L3Harris, Embraer team up on KC-390 tanker

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/09/19/l3harris-embraer-team-up-on-kc-390-tanker-eye-us-air-force-sales/

L3Harris, Embraer team up on KC-390 tanker, eye US Air Force sales

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — L3Harris, one of the world’s 10 largest defense companies (https://people.defensenews.com/top-100/), and Embraer said they’ll work together to create an “agile tanker” based on the Brazilian aerospace company’s KC-390 Millennium (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/12/17/boeing-embraer-agree-to-kc-390-joint-venture/), with the aim of selling to the U.S. Air Force.

In a statement ahead of the Air Force Association’s Air Space & Cyber conference that starts today in National Harbor, Maryland, the companies said they agreed to add boom refueling capabilities and modernized communications equipment to the KC-390′s in support Joint All Domain Command and Control, or JADC2, requirements.

The update will also include systems to sustain operations in contested areas, they said.

L3Harris and Embraer said the enhanced KC-390 would be able to support the Air Force’s Agile Combat Employment (https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2022/09/15/anduril-unveils-menace-command-and-control-center-for-austere-bases/) concept of establishing a dispersed network throughout a region to lessen reliance on centralized air bases vulnerable to single attacks.

“U.S. Air Force strategic planners have stated agile combat employment will require refueling platforms optimized to support a disaggregated approach to air dominance in contested logistics environments,” said L3Harris CEO Christopher Kubasik, in the statement. “Collaborating with Embraer to develop and integrate new capabilities to the multi-mission KC-390 provides a cost-effective, fast-to-field solution that embodies our trusted disruptor approach.”…..

[sandiego89]

I think a KC-390 would be just right sized for lots of refueling missions: QRA type support, training support, exercises, operational support for small detachments, operations..... but not nearly enough gravy for congressional districts.....

[Mil-26Man]

I think a KC-390 would be just right sized for lots of refueling missions: QRA type support, training support, exercises, operational support for small detachments, operations..... but not nearly enough gravy for congressional districts.....

Wasn't all of that (and more) what the KC-46 was bought for?

[Asturias56]

yes - thats why they need the KC-390... :E

[sandiego89]

Wasn't all of that (and more) what the KC-46 was bought for?

Yes the KC-46 was designed to be quite capable, my point was that some sorties do not require a KC-46 sized tanker, or one with unique capabilities. Topping of a few fighters for an air intercept, a 2 v 2 exercise, supporting a special ops or SAR Helo, a KC-390 or KC-130 sized aircraft would be quite handy. You don't need an EMP protected school bus to drop 2 kids off a soccer practice.

[BEagle]

Some 13 years ago we did a wet finger, back of the envelope assessment of the KC-390 without any manufacturer supplied data. We concluded that that the KC‐390 would probably be able to support:
- AARA operations requiring 20 tonnes of fuel available at 1000 km from the tanker base
- The support of 4 x AMX aircraft on a 3000 km trail deployment

[Trumpet trousers]

It will be interesting to see how they propose to integrate a boom system onto the 390 - if it's centreline, (can't see any alternative tbh...) I would imagine that the ramp and door would need significant structural modifications, and that it would become a dedicated tanker as the ramp and door would effectively be redundant. Assuming internal cargo hold tanks as well to facilitate greater fuel uplift/offload, any servicing requiring removal of the tanks would then require the removal of the boom system.

[BEagle]

TT, one of our proposals was for a palletised FRL centreline hose unit. Additional cargo bay tanks could be RORO, but would be essential if the KC390 was to have any worthwhile functionality as a multi-role aircraft.

Quite how Embraer would fit a boom system plus operator station remains to be seen, but would probably remove any useful air transprt capability due to the level of rear ramp modification needed. The added weight would also increase the ZFW, further limiting AAR fuel offload capacity.

[ORAC]

Cheaper just to fit the fighters with a probe equipped underwing or conformal tank.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/776x970/image_ead6b84167f5e36672936b5f4d25cbbf77a01190.jpeg

[melmothtw]

Cheaper just to fit the fighters with a probe equipped underwing or conformal tank.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/776x970/image_ead6b84167f5e36672936b5f4d25cbbf77a01190.jpeg

Not for the USAF, which has thousands of receptacle-equipped receiver aircraft.

[Bengo]

TT, one of our proposals was for a palletised FRL centreline hose unit. Additional cargo bay tanks could be RORO, but would be essential if the KC390 was to have any worthwhile functionality as a multi-role aircraft.

Quite how Embraer would fit a boom system plus operator station remains to be seen, but would probably remove any useful air transprt capability due to the level of rear ramp modification needed. The added weight would also increase the ZFW, further limiting AAR fuel offload capacity.

Not to mention the effects on C of G position/Balance of the extra weight right aft. No doubt someone has looked at this but there is at least the possibility of operational constraints to keep the CofG in an acceptable place.

N

[dead_pan]

Quite how Embraer would fit a boom system plus operator station remains to be seen

Just lower the ramp and chuck the hose out, surely? Might be a tad windy for the operator but I'm sure they'd get used to it...

'twas a bit naughty how the Farnborough organisers decided to park one alongside the Kawasaki C1, just to highlight how far military transport design has progressed in 50 years...

[BEagle]

Just lower the ramp and chuck the hose out, surely?

That is a not a boom system....

[DaveReidUK]

'twas a bit naughty how the Farnborough organisers decided to park one alongside the Kawasaki C1, just to highlight how far military transport design has progressed in 50 years...

When did that happen ?

[DaveReidUK]

'twas a bit naughty how the Farnborough organisers decided to park one alongside the Kawasaki C1, just to highlight how far military transport design has progressed in 50 years...
When did that happen ?

It didn't.

Might you be confusing:

a) The Kawasaki C-1 (which AFAIK has never been seen in the UK) with the much larger, 40 years later, Kawasaki C-2 ?

b) Farnborough with Fairford ?

Both the C-2 and C-390 were at RIAT in 2018 and again in 2022. They were indeed parked next to each other this year, but I don't think either suffered unduly from the comparison.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/519x346/c_390_c_2_6d932cf7f5cd4638511b5f43d699c5aba159df5d.jpg

Embraer KC-390, 2857 / 39000008, Brazilian Air Force / Forca Aerea Brasileira : ABPic (https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1807871)

[dead_pan]

My bad - yes, I did mean RIAT, and the C2. Mucho apologianos

[chopper2004]

Just lower the ramp and chuck the hose out, surely? Might be a tad windy for the operator but I'm sure they'd get used to it...

'twas a bit naughty how the Farnborough organisers decided to park one alongside the Kawasaki C1, just to highlight how far military transport design has progressed in 50 years...

Thought it was at RIAT back in summer (my pic)


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/57304204_5c2d_4e30_afc5_75314df89da3_3bb539ea3bcb7d08e8e7d9d 2472c7eb433d60268.jpeg

cheers

[dagenham]

Why is a boom relevant? KC130 doesn’t have one and I guess that’s the target market ?

[BEagle]

In a statement ahead of the Air Force Association’s Air Space & Cyber conference that starts today in National Harbor, Maryland, the companies said they agreed to add boom refueling capabilities and modernized communications equipment to the KC-390′s in support Joint All Domain Command and Control, or JADC2, requirements

Which is a bit ambiguous. Does it mean fitting a UARRSI receptacle to the KC-390 to receive fuel, or to fit a boom system to offload fuel? Or both?

[DaveReidUK]

Which is a bit ambiguous. Does it mean fitting a UARRSI receptacle to the KC-390 to receive fuel, or to fit a boom system to offload fuel? Or both?

This might help:

KC-390 With A Boom Could Be The Agile Tanker The Air Force Needs (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-boom-equipped-kc-390-could-be-agile-tanker-the-air-force-needs)

[BEagle]

Thanks! That proposal looks awfully speculative; if Boeing still can't solve the KC-46A boom issues, what hope is their for an untried manufacturer with no experience in the field?

[melmothtw]

Why is a boom relevant? KC130 doesn’t have one and I guess that’s the target market ?

The MC-130/HC-130s that the USAf operates are for special forces support, refuelling helicopters and CV-22s that are probe equipped.

The Agile Tanker is envisioned for the wider receptacle equipped fleet, with Indo-Pacific operations in mind.

Of course, if the KC-46 had worked as intended it wouldn't be needed.

[dagenham]

Thanks! That proposal looks awfully speculative; if Boeing still can't solve the KC-46A boom issues, what hope is their for an untried manufacturer with no experience in the field?

cough cough airbus cough

Assuming that BEags post was the most sarcastic since sid sarcastic of sarcastic squadron left the forum

[vascodegama]

There is, of course, the option of using a boom that already works. I would be more interested in the re-role timeframe.