTS which is not covered by ITAR, & non-US parts). And then there are the other possible advantages Rii mentions & which should be considered.
COST
I’d be skeptical about claims of it being cheaper to operate. A turboprop will almost always be more fuel efficient than a turbofan, other factors being the same. And with the C-130J global fleet (& support structure) being far far larger, there’s no reason why a KC-390 operator would be able to get a better deal on spares & support.
PAYLOAD
The payload is slightly higher but practically that’ll rarely make a difference. Volume almost always maxes out before weight.
Cargo Volume:
KC-390: 130 cu. m
C-130J-30: 170 cu. m
In practice, the C-130J-30 (i.e. the variant serving with the IAF) will always carry more.
____________________
– Service ceiling yes. That makes the KC-390 a better option as a AEW&C platform or an aerial tanker. For plain vanilla transport, the major missile threat is on take-off & approach from forward bases (not in level flight), where the C-130 would probably be more survivable (4 props plus better glide ratio).
– Despite employing a good proportion of COTS, the KC-390 is hardly ITAR-free (V2500 being the most prominent example).
In your philosophy, what’s the point of improving anything? Why buy a C-130J when it’s only incrementally better than its predecessor? Why buy a C-130H instead of an earlier version? Why not stick with the C-130A? Or C-119? Or C-54? Or C-47? Why bother to make any improvements that aren’t completely revolutionary?
The C-130J is already in service with the IAF. The time for ‘consideration’ has long past as far as the type is concerned. If the transport fleet is to be diversified, the new contender needs to offer additional capability. The KC-390
does not and the MTA will not.
(As to the ‘philosophy’, I would ask why the USAF isn’t ordering a batch of KC-390s from Brazil to supplement its C-130J fleet.)
VnomadThe whole project is foolish because they only ask $300m from India. This kind of project run by Boeing/Airbus will not come less than $30b in R&D. with over $100m unit cost. KC-390 is joke with 20% less thrust engines and is outdated before even entering service and that assuming Brazil can solove its currency crises for imported parts.
If your billionaire uncle is willing to underwrite the development costs, its a good deal. Otherwise that’s 300 million reasons for India to drop the project, letting Russia proceed with it independently. Whining about Airbus/Boeing doesn’t change that fact.
VnomadC-130J would’ve been a good option five years ago, not so sure about now. KC-390 is another alternative.
What’s changed? The IAF has a new order for C-130Js on the books and will be operate a full dozen by 2018 or so, with further orders expected to take the fleet size as high as 24 units. It still the most cost effective medium transport on the market, as reliable as any of its peers, can operate from all of the India’s high altitude bases and the IAF can achieve further savings by standardizing on the type.
No point to the KC-390 either. Aside from a higher cruise speed (by a margin of just 150kph) it doesn’t offer any advantage over the C-130J.
VnomadCouldn´t India choose a western made engine for MTA?
Most probably it can’t. Unlike say the Sukhoi Superjet, the MTA is first and foremost a military aircraft with the RuAF expected to be the largest operator of the type. With the sanctions regime still running full throttle, western supplies to an even partially Russian military transport are unlikely to be sanctioned. Something in the PW1000G family might work as a purely India-specific option but integration would be hassle with pushing and prodding required for approvals from the US & Europe.
The whole project is a foolish endevour anyway, as far as India is concerned. If the contract is inked this year and the (hugely optimistic) timeline is rigorously adhered to, serial production at HAL will still begin only by 2020. In reality it’ll probably be closer to 2023 if not 2025. Much quicker, cheaper and more efficient to simply buy more C-130Js. And if the order is large enough, probably negotiate a fair amount of workshare to accompany that.
VnomadI would be putting a whole lot of salt on this pretended ‘ informed, yet anonymous sources’ that supposidelly report budget/Price figures escalating linearly. Lots of echo in the media, to make the numbers for what it lacks in credibility , do not make it more true.
Its not a linear escalation. That’s the problem.
GoI would hardly talk figures before the report ,due some time now, Concern over Price, over LCC yes plenty I am sure, double Price I doubt it , negociation would have long been terminated . Double budget, why not if the industrial Investments needed to absorb TOT have been poorly estimated. But yet, this is all comming from unknown, anonymeous sources. I would think the government and officials would have voiced a Price problem , before tunnel visionning on guarantee to comply to RFP.
