Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Kawasaki C-2 as A-400 Alternatives ?

Discussion in 'Air Force & Aviation' started by Ananda, Apr 12, 2010.

Share This Page

  1. Ananda

    Ananda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    42
    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.
     
  2. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    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.
     
  3. Ananda

    Ananda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    42
    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: Apr 13, 2010
  4. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    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.
     
  5. Ananda

    Ananda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    42
    More Clearance for Japanese Transport to World Market ?

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

    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.
     
  6. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Interesting find. Thanks for posting that.
     
  7. Sea Toby

    Sea Toby New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,473
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  8. EnigmaNZ

    EnigmaNZ New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New Zealand
    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.
     
  9. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    I'd like to see more details. I'm not sure what conditions that range is supposed to be under.
     
  10. kato

    kato Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,004
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Germany
    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.
     
  11. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    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: Sep 10, 2010
  12. Sea Toby

    Sea Toby New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,473
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  13. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,867
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    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.
     
  14. Ananda

    Ananda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    42
    MTA or Embraer

    From 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:
    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: Sep 13, 2010
  15. Ananda

    Ananda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    42
    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: Aug 29, 2017
  16. warriorsayz

    warriorsayz New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    India
    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 ?
     
  17. Rob c

    Rob c Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Marton NZ
    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.
     
  18. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    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.
     
  19. warriorsayz

    warriorsayz New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    India
    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... :)
     
  20. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,362
    Likes Received:
    155
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    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.