Read the forum code of contact
By: 18th November 2015 at 10:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-the Japanese jet will have a hard time because the US may block its exports in fear of competition. expect the C-130 variant to fight hard as an A-400 replacement
By: 18th November 2015 at 11:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-the Japanese jet will have a hard time because the US may block its exports in fear of competition. expect the C-130 variant to fight hard as an A-400 replacement
How does that work? If company A in the USA supplies say, avionics for the C-2 and Kawasaki wants to order more for an export order for a customer politically acceptable to the USA, who is going to force company A to turn down extra business?
By: 18th November 2015 at 15:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If they're covered by ITAR, they need a permit to export them, & it could be refused. The USA has been known to block sales of non-US weapons to countries which it was simultaneously trying to sell equivalent US weapons to. It's been shamed into allowing blocked sales sometimes, but not always. The sale of Paveway IV (designed & made in the UK by the British subsidiary of a US firm, using some US parts & design) was held up for almost four years (2010 to Feb 2014) by the US State Department refusing ITAR clearance, while US firms were trying to persuade the Saudis to buy something made in the USA instead. Note that the USA sold other Paveways to the Saudis before that, & has continued to do so, so there was no question of it being a radically new capability which the USA opposed allowing the Saudis to have. It's reckoned to have got clearance only after Cameron spoke directly to Obama about it.
That sort of thing is far from unknown. US officials seem to see it as their duty to block sales of rival weapons whenever possible, by whatever means are legal. The only sure way round it is to make your stuff ITAR-free.
By: 18th November 2015 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If you want an insight into the C-2 versus A400M, try to find someone from Hispano-Suiza and buy him / her a drink at the bar... That company is reponsible for the FADEC and a bunch of auxiliary electrical and hydraulic systems on both types. They're also on the EMBRAER C-390!
But the prime problem with the C-2 is indeed the US State Department. Just like pushing F-16s is more profitable & politically binding than allowing Taiwan to export the Ching-Kuo, despite the high US content of that type.
Airbus took a lot of criticism and mockery for persisting with sourcing a European engine for the A400 but I personally believe that was a very sensible course of action, despite financial and performance costs.
By: 18th November 2015 at 23:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I don't think there is a single European aircraft other then some UAV that can be exported without US permission.
US parts are rampant in European planes just as European parts are rampant in US planes.
Nether is going to let costs of aircraft spiral upwards in order to cover the costs of full europeanization are full americanization. US and Europe both produce ten times as many civilian large aricraft as they do military aircraft. The civilian side is completely global now and military side just has to accept that fact, because the extra costs of localization is only going to be carried by a very small number of military aircraft.
Local defense contractors may love the localization idea and try and whip internet into a Itar frenzy every now and again over it. But in the end lower costs trump any benefit of localization. Both for the manufacturing country and for the vast majority potential export customers as well.
By: 19th November 2015 at 03:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Capabilty wise (ignoring politics) I think the C-2 would be quite attractive to many operators, including some a-400 customers or future buyers. Perhaps best suited for medium range, regional, forces- not global missions. Plenty of customers like that in asia, europe, africa, mid-east, mid and south america, island nations....
With the c-17 line closing, the A-400 question marks, the uncertainty of russian support, the price and limits of the C-130J, i think the timing for a mini C-17 as seen in the C-2 and the KC-390 could be quite interesting.
By: 19th November 2015 at 04:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-NIMBY.
By: 19th November 2015 at 10:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The C-2 would cost any potential customer as much, if not more, than the A400. Why do people think the Japanese plane would be any more cheaper or cost effective than the European?
By: 19th November 2015 at 11:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-When we talk about types that could work in replacing A-400m then the new offering from Antonov the An-188 a jet powered An-70 could be a winner with the right engines and the right backer
By: 19th November 2015 at 11:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-When we talk about types that could work in replacing A-400m..
Nobody is talking about replacing the A-400 - except perhaps, South Africa, who cancelled their order.
By: 19th November 2015 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Nobody is talking about replacing the A-400 - except perhaps, South Africa, who cancelled their order.
Ok picky An-70, An-188 could be a good viable option to A400M
By: 19th November 2015 at 12:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ok picky An-70, An-188 could be a good viable option to A400M
What's an An-188, I don't think it exists. Not a viable option.
By: 19th November 2015 at 12:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-When we talk about types that could work in replacing A-400m then the new offering from Antonov the An-188 a jet powered An-70 could be a winner with the right engines and the right backer
A bit too late. What would all the A400M customers use while they wait for it to be developed? So far it's a paper aeroplane. And who's going to pay for the development?
With the c-17 line closing, the A-400 question marks, the uncertainty of russian support, the price and limits of the C-130J, i think the timing for a mini C-17 as seen in the C-2 and the KC-390 could be quite interesting.
