Embraer is breaking paradigms with its aircraft. Before, no one, other than Americans and Europeans, entered the very closed market of the aeronautical industry. The KC-390 was designed in the 21st century and was born under the patronage of modernity. The brave C-130 Hercules has become a legendary and consolidated machine, but it falls short of what is required of an average freighter today. Embraer's biggest challenge in offering the KC-390s to the world will be overcoming the very powerful American lobby in the defense industry.
@@frederickdouglass7140 Is the C-17 Globemaster III superior to the Air Bus C-400? It depends on the application. The C-400 is another category of aircraft. The time is for more rational, economical aircraft, without unnecessary excesses. The era of megalomania for flying colossi is long gone. In practice, the KC-390 does everything an A-400 does, however, with extremely lower acquisition and maintenance costs. The choice for the KC-390 is not passionate, it is rational.
@@frederickdouglass7140 In fact, I must emphasize: what a comment, but devoid of arguments, yours. Stupid, I would say. Debate with solid and intelligent arguments and not with prejudices and fallacies. Your comment really is an X-ray of your intellect, of your inability to interact at a high level.
@@frederickdouglass7140 The A400M from Airbus, you mean. The German air force did not even accept delivery at first given the bad quality product it is.
This militar aircraft has worked hard since the beginning! By the way, Embraer can configure it for civil option! It moved a giant helicopter disassembled from USA to Portugal, supported people in state of Brazil after rain storm moving a lot of things like foods, clothes, people, tools, etc.. This is why it must exist! Thanks for all information! Congratulations.
@newconcept8144 Mate, have you seen what the C-130J, G-5 Galaxy, and C-17 have all carried. The RNZAF C-130H is an aircraft in service for over 60-63 years. The RNZAF C-130H carried out missions carrying troops, refugees, supplies, weapons, food, medical supplies, vehicles, and a lot more all the way across the world from a small nation that is not even shown on most maps. The RNZAF C-130H flew consistently 13,554 kilometers with close to 10-19 tons of cargo. The NZDF is receiving 5 new C-130-J-30 super Hercules, and that will make us have much more reach to help other nations when in need.
Not in this case, as the cost of operating and maintaining 2 turbofans derived from a civil model is less than the cost of 4 turboprops for exclusively military use.
Yes, it's like the United Kingdom without Queen Elizabeth II (but Millenium is more efficient than King Charles III). kkkk In fact, both the Queen's reign and the signing of the USAF's contract with Lockheed for the Hercules date back to 1952. But the design is derived from the Fairchild C-123 Provider, this one from 1949! And as if that weren't enough, the Provider derives from the Chase XCG-20 assault glider, this one from 1946!
The C130 is going nowhere. It'll be around for a long time yet. If you see the US doing upgrades to aircraft, it means they'll be around for long. They're upgrading the B52 engines, and that plane is from the 1940's! I think the C390 will be popular, depending on the missions, but it will definitely not replace the C130.
Sorry, but if a C130 ingests a bird during flight not much will happen. If a C390 ingests a bird, I hope the other engine will allow a fully loaded aircraft to land safely. Sorry, but just because it has turbofans does not make it better than an aircraft using well proven turboprops. I would rather be in a C130 taking off from a rough strip than a C390.
While it may be a good plane, it won't Destroy C-130. There is a reason why tactical Transporters are turboprops: they need shorter Runways, they are able to do a Sarajevo-Aproach landing (very steep aproach and take-offs) and they are saver to land on improvised Strips. Also, the lower possible Speed gives her better SAR capabillities as she is used in quite a few Coastguards. So to me those 2 Planes are made for different roles.
@@jahnkaplank8626you said it right for the US lockheed or boeing or another american aviation company will probably find a close example to the c390. But a few countries have actually already ordered the c390 like 5 navo countries and brazil and south korea. So i don't thing the c130 will ever be replaced in the US because of it's legacy like the b52
KC-390 is a great aircraft, but its biggest fault is that it has two vacuum cleaners for engines, FOD is it’s greatest issue in unprepared landing strips where, the C130 would shed off prop strikes the KC-390 would have issues. High wing low engines don’t like unprepared landing strips. But I do love the aircraft and think it’s a great aircraft.
Some Americans in the comments just felt the hit... Relax, you are still number one and will be for a long time. Despite all the issues and problems here, we Brazilians still have things to be proud of. A third-world country like ours, competing in technology with the most powerful nation in the world, is something we all should applaud, even you guys. A lot of the knowledge we have, we learned from you. And remember, Brazilians are your allies, not enemies.