Double the price or triple the price, the GoI would not cancel it outright because the blame for a flawed competition lies with it as does the responsibility for accepting an incomplete price quote from Dassault.
As for the ‘anonymous’ nature of the reporting, its a fact that the originally budgeted amount was $12 billion (given official MoD press notings from 2011 IIRC). As to the current price, there are far too many reports quoting a price in excess of $20 billion for it to be false. But even if we disregard that fact is even a low quote for the Rafale will take it into that price range.
Egypt is reportedly paying $160 million for each of its 24 Rafales (thanks to a weak Euro). At the same unit cost, 126 Rafales would be priced at $20.1 billion without offsets, licensing cost, local production, local assembly, training for the same and ToT cost. There’s simply no way India’s Rafale purchase would be priced under $20 billion.
Vnomadyour health provider has thousands of other, reasonable, customers to keep its margins. Aircraft manufacturers don’t.
The financial business of a globally active company like Dassault and others isn’t conducted in isolation. Any type of risk can be insured (including Dassault’s business in India) by folks who deal with thousands of reasonable (and unreasonable) customers.
this is MMRCA contract, we’re talking if India wanted all aircraft fast with no hassle (off the shelf) , meaning outside the MMRCA conditions
If it wants an aircraft off-the-shelf fast it still cannot go to Dassault for the Rafale for the same reason that it can’t go to Boeing for the SH or BAE/EADS for the Eurofighter. It wouldn’t be able to justify a single vendor deal. Unless the MMRCA has already been signed and the IAF is thereafter ‘locked’ into the Rafale procurement (in which case it’ll be a *expensive* supplement to the MMRCA not an alternative). And the quick deliveries will still begin only after 2017 (post customization and training).
Vnomadvnomad, not even the GoI talks about the price (yet), what blocks the negotiations is the warranty they ask for and which nobody could accept (as swerve posted right before you)
Back in 2012 the budget figure was $12bn. Today that has shot upto $20bn+ (reported by dozens of sources). And of course the GoI has talked about the price. The Indian defence minister himself spoke about the cost being a potential reason for scrapping the deal.
Like Eric Trappier recently said: “For BAE it took about 25 years, with only 3 years we have some margin”
😀
Unfortunately, the Rafale being a combat aircraft has the obsolescence factor working against it. 25 years on, the BAE Hawk is still a perfectly fine training platform. On the other hand the Mirage F1 (for example), might not be a such a sound purchase in 2015.
Vnomad3/ negotiations are ruined by asking an impossible warranty for anyone to give
4/ arbitrary buy of one of the loosing contenders without any comparable conditions
Or…
<3> negotiations are ruined by the deal far overshooting planning estimates, well beyond any elasticity afforded to the budget. The current govt manages to scuttle the deal while pinning the blame on the previous govt and Dassault.
Agree with <4> though. They could justify the F-35A as a non-competitive buy. Not so much the Super Hornet, which would require an invitation of bids even for an off-the-shelf purchase. No way to exclude Dassault on technical grounds.
nobody will sign a warranty over something he can’t have any control over… if someone does, his signature is worthless. There was a saying: promises engage only those who are naive enough to believe them.
My health provider does it. It’ll pay my medical bills regardless of my lifestyle. If I were to start chain smoking that might push up my premiums but it’ll not force me to live without insurance.
as for a quick deal, the french just did it with egypt, in case you missed it. in just three months between the initial request and the deal signature.
If India wants aircraft fast, regardless of where it is produced, thry can sign with the french and start being delivered by the end of the year
Under the contract, the French can only deliver one squadron off-the-shelf and with the customization required by the IAF even that wouldn’t be available by the end of the year. The MoD could order additional aircraft (i.e. outside of the MMRCA) but that’ll cost a pretty penny and take time to negotiate.
Vnomadif the deal is signed after three years of negotiations, it would be very long anywhere, but for India, it’s extraordinarily fast
just look at other markets/developments, it takes ages every time
Take a look at the timelines associated with FMS purchases from the US. C-130J. P-8I. C-17. What they want, they get fast. Where there’s a grey zone, that’s where it takes time. Given that the Rafale is a high profile purchase inviting huge media scrutiny, and given that the MMRCA was run with relative transparency, the hold up is certainly not bureaucratic.
Sign In