C-2 is in the A400M size & payload league, but KC-390 is aimed squarely at replacing C-130s, as a rival to C-130J.
By: 19th November 2015 at 12:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-A bit too late. What would all the A400M customers use while they wait for it to be developed? So far it's a paper aeroplane. And who's going to pay for the development?C-2 is in the A400M size & payload league, but KC-390 is aimed squarely at replacing C-130s, as a rival to C-130J.
I agree that those who are committed to A400 are stuck with it with France and maybe the UK looking having C-130 as well. I also concede that it will take a number of smaller air-forces or someone with a big enough need to make An-70,An-188 a goer
As for what is An-188 its a Jet powered An-70 very much as viable as KC-390 or C-2 given Antonov,s back ground in this field
By: 19th November 2015 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Except that Antonov doesn't have the money to do it without help, & Ukraine's broke. Who'll pay?
BTW, An-70 hasn't exactly been a big seller. Think about how many have been built. Think about the development programme, & why it's been so prolonged. First flight 1994 - how many in service? Why is that? Why would An-188 be different?
By: 19th November 2015 at 13:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Except that Antonov doesn't have the money to do it without help, & Ukraine's broke. Who'll pay?BTW, An-70 hasn't exactly been a big seller. Think about how many have been built. Think about the development programme, & why it's been so prolonged. First flight 1994 - how many in service? Why is that? Why would An-188 be different?
as said it would take a number of countries to place order,s to make a goer and it would be fair to say that An-70 has fallen foul Ukraine,s split from Russia but it is here and it is flying. as for 188 people may prefer the know of jet engines over the propfan,s of An-70 and sometimes it is that simple
By: 19th November 2015 at 13:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The C-2 would cost any potential customer as much, if not more, than the A400. Why do people think the Japanese plane would be any more cheaper or cost effective than the European?
uhhh the OP just said its 30 million cheaper than the A-400M.
chalk that up to stronger Euro and weaker Yen to the dollar.
By: 19th November 2015 at 14:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-as said it would take a number of countries to place order,s to make a goer and it would be fair to say that An-70 has fallen foul Ukraine,s split from Russia but it is here and it is flying. as for 188 people may prefer the know of jet engines over the propfan,s of An-70 and sometimes it is that simple
Ah, it's that simple. All it needs is orders from countries that don't trust Antonov's ability to deliver, or support, the aircraft, because it doesn't have any money, & the money will appear from somewhere.
Sorry if that seems rudely dismissive, but you've failed to give any reasons why anyone would place any orders, or to explain how anything would be financed. Money would be needed even to finance production to meet any orders.
By: 19th November 2015 at 17:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Ah, it's that simple. All it needs is orders from countries that don't trust Antonov's ability to deliver, or support, the aircraft, because it doesn't have any money, & the money will appear from somewhere.Sorry if that seems rudely dismissive, but you've failed to give any reasons why anyone would place any orders, or to explain how anything would be financed. Money would be needed even to finance production to meet any orders.
Swerve I have already conceded that this project would need backing and orders along the lines of the Saudi An-132 project but as said An-70 is here and flying and well down its development road as for a reason to place orders cost and performance are a good place to start. Lack of trust in Anonov is financial not one of tec if they were to get backing they have a good product An-70 - ANn-188 would be viable with backing
By: 19th November 2015 at 18:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I understand that lack of trust in Antonov is financial (& also political), but financial has an impact on technical (without money you can't do development), & you keep missing the point.
Without someone putting up serious money, Antonov can't guarantee to deliver. That blows the cost argument out of the water. An aeroplane isn't cheap if you have to finance its development & pour money into its manufacturer to be sure it'll be able to build your order. It isn't cheap if the manufacturer closes down, leaving you with no support. Financial risk means possible costs. It means you risk not getting the product at all, or it doesn't work as advertised because the money wasn't there to pay for everything, & a much higher risk of delays. Costs, costs, costs.
I recall having a holiday job when I was a student, somewhere which used German machinery. If anything went wrong, engineers had to come all the way from Germany. I discussed this with the production manager, & he told me that they could have bought cheaper British machines, which did the job as well. So why did they buy German? Because the Germans provided better support, which reacted faster, & their machines broke down less often. Buying German was the lowest risk, most reliable option, & that was worth a lot more than they could save on the purchase price.
Antonov needs a big backer if those risks are to be eliminated.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 18th November 2015 at 03:39
it seems with the latest news, the A-400 woes continue to grow.
Would the C-2 be a viable option for people interested in the A-400?
If wikipedia numbers are accurate (probably not), in USD,
the C-2 is nearly 30 million USD cheaper
carries almost the same tonnage
similar dimensions
flies faster
but its range is about a third shorter