Kawasaki C-2 as A-400 Alternatives ?

Ananda

Well-Known Member
From Japan Times:
GIFU (Kyodo) Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. delivered its first XC2 next-generation transport jet to the Air Self-Defense Force in a ceremony Tuesday at the firm's Gifu plant, two years behind schedule.

The XC2, a high-wing twin-engine plane measuring 44 meters in length, is currently the largest domestically developed aircraft.

The delivery was delayed because the fuselage turned out to be weaker than designed. The second plane is to be delivered by the end of March 2012.

The XC2's payload is about three times larger than the C1 transport now used by the ASDF.

The XC2 is easy to fly and can have civil aviation applications, a KHI official said.

The Maritime Self-Defense Force is developing the XP1 next-generation submarine patrol plane, which will use some common parts with the XC2.
Development costs for the two airplanes combined came to ¥345 billion.
Hi Guys, I know there's been a thread discussing Japan new Tarsnport the Kawasaki C-2, but try to find it, seems it's been inactive for sometime. So I try to put this thread on the new Kawasaki XC-2.

The idea that I would to ask, whether do you think C-2 will be a visible alternative in the world market for C-130J or the Planned further development of C 130 or even the A-400.

From what the Japan Times stated, KHI seems also try to market this in CIVILIAN Vertions. This seems KHI idea to try to marketed the aircraft but still circumspect the Japanese ban on selling military/lethal products abroad.

I personally do not have good knowledge on the extent of Japanese ban on exporting military products. However a Cargo plane like this can be viable to sell it under civilian regristartions, then converted back to military use.

For me it seems this plane provide viable alternative and can be a good choices for some nations that wants more than C-130 but can't afford C-17 or does not want a turboprop like A-400.
Provide them to world market will potentially push down the costs quite significantly then will made this viable for C-130 replacements or even alternatives from A-400.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I'd say that its suitability as an A400M alternative depends on the degree of difference between the military version & the civilianised export version. If it's the same plane, but lacking defensive systems & painted a different colour, then no problem: the customers can fit defensive aids, military communications, etc. as wished, slap a new coat of paint on, & hey presto! Military transport!

It's similar in size & payload to A400M. Faster, which is good, but I don't know how its take off & landing performance compares. This is supposed to be where A400M is particularly good. Whether that is significant depends on customer priorities.

Any development of the C-130 is going to be in a different category, significantly smaller & lighter & with much smaller load-carrying capacity. The only way to give C-130 comparable performance would be to give it a new wing, new engines, & fatter fuselage - and that's a new aeroplane.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
I'd say that its suitability as an A400M alternative depends on the degree of difference between the military version & the civilianised export version. If it's the same plane, but lacking defensive systems & painted a different colour, then no problem: the customers can fit defensive aids, military communications, etc. as wished, slap a new coat of paint on, & hey presto! Military transport!
Swerve, I've got a articles on this plane on a japanese forum. Since it's in Japanese, i've a friend of mine tranlate it. Basically the articles says that the Kawasaki C-2 is C-17 little brother.
In sense it's share many C-17 aspects however with only two engines and about more than half of C-17 capacity. Does you or anybody else in this forum can confirm or have different oppinion on that article?

Looking on this plane seems for me it could be the answer many in the market are looking for a C-130 relacements. Agree the C-130 is reaching it's design apex. Lockheed paractically need to build another Aircraft if they want C-130 replacements.
Embraer try to introduces C-130 relacements, however it's still in drawing while this plane already entering final phase before production versions.
For me it's a handsome cargo plane with a lot potential to offer. Seems it's going to a shame if it's ended up like Kawasaki C-1 it's replaces. Just another 'only' Japanese build and operated cargo plane.

Japanese have capability to really offered and support the plane for World market. Just wandering if there's going to be significant support from Japanese government for KHI to do that..
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
The Embraer KC-390 is pretty well a direct C-130 replacement, with about the same payload. C-2 is much bigger, twice the payload. They're not really direct competitors.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
More Clearance for Japanese Transport to World Market ?

From Yomiuri Shimbun Editorial:http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T100809003080.htm

Japan could better exploit its defense technology
The Yomiuri Shimbun

Transfers of military technology--on a limited scale--could be an effective way to maintain the nation's vital defense technology while also supporting defense-related companies.

The Defense Ministry is studying a plan to transfer aircraft it developed to private use. The plan includes converting the Maritime Self-Defense Force's US-2 search-and-rescue seaplane to a firefighting flying boat and also converting the XC-2 next-generation transport plane now being developed by the Air Self-Defense Force to a large civilian cargo airplane.

The transfer of military technology to civilian use is unprecedented in this country. But search-and-rescue and transport planes are not really armaments in the first place. Adapting them for civilian use would have no effect on Japan's ideal as a "pacifist nation."