Hey my friend, I thought you'd be interested in my take on this. I flew C-130Es in the USAF for almost 9 years. I'm a fan of the J model, but never flew it. Having said that, I find the C-390 to be a potentially outstanding machine! You see, the basic C-130 design has realized it's full potential with the J model. Don't get me wrong, it's still an excellent design that will be flying for many years to come. However, when the USAF decides to start replacing the J model, I'm hoping that it will be a completely different design. I'm not sure when that will be, as the J models rolling off the assembly line have decades of service life ahead of them. I honestly loved flying the Herc (even the old E model), but there are other excellent designs out there that are potentially better. The C-390 is one of those. It will take time to prove itself though, as the C-130 has clearly demonstrated it's capabilities for nearly 70 years. To close, I applaud Brazil and Embraer on producing an excellent and beautiful design, and wish it success. Cheers
I think everyone just wants to hear some facts and to be allowed to make a decision based on the facts, not some sales pitch and "its better and I'm not giving any facts to show it is better". Let the people decide based on some facts. C-130 is old but there's a reason it's still flying and has a fanbase. Would love to see a breakdown of turbofan vs turboprop and why one is better than the other in this situation. "faster" isn't really what people are looking for. If we wanted a C130 with turbofans, they'd have built one. There's a reason why it has turboprops. What is the reasoning for turbofan on the KC390? more data! more info! :)
@@glennoropeza3545 catapult launched... no reliable proofing, no public exibition.. only some old logs with some dates written on them... Dumont actually showed it publicly in Paris, while the brothers said they flwon it in said date... Do your research.
I will have to see it to believe it. It's unimproved field performance will not approach the C-130J. As a person with 4200 hours in the Herk, mostly the E model, but some in the B and HC, you will have to prove to me that a twin engine, turbofan will hold up better in combat conditions where the 130 lives. When something goes through that big fan , and it starts "shucking" blades, one rapidly ends up on one engine, or none. Please don't tell me that that machine will stop on wet PSP , Laterite or mud better than those four big fans on the Herk will stop that machine........prove it. The BS gets deep when a company is trying to sell an airplane.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Question: Did you take some of your training at Little Rock AFB? That was my old stomping ground when the E model ruled the skies. Good days and great memories.
The advantage of turboprops on unprepared runways is undeniable, but there are some nuances here. The choice between the propeller model was due to several factors, such as: what type of environment and runway it will operate in most of the time and whether there are design solutions that can mitigate these deficiencies. It is very important to remember that the Brazilian Air Force - FAB defined the aircraft's operational requirements. These requirements are extremely strict, as the aircraft needs to operate in very difficult conditions, especially in the Amazon rainforest and on the Antarctic continent, where the FAB operates missions in support of the Brazilian Navy's Brazilian Antarctic Program - PROANTAR within the scope of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). It is also worth mentioning that the Brazilian Air Force holds the intellectual property of the project (since it was financed by the treasury). They certainly took these issues into consideration, especially since the FAB carried out the integration of the Amazon region for 40 years on the back of a turboprop, the "Father of the Amazon" De Havilland Canada DHC-5 Bufallo.
Hardly a C130 killer. One would think that a channel speaking from a position of authority would have recognized that while full of gee wiz gear, it is a jet and therefore not suitable for unimproved runways (dirt) because jets don’t do FOD. Turbo props are considerably better at landing and taking off in the middle of nowhere.
I am no aircraft authority, but I had similar questions. (Plus, you’d think Brazil, with its unique terrain, would KNOW that.) Also: What about distance for takeoff and landing? FWIW, my father-in-law was in charge of metals QA for the Herc at the Lockheed plant here in Marietta. There is a significant amount of 130 memorabilia around the house!
The turboprop is superior to the turbojet/fan engines. The prop shields the engine from almost all FOD sources, except birds, which the prop stops around 60% at stopping birds for going down the intake. I have had to remove remains a lot of times over the years, it's amazing much guts and feathers you find stuck to the forward bearing struts. The T56 will eat a bird without taking any any damage. The only clue the crew may have the took a bird down the an engine is the smell of bad cooked chicken. When the last B-52 is finally retired a C-130 will pick up the flight crew and fly them back their home base.
Believe you me the C-130 will never be replaced. A jet can't do what a turboprop can do when it comes down to the grunt work. They have tried to replace it but have failed.
It will be replaced. The plane is 70yrs old now. It might work for insurgent type warfare like the US had since Vietnam but against an equal or greater foe? The C130 is totally outdated. Everything gets replaced sooner or later. You see 70yr old fighters in service yet?
I agree. A turboprop turning at 100% all the time doesn’t have spool up lag like a turbofan. I flew a few hundred hours in a P-3 and when moving the power levers forward the response is instant. Taking off and landing in tight spots this gives the 130 a definite advantage.
@@hanskurtmann6781The C-130J is not 70 year old technology. The airframe may look the same but that is about all that is the same. The 130Js are still being built. If the USA wants to haul heavy loads long distances they use a C-17.
Apparently, they missed the reason why the C130 is still being used. Prop driven aircraft are inherently safer to operate on unimproved airfields. Less chance to damage the engines. We use C17s for heavier loads from improved fields. Why add another airframe?
The C-130 isn't going anywhere. One of the strongest points about the C-130 is its speed. Its ability to fly slow is the very reason it's used for so many different types of missions. I've been on a C-130 that made a night landing on a dried up lake bed with the pilots using night vision goggles. If they're after speed, fly a C-141. If they're after payload, fly a C-5M Super Galaxy or a C-17 Globemaster.
