Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D Please click the link to watch our other Japanese Systems videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LoGHZpbX_LShNT-UxMLomZJ Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Air videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LrGyENf3nqsYKC9ZkWH414k
@kilo49114 ай бұрын
"We are investigating the C-2, the beautiful flying giant of the JASDF. #aviation #jasdf #aircraft Due to copyright issues, we re-uploaded our De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate video. Do the C-2 compete with the C-130J Super Hercules and C-390 Millenium? Or with the A400M Atlas?" The second paragraph might be a leftover from another description.
@WeaponDetective4 ай бұрын
@@kilo4911 Thanks for warning
@iatsd4 ай бұрын
Replacing the smaller aircraft because they are at the point of needing to *AND* by expanding the order to cover those aircraft it drives the unit cost down to a point they can afford or is more palatable to the government. The offset there is the higher costs of operation over the long term cf the smaller lift needs, which can either simply be accepted or, if the JASDF expands - and they may well be planning on exactly that - they can, as you say, acquire a smaller option in the future for that lighter role.
@Gabriel-ck1yp4 ай бұрын
Finally a video not comparing this aircraft to the c-390
@Leptospirosi4 ай бұрын
The Kawasaki C2 is almost twice the size of a C390
@joaopedroeduardo84623 ай бұрын
@@Leptospirosi C2: 144x145x46 X C390: 115x115x38 The C2 isn't even close to being "almost twice" the size of the C390. It is bigger, but to say it is almost twice the size is a very serious scale error. Furthermore, the c390 is considerably cheaper in purchase cost and maintenance compared to the C2.
@@joaopedroeduardo8462 144x145x46 = 960.480, 115x115x38 = 502.550. When you're comparing 3-dimensional objects you have to consider overall volume, not individual dimensions. The C2 actually *IS* almost twice the size of the C-390, and that puts them in very different roles. No mistake there, @Leptospirosi is just right.
@dl65192 ай бұрын
Excellent video!
@nbnb72634 ай бұрын
Thank you for re-uploading. I'm very happy! The reason for the deployment of the C-2 is not only overseas deployment missions, but also changes in defense doctrine. Japan is trying to shift its defense focus to the Okinawa Islands, where friction with China is escalating, and is trying to establish a system to assemble the rapid response units (called the "即応機動連隊(rapid response mobile regiment)", a small mechanized regiment centered