The government would be able to recoup some of its development costs by collecting usage fees from private companies. The procurement costs for Self-Defense Forces planes could also be reduced through the efficiencies of mass production. Manufacturers, for their part, could expect certain levels of earnings because the global demand for firefighting flying boats and cargo airplanes is large.
Kawasaki C-2 if the Japanese release it to World Market, I believe will have potentially huge impact in the market.
If the priced it correctly, well anybody we'll be delighted to have C-17 Baby Brother in more reasonable prices.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Update for Embraer KC-390. The aircraft design has been set, wind tunnel tests have been completed, and the cargo weight has been increased to 23.6 metric tons, 0r 26 short tons. Columbia has shown interests in buying 12, and Chile 6, with Brazil 28... Embraer hasn't decided upon the jet engine yet, outside the need for a engine of 27,000 pounds thrust...

Embraer’s Multinational KC-390 Tactical Air Transport Program
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
Update for Embraer KC-390. The aircraft design has been set, wind tunnel tests have been completed, and the cargo weight has been increased to 23.6 metric tons, 0r 26 short tons. Columbia has shown interests in buying 12, and Chile 6, with Brazil 28... Embraer hasn't decided upon the jet engine yet, outside the need for a engine of 27,000 pounds thrust...

Embraer’s Multinational KC-390 Tactical Air Transport Program
Nice A/C, pity its range is so short though. Range: 1,400 nmi (2,590 km). Rules it out as a C-130 replacement for those countries using it as their primary long range transport. Such as NZ which will be looking for a C-130 replacement in the next decade.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I'd like to see more details. I'm not sure what conditions that range is supposed to be under.
 

kato

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
http://www.embraerdefensesystems.co...?caminho=download/pdf/Spec_KC390_abril_09.pdf

has a chart for the range under various conditions. The 1,500 nm figure is with 19 tons payload (42,000 lbs).

For comparison with a C-130J, the official USAF figure is 1,600 nm maximum range with a 35,000 lbs payload, a C-130J-30 does 2,100 nm, older C-130E/H do 1,250-1,300 nm. With the same payload, according to the chart, the KC-390 ranges between 1,800 and 2,000 nm depending on flight profile.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Thanks.

But - they've changed the predicted performance since that document was published last year. For example, it shows maximum payload as 19 tons, but Embraer has recently said that design studies show it will be 23 tons. I've not seen any estimates of range with that payload.
 
Last edited:

Sea Toby

New Member
Thanks.

But - they've changed the predicted performance since that document was published last year. For example, it shows maximum payload as 19 tons, but Embraer has recently said that design studies show it will be 23 tons. I've not seen any estimates of range with that payload.
Here is tne new Embraer spec sheet... Notice the differences in range with the new specs...

http://www.embraerdefensesystems.com/english/content/download/pdf/Spec_KC390_junho_10_EN.pdf
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Excellent! Thanks a lot.

That gives 16 tons (real ones, i.e. marginally more than 35000 lb) out to 2400 nautical miles in 'normal' operations, or 23.6 tons to 1350.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
MTA or Embraer

From Financial Express:
New Delhi: Ahead of the annual Indo-Russia summit in December, both countries have inked a $600-million (aprox Rs 2,900 crore) agreement for setting up a joint venture company to design and develop a multi-role transport aircraft.

The new aircraft is proposed to replace the 110 An-32 transport aircraft in India. The JV will be formed between Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Russian partners: United Aircraft Corporation & Rosoboronexport to co-develop and produce Multirole Transport Aircraft (MTA).

The development cost will be shared equally by both sides. The companies in the JV will manufacture 205 aircraft in 50:50 partnership. There is also scope for exporting the aircraft, both for civil and military use.

The $600-million JV was expected to be finalised during Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s visit to India in March, 2010 to develop MTA for Air Force of both countries to transport 18.5 tonne payloads over 2500 km. The expectation was belied and both sides continued to bargain hard during negotiations.

MTA is a 15-20 tonne payload capacity Aircraft which will meet the requirements of the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Russian Air Force. The main features of MTA are: Maximum take-off weight 65 tonnes, Payload Capacity 15-20 tonnes, Cruise Speed 800 kmph, Range 2500-2700 km, Service ceiling 12 km. The aircraft will have two engines, state-of-the-art features such as fly-by-wire, full authority digital engine control, modern avionics and glass cockpit.



In 2001, the protocol on the commencement of work on the development of a joint multi-role four-engined turboprop transport aircraft IL-214 was signed between the two countries.

While working out details of the MTA project and harmonising requirements of both the countries, the project was significantly changed from the Il-214 baseline and increasing the aircraft’s payload capacity and cargo compartment dimensions. None of the engines currently manufactured in Russia can be applied to the new aircraft.

The decision on MTA’s full-scale launch was made in November 2007, when a special agreement between the countries’ was signed. This long-planned project will bring to life a next-generation tactical airlifter with maximum takeoff weight about 70 tonne and a payload capability of 20 tonne.

In March 2008, HAL clarified that the withdrawal of the Russian company, Irkutsk Aviation and Industrial Association as a partner from the $600-million, Indo-Russian MTA joint venture is an internal Russian affair and did not indicate a collapse of the project. Rosoboronexport, Russia’s state-owned monopoly liaison agency for the export and import.

