Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brazil Air Force KC-390

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The Brazilian Airforce ordered 28 KC390's for R$7bn, this work's out at €67.7m in real money. So about the same as a P70.
    I would let our national airline (Ryanair) do the deal, I am sure the would get a better price than the DoD.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by morpheus View Post
      And at 85m euro a piece - 2 of them will eclipse the cost of the entire ship replacement program so far

      Capability wise it outstrips the casa 295 but I can just imagine the uncivil servants choking on their mocha-frappa-chinos over that price tag.

      we could almost have 6 casa for price of 2 of these
      But what on earth would Ireland really want with such a small and limited capability air mobility solution even if you are suggesting the C-295. As an Air Force on an Island in the North Eastern Atlantic you are geographically in the tactical strategic distances vignette with respect to where your foreign deployments are likely to be going on previous history. A medium tactical with some strategic legs per C-130 or KC-390 is the capability solution that should be sought and not a smaller tactical twin which is a intra theatre solution.

      I understand the attraction that the CASA's have in their ability to swing role between air mobility and maritime ISR. But to be honest the plug and play approach has its limits as modern specialist maritime ISR platforms require copious Kva to fire up the spyware.

      Comment


      • #18
        As a tiny country that recognise that they can't provide their own all arms defence force and are ultimately reliant on their neighbours for their defence - so they contribute to the overall defence picture.

        *looks at feet*
        have to say comment of the month for me
        "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

        "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          The Brazilian Airforce ordered 28 KC390's for R$7bn, this work's out at €67.7m in real money. So about the same as a P70.
          I would let our national airline (Ryanair) do the deal, I am sure the would get a better price than the DoD.
          According to Wiki, the Brazilian state invested $2 Billion in initial development, and then further development and building of 5 prototypes, so Whatever terms were agreed for this initial capital, would play into the contract price for the FAB and subsequent orders for the Army etc. In a nutshell, the $67 million per aircraft may be a nominal price to give an indication and whet the appetite for foreign sales.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Herald View Post
            According to Wiki, the Brazilian state invested $2 Billion in initial development, and then further development and building of 5 prototypes, so Whatever terms were agreed for this initial capital, would play into the contract price for the FAB and subsequent orders for the Army etc. In a nutshell, the $67 million per aircraft may be a nominal price to give an indication and whet the appetite for foreign sales.
            It gives a ball-park figure, how much of the development and FAB contract is state aid we do not know. Lets see what Mike O'Leary could squeeze out of Embraer especially seeing they need the orders with Brazil stretching out the terms of delivery.
            As one of the key target nations on the sales tour are our Swedish friends, there could be a joint purchase.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
              It gives a ball-park figure, how much of the development and FAB contract is state aid we do not know. Lets see what Mike O'Leary could squeeze out of Embraer especially seeing they need the orders with Brazil stretching out the terms of delivery.
              As one of the key target nations on the sales tour are our Swedish friends, there could be a joint purchase.
              Even that Swedish deal seems to be in a state of flux at the moment, surprisingly, seeing as the FAB are buying Gripens.However, the Swedes are scaling up multiple areas in defence at the moment and looking for Russian Subs while missing the Polish Invasion.


              Tangential to all that, Gripens etc, this link makes interesting reading:

              Maybe the AC should go for F35's instead of Gripens??? Micko could probably get Lockheed Martin to do us a 30 year lease for a down payment from our communion money and a few quid thrown in from the Credit Union?

              Comment


              • #22
                Let's get real !!!

                Long range MARPATs are most definitely required and are used on a daily basis. They are very capable in the role and depending on type can have sufficient utility in other roles.

                The DF rotates Coy sized groups of personnel overseas (with baggage and some stores). Currently that is probably in the region of 6 return flights annually. That requires a B737 sized aircraft (also the comfort and flight duration of jet flights are considerations) - obviously these are currently contracted out. There isn't (currently) utility for its use in other missions.

                We don't have the budget, nor are we likely to have, to get both types.

                Add a tactical medium sized airlifter to the mix, what kind of loads are we talking about lifting? A MOWAG? Then we are talking minimum a C130 sized aircraft. If your talking about the ability to put say IRCON of NBG or a ARW SOFG or a Coy Gp on the ground quickly as an initial entry force or for a rapid mission or the emergency extraction of an IRCON then realistically your going to need at least 2 or 3 (available that is). How often would it (currently) be used?

                I'm not saying that they aren't required, in an ideal world and with money as no object but I live in the real world. We could purchase second hand but the resources aren't available (nor are likely to be). I'm also not saying that new roles could be found for the AC (home and overseas) for such aircraft.

                The stores most commonly to be flown in an AC aircraft are likely to relatively small and relatively light (biggest thing might be a spare power pack type load.

                What is the most appropriate solution? Something that can do both the MARPAT and utility transport (probably bigger than a CN235, if affordable, and smaller than a C130. Oh as WP15 states.
                Last edited by DeV; 28 June 2017, 08:18.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  We don't have the budget, nor are we likely to have, to get both types.
                  No disagreement there.

                  Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  biggest thing might be a spare power pack type load.
                  Ambitious and far sighted as ever.

                  Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  What is the most appropriate solution? Something that can do both the MARPAT and utility transport (probably bigger than a CN235, if affordable, and smaller than a C130. Oh as WP15 states.
                  Well, who didn't see that coming.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    Let's get real !!!

                    Long range MARPATs are most definitely required and are used on a daily basis. They are very capable in the role and depending on type can have sufficient utility in other roles.

                    The DF rotates Coy sized groups of personnel overseas (with baggage and some stores). Currently that is probably in the region of 6 return flights annually. That requires a B737 sized aircraft (also the comfort and flight duration of jet flights are considerations) - obviously these are currently contracted out. There isn't (currently) utility for its use in other missions.

                    We don't have the budget, nor are we likely to have, to get both types.

                    Add a tactical medium sized airlifter to the mix, what kind of loads are we talking about lifting? A MOWAG? Then we are talking minimum a C130 sized aircraft. If your talking about the ability to put say IRCON of NBG or a ARW SOFG or a Coy Gp on the ground quickly as an initial entry force or for a rapid mission or the emergency extraction of an IRCON then realistically your going to need at least 2 or 3 (available that is). How often would it (currently) be used?

                    I'm not saying that they aren't required, in an ideal world and with money as no object but I leave in the real world. We could purchase second hand but the resources aren't available (nor are likely to be). I'm also not saying that new roles could be found for the AC (home and overseas) for such aircraft.

                    The stores most commonly to be flown in an AC aircraft are likely to relatively small and relatively light (biggest thing might be a spare power pack type load.

                    What is the most appropriate solution? Something that can do both the MARPAT and utility transport (probably bigger than a CN235, if affordable, and smaller than a C130. Oh as WP15 states.
                    As a former boss of mine used say "if you always do what you always do, you'll always get what you always get".

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Comparisons with Ryanair or any other airline, for that matter, are not valid, because military and airline procurements are worlds apart. When the Michael O'Learys of this world buy a fleet of aircraft, they are buying a chunk of production, ie, they will go in and say that they will take two years worth of 737s, to their very basic layout, and they will pay for them over a substantial period of time, which will probably include selling off a chunk of the existing fleet, with Boeing's cooperation. They will have a limited support agreement with Boeing but they will go for engines and rotable spares to the global market and maintenance companies will crawl over broken glass to get their maintenance contracts, if they don't do it themselves. They will have as little to do with Boeing as they can humanly get away with. All airlines operate the same way....On the other hand, when Sweden sells Gripens to Brazil, it will probably be a thirty-year, near to full service contract, including training, simulators, armaments, attrition spare airframes, parts overhaul, engine replacement and an offset contract that generates work in Brazil yet keeps jobs going in Sweden and funds future Gripens. A Gripen realistically costs in the region of 30 to 40 million to build but the fat in a contract like that will price them at say, 75 million over thirty years, because absolutely every single projected or imagined cost is dumped into the overall bill. It's a lot harder to go to the global market to buy fighter spares like an F404 engine, because there's only one supplier and he dominates the market, (or the US govt will simply step in and stop the supply) whereas the operator of a KC 390 can source a V2500 engine or any of the aircraft's computers from a dozen places. The Ryanairs of this world learned long ago that there is a lot of fat to be pared off contracts, if you can source parts elsewhere or are prepared to fly basic cabin fit outs and are prepared to argue the toss on every inch of aircraft maintenance. Militaries tend not to do that, except when people get hauled in front of inquiries to explain why fighter X has gone three times over budget....

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        My point was not that O'Leary do the deal but some of the practices used in civil airline could help.
                        As for engines the US government can Block V2500's just as easily as F404's. They are both US majority production, the only difference is V2500 is single source while both GE and Volvo make the F414.
                        As for support most airlines have full support agreements, some are power by the hour in the case of engines. The airframers provide 24/7 AOG support, spares on demonstrater etc. Recently there was an answer in the French Assembly regarding the availability of French military helicopters, the response was around 1/3 available, and the NH90's even lower. What airline would accept that, they expect 99.9% availability.
                        Point is maybe and I agree it is a maybe there are some lessons to be has especially since the defence market is a buyers market?
                        As for offsets, they inflate the cost, distort the market and are a major source of corruption.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                          My point was not that O'Leary do the deal but some of the practices used in civil airline could help.
                          As for engines the US government can Block V2500's just as easily as F404's. They are both US majority production, the only difference is V2500 is single source while both GE and Volvo make the F414.
                          As for support most airlines have full support agreements, some are power by the hour in the case of engines. The airframers provide 24/7 AOG support, spares on demonstrater etc. Recently there was an answer in the French Assembly regarding the availability of French military helicopters, the response was around 1/3 available, and the NH90's even lower. What airline would accept that, they expect 99.9% availability.
                          Point is maybe and I agree it is a maybe there are some lessons to be has especially since the defence market is a buyers market?
                          As for offsets, they inflate the cost, distort the market and are a major source of corruption.
                          i'm not saying the DF couldn't learn a lot of things from business but:

                          Air forces have to have spare capacity (unless at war) otherwise they would never be capable of going to war. Airlines make money by having as little spare capacity as possible.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by pym View Post
                            No disagreement there.



                            Ambitious and far sighted as ever.



                            Well, who didn't see that coming.

                            Originally posted by Herald View Post
                            As a former boss of mine used say "if you always do what you always do, you'll always get what you always get".
                            Currently!
                            Need at least 2 or 3!

                            We are never likely to get the budget - may I remind you that the NS fleet replacement programme is being paid for by keeping the PDF strength low

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Hi there,
                              Airlines will only source from the manufacturer if there are no other suppliers, because they have been bitten by single-source suppliers in the past. Similarly, airliner builders don't particularly want you coming to them for a third-party pump or valve, unless you are prepared to pay them stupid money, unless they own the pump supplier and they have you over a barrel. Airlines naturally pay for access to the manufacturers support systems, such as software updates and repair schemes (such as the famous Boeing "Tank Tigers", who fix wing fuel leaks) or they will pick the brains of the tech reps located in their countries. But, in this day and age, airlines have a much wider choice of where they can source parts and services, which is why Asian airlines come to Dublin to get overhauls done. Users have a much greater choice but militaries tend to use older style full service contracts and often have to take the pain, the Mowag in the DF being a case in point (see gearbox warranty stories from Liberia). The US military is a great case in point; after the stories of the infamous 600-dollar hammer, they set up units to go head to head with contractors and suppliers to claw back money from these organisations, who regarded overcharging as a right..... The DF is not behind the door on this front, even as far back as early CASA days, because they had grief with a supply organisation and it ended up in court.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                If you want airline-style reliability and delivery of service, you have to have genuine 24/7/365 manpower, 24/7/365 spares access (not a sulky "Union Rules, Bud" storeman (civvy or DF) with a chippy attitude, who will not leave his desk to deliver spares to the field), AOG (airlines are always reluctant to use AOG but will if they have to), adequate tooling and whatever specialised kit is needed (we have badge-swipe access to the tool stores after hours, for any piece of tooling and are not dependent on storemen) , vehicles (we have dedicated toolvans and lots of small vans, driven by the mechs (and not relying on duty drivers!!), for general movement-absolutely essential), hangarage, 24/7/365 IT support and a decent Engineering/Planning Office again, 24/7/365. This is a minimum. You also need decent offices, workshops, washing and cleaning facilities, proper segregated dumping of waste and so on. Every airline understands this and most militaries do, but a lot of inhouse bullshit (such as chippy storemen or an unwillingness to allow mechs to drive small vans or tools not allowed to be signed out except by the aforementioned chippy storeman.....or the age-old arbitrary removal of techs to do guard or wash pots or whitewash rocks or do Guards of Honour) prevents militaries from achieving high reliabilities. Which is why Militaries tend to contract out more and more work to civvy companies....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X