If you want supplant the J model herky bird, it won't be for another DECADE, Fort Worth is booked another 10 years building them now. The Herky already does everything you mentioned.
With both at max take off load, the 130J can rotate in 3300' at SL. . Takes 5000' for the 390. The Js have more range at max load then the max loaded 390 by over 600 miles.
Whoever had the idea of a name for this jet is a PR master: KC meaning from the very start that it's not only a cargo plane, 390 is 3 X 130 and finally the Millennium, meaning the project not only belongs to the 21st century but also reminds of the most badass of the fictional ships, the Millennium Falcon.
Embraer is a Brazilian company and since C130 is a military aircraft, I find it highly unlikely that a contract would be awarded to Embraer, especially given the way Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is showing support for Putin's aggression. Too much risk. Embraers are great here in the US as business jets and it should stay that way.
As a cargo mover the C-130 alphabet has one point that kept it any military thought. It can go just about everywhere. Not just dropping cargo it can land on improvised landing stripes. Moving in or out personal on abandoned air stripes or even smaller civilian runways to small for even small bizjets. It is why I asked about the Embraer take off and landing distance and what the landing gear can handle unpaved runway. While it's improved cargo carry if it can't cover these smaller an isolated locations. I do not see the C-130 being retired completely.
This is a nice new cargo military or special operation jet hauler I think it could fit in where a C130 or C400 can’t. It shows that it probably has a chance to fit in the whole plan . Good luck with it Embraer.
The narration repeats itself annoyingly. It never did a thorough comparison with the C-130. It uses terms like "more effective" without giving actual data. This is bogus.
Asking for accuracy, intelligence or honesty from this channel appears to be an exercise in futility. This is the first video I've seen from them, and it's going to be the last.
Nothing will replace the C-130J or any other variant. Yes there are other types of aircraft similar, but not something to completely replace it. You can not fly slow in a turbofan powered aircraft compared to a turboprop aircraft, which is needed in certain situations. I can see this aircraft only added to the long list of cargo multi roll list, but will never replace a single aircraft.
The 390 is a great aircraft, and should sell well, but not that much better than the C130, especially when you consider the 130 is a 3/4 century old design. In theory, turbo prop is superior than turbo fans in short fields, and the 130 have a bit more redundancy.
The elephant in the room... its a jet. Being a jet it comes with all of the maintenance issues of a jet , that are not conducive to "rough areas". I stopped the video at :55... this proposal is a joke.
Well, the c390 currently has exactly 9 aircraft in service in 2 countries.... since 2014!!! They have a LOOOONG way to go to put a dent in the number of c-130's currently in service globally! To date, there are 500+ of just the J model currently in active service, let alone countries that are still flying older variants. Plus, they will have a tough time competing with almost 70 years of continuous, uninterrupted service... globally! On top off all of that, the per unit cost of the c390 is significantly more than a C-130. the c390 is averaging around $145 million where the c-130J averages around $75 million per unit! Good luck toppling the king!
Embraer needs to show off a wild variety of configuration packages. I.E. Close Air Support (CAS=aka spectre), winter operations and ski's, refueling vehicle, logistics transport, folding wing design and finally ECW. Once they show off these varieties they will get alot of business.
The pilot can control the cargo bay therefore they don't need a loadmaster? I thought a loadmaster did more than just flip a switch. This seems more like a promotional video for Embraer. The first flight of the C-130 was 70 years ago, can the C-390 achieve that?
Embraer built an jet trainer in the 60s that was so cheap and reliable that it only was retired from the Brazilian Air Force due to the Grippen NG program, but others countries still use it, and remember, Embraer is the third largest aircraft manufacturer in the world.
From 02:00 the video stops saying anything original and starts reading Embraer sales brochures. This is not how you build a research-based military and current affairs channel.
Still would need two more engines, more range, I can go on. There are musts for the Air Force, two engines isn't it. The C27J was shot down as a complimentary aircrame for intertheater transportaion. Can't carry a full load on one engine with 2000 miles of open ocean, or nations you can't land at.
I don't think so. The C-130 is a standard set decades ago and cannot be surpassed. This is an Embreair comercial. The C-130 was my favorite bird to jump out of in the Army, over jets, old prop drivens and so many helicopters.
Ok, look, the C130 IS THE KING...PERIOD! C130s have been flying since 1955. Yes, at some time or another, they will be stood down and replaced by something. But before you start rah-rahing to much, put your plane in service and let's see where we are in a couple decades.
What the C-130 will still do: double as a weapons platform for Harvest Hawk and Rapid Dragon. The C-130J has a range of 3300 km while the loaded C390 max range is 2100 km. The 130 will have a standoff capability to launch multiple cruise missiles at any Pacific adversary. It is a practical, cost-effective platform for the next 20 years. After that, the C-390 will be viable competitor.