(Financial Express)
Just wandering:

1. It will be direct competitor to Embrear program in replacing C-130. The Japanese C-2 more likely in the class of A-400. Which one (the MTA vs Embrear) that will be ready first in to the market ?
2. Heard the Russian still preparing twin engine jet versions of AN 70. This will be in direct competitors to A-400 and Kawasaki C-2 (if the Japanese finally release it to World market). Will the MTA really intended to replace AN-32 while the proposed twin jet engine AN 70 replacing IL-76 ? I just thought that the rasional way to keep Russia in the projects.

Also from Defence Aerospace:
Defence Ministers of Portugal and Brazil Sign Memorandum of Understanding on the KC-390

Minister of National Defence Augusto Santos Silva, will today Friday, at 11:15 hours, host his Brazilian counterpart, Nelson Jobim, for a bilateral meeting.

The meeting between the ministers and their delegations will take place in Fort St. Julian of Barra, Oeiras.

Subsequently, at about 12:30, a ceremony will be held for the signature of a Declaration of Intent concerning the participation of Portugal in the KC-390 aircraft, after which the two ministers will be available to take questions from the media.

(Defense Aerospace)
Reallying only so far with relative low quantity transport usage countries like Portugal and her Latin Neighbours, could Embrear got enough momentum to have viable projects compared to MTA in which the initial order from Russia and India alone potentially out match any potential Order from Brazil, Portugal, and Latin Neighbourhood ?
 
Last edited:

Ananda

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Potential 1st export customer for C2 ?

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Ec...an-in-talks-to-export-defense-aircraft-to-UAE

Sorry to bring back this old thread..but recent news seems make it relevant again..
Seems some talk with UAE as 1st export customer for C2. Again Japan now seems try harder to gain export customers for it's defence products.
Shinmaywa US-2 before gain some news with some talks with India and Indonesia, don't know the progress in India but in Indonesia seems it's competitor Be-200 that gain momentum.

Personally I like it more for Indonesia to approach C2 then A-400, which only gain some momentum due to Airbus close relationship with DI. The price of USD 170 mio + is also reasonable for that kind of capacity. Moreover the engine is available in large parts on commercial market..more plus sides compared to specialise engine of A-400, in term operational efficiency.

This can trully be C-17 little brother..hope more market opportunity for C2. The plane deserves it.
 
Last edited:

warriorsayz

New Member
I have a general question for all out there about C-2, despite being almost similar in size IL 76 and Y20 and having more thrust than Y 20 (103KN * 4 = 412 KN as compared to 266 KN * 2 = 532 of C 2) why does C-2 have a considerably lesser payload capacity than both these aircrafts...Can someone explain the factors behind this that I am not able to grasp ?
 

Rob c

Active Member
I have a general question for all out there about C-2, despite being almost similar in size IL 76 and Y20 and having more thrust than Y 20 (103KN * 4 = 412 KN as compared to 266 KN * 2 = 532 of C 2) why does C-2 have a considerably lesser payload capacity than both these aircrafts...Can someone explain the factors behind this that I am not able to grasp ?
While the dimensions of the KHI C 2 may appear to be only a little less than the IL 76 or the Y 20, it is significantly smaller with an empty weight of about 60 Tonnes as compared with the other aircrafts 90 to 100 tonne empty weights. The extra wing span and power are required by the C 2 ( pluss high lift devices ) to enable it to achieve it's very short takeoff and landing abilities, which were specified by the Japanese airforce. It is infact a significantly smaller aircraft.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I have a general question for all out there about C-2, despite being almost similar in size IL 76 and Y20 and having more thrust than Y 20 (103KN * 4 = 412 KN as compared to 266 KN * 2 = 532 of C 2) why does C-2 have a considerably lesser payload capacity than both these aircrafts...Can someone explain the factors behind this that I am not able to grasp ?
Honestly just looking at the listed length, height and wingspan of an aircraft does not really do a decent job informing one how large the aircraft actually is, since it does not inform one how large the main body of the is, or what it's volume is. Similarly, just knowing the wingspan does not inform one of the wing area.

Given the empty weight differences between the Kawasaki C-2 (I really wish they had chosen a different designation, since there is apparently also a Kawasaki C-2 bike...) at ~60,000 kg, vs. ~92,000 kg and 100,000 kg respectively, that would suggest the C-2 is a smaller aircraft despite what the max dimensions might be.
 

warriorsayz

New Member
While the dimensions of the KHI C 2 may appear to be only a little less than the IL 76 or the Y 20, it is significantly smaller with an empty weight of about 60 Tonnes as compared with the other aircrafts 90 to 100 tonne empty weights. The extra wing span and power are required by the C 2 ( pluss high lift devices ) to enable it to achieve it's very short takeoff and landing abilities, which were specified by the Japanese airforce. It is infact a significantly smaller aircraft.
So coming to the point of empty weight being less compared to the other aircrafts, isnt that an advantage? I mean with a more powerful engine and less empty weight wouldnt that help the aircraft perform better.

But yes I do feel that the MTOW of Y 20 is about 220 tn as compared to C 2's 141 tn which I assume means more fuel for range, but I still dont understand how a lighter aircraft is able to carry less load inspite of a more powerful engine.

Pardon my ignorance just trying to learn... :)
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
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.
 
Top