Embraer KC-390 Millennium

are there any numbers on operational or life cycle costs of the C-130J vs the C-390?
 
The costs of C130s are a known cost whereas the 390 costs are probably not yet known because of small real world operating times. You could probably extrapolate some costs from existing Embraer aircraft.
 
Great to see it over weekend here in my other neck of the woods at Austrian Airpower so here are my pics

And also its been certified for aerial firefighting.

View: https://youtu.be/FIcBI6P-xuk


Cheers
 

Attachments

  • 0BEEBD8B-F1E1-4880-9BC2-B5D1F4A6782A.jpeg
    0BEEBD8B-F1E1-4880-9BC2-B5D1F4A6782A.jpeg
    438.5 KB · Views: 86
  • 671FC931-1DB6-4F21-9314-D38F70163C9F.jpeg
    671FC931-1DB6-4F21-9314-D38F70163C9F.jpeg
    327.9 KB · Views: 40
  • FA2AA1DE-66A7-425C-8DEF-1DBA47788282.jpeg
    FA2AA1DE-66A7-425C-8DEF-1DBA47788282.jpeg
    276.1 KB · Views: 46
That "aerial firefighting" thing will probably grow huge within the next... well, 1000 years ?
A400Ms, Hercules, now that one.
Wait until they turn all those unwanted A380s into firefighting planes (yes, I'm aware of those Evergreen 747s water bombers).
I WANT to see that happening.
 
While they haven't killed the Greemlins in their FBW, I doubt many buyers will press-on for that.

Remember that Airbus jets have a problem in low altitude flyby. Even if it shows up today only once in a while, this is not something much suited for a firebomber IMOHO...
 
FighterJock said:
TandemHEAT said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09...-embraer-to-bring-kc-390-tanker-to-us-market/
Click to expand...

That is going to be different if the USAF go for the KC-390, though I can see their point with the smaller size to be capable of operating in austere environments.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but we're never going to see this aircraft in USAF colors. Lockheed would aggressively use all their political influence and lobbying power to make sure such a deal never materializes.
 
alberchico said:
FighterJock said:
TandemHEAT said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09...-embraer-to-bring-kc-390-tanker-to-us-market/
Click to expand...

That is going to be different if the USAF go for the KC-390, though I can see their point with the smaller size to be capable of operating in austere environments.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but we're never going to see this aircraft in USAF colors. Lockheed would aggressively use all their political influence and lobbying power to make sure such a deal never materializes.
Click to expand...

It would be sad if that was the case if there was no proper competition against Lockheeds aircraft as to who wins the KC-Z competition
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-...-to-offer-agile-tanker-to-usaf/150244.article
Brazilian airframer Embraer has partnered with US defence contractor L3Harris to offer a special “tactical tanker” version of its KC-390 military airlifter to the US Air Force (USAF).

The companies will “develop an Agile Tanker, a tactical aerial refuelling option to address the US Air Force’s operational imperatives and joint-force refuelling requirements, especially for contested logistics environments”, Embraer and L3Harris said on 19 September.

The move aligns with a USAF concept called Agile Combat Employment (ACE), which calls for the service to become more nimble in response to modern threats, the companies add.

The partners are developing a prototype, L3Harris says. “It’s an iterative process for the first version of the tanker, which is expected to [be] complete in late 2025, with opportunities to accelerate with government funding.”
Click to expand...

Embraer already offers a tanker variant of its KC-390 medium-lift military aircraft, which is powered by twin wing-mounted International Aero Engines V2500s.

“Aircraft enhancements will complement the tanker’s existing capabilities, which already include the ability to refuel aircraft with a variable-speed drogue, receive fuel, and to take-off and land from short and improvised runways,” the companies say.

“Enhancements include the addition of advanced boom operations and mission systems to support agile basing and sustainment for operations in contested areas,” they add.

The Agile Tanker will also carry communications systems compatible with the Pentagon’s Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept, which aims to vastly improve communications between branches.
Click to expand...
 
alberchico said:
FighterJock said:
TandemHEAT said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/09...-embraer-to-bring-kc-390-tanker-to-us-market/
Click to expand...

That is going to be different if the USAF go for the KC-390, though I can see their point with the smaller size to be capable of operating in austere environments.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but we're never going to see this aircraft in USAF colors. Lockheed would aggressively use all their political influence and lobbying power to make sure such a deal never materializes.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I agree. Though I think these aircraft would be perfect for the ACE type deployments the USAF is organizing in the Pacific. A rough field capable tanker that could accept a boom from a larger tanker would be incredibly useful for austere deployments in remote fields, even if all it did was bring bulk fuel to forward locations rather than act as an airborne tanker in its own right. As a light cargo hauler it also could see a lot of use just moving personnel and equipment to the forward deployment points as well. Seems like a perfect fit that sadly will never happen.

EDIT: The USN might want to consider a buy as well - how useful would it be to have your own land based tankers with rough field capability that could move around rough airstrips all over the theater? It could help take the load off the F-18 force for tanker missions while allowing the CSGs to operate further back. They could share them with the USMC in situations where USMC operates its F-35s from forward bases ashore. It just seems like such a useful platform for the Pacific.
 
The problem with a rough field capable tanker is how do you get fuel to that location? If the location is that austere it’s very unlikely to host a deep port… often better to operate a normal tanker from a normal airfield near a population center that has proper fueling infrastructure.
 
Since the proposed Agile tanker would have a boom refueling receptor, it could be the solution to moving fuel forward as well, though in the case of fuel being that scarce it probably would not be efficient to actually use it as an airborne tanker. It could offload the cargo on the ground though after meeting up with a full sized sized tanker from further back; that would be a faster way of flying in fuel than any other mechanism I can think of.
 
One possible alternative or supplementary approach would be to use cargo airships or similar to pre-deploy fuel caches at planned locations well ahead of time.
 
If fuel can be prepositioned and ideally concealed that would be preferable. Flying fuel in is horrifically inefficient, but I presume that part of the ACE architecture allows for either the tanker or cargo fleet to bring in fuel to the most austere locations. Some of the fields that the USAF has practiced at don't seem to have any permanent tankage at all, though others that are local airports would probably have some amount of local fuel.
 
This feels a little like a gamble.
It's payload capability (57,000lb) is just shy of the KC-130s 60,000lb standard fuel capacity. Sure its more than an MQ-25, but it only 4-5 very thirsty F-35 refuels but for topping off tanks it could handle a larger formation.

Pod and drogue refuelling would be more flexible for the export market but I suspect that might be challenging given the underwing jet nacelles which would seem to rule out rotary-wing refuelling, speed difference might be problematic for that too - so this isn't really a KC-130 replacement either.
 
I still think the boom offering would be perfect for USAFs ACE deployments, but AFRL is apparently working on a podded solution. Perhaps C-130s could pinch hit.
 
Last edited:
RavenOne said:
Attended Le Bourget back in June and had pleasure of seeing the first Portuguese C390 Millennium so here are my photos below:



and also had a walk through of the IOC Brazilian Air Force C390 so here are my photos as well as it performing
Click to expand...
did you find where the aircraft toilets were?
 
2D0E007A-784D-49F4-B1D8-473A841A6C8F.jpeg

Side by side....
 
Deino said:
Two interesting images I found related to the KC-390 ... the first an older CG showing something like a Litening-pod under forward fuselage :eek: ... is this indeed possible ? ... and second a nice comparison.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to have a FLIR for an MPA/SAR bird, and rigging a pod is probably easier than finding internal space for the bits.
 
carvalho2008 said:
2D0E007A-784D-49F4-B1D8-473A841A6C8F.jpeg

Side by side....
Click to expand...

that's awesome seeing it side by side like that.
When I first saw the C-390, I thought it was smaller, about the same size as the C-295 or like one of those new twin engined Antonov light transports. But dimensions say its the same size as the C-130.
Looking at this pic, I think the reason is the window size. not sure if the C-130"s are tiny or the C-390s are huge or both.
 
helmutkohl said:
that's awesome seeing it side by side like that.
When I first saw the C-390, I thought it was smaller, about the same size as the C-295 or like one of those new twin engined Antonov light transports. But dimensions say its the same size as the C-130.
Looking at this pic, I think the reason is the window size. not sure if the C-130"s are tiny or the C-390s are huge or both.
Click to expand...
The windows are very deceiving....the C-390 is bigger than the C-130J.

It has a maximum payload of 26 tons.
images%20(65).jpeg
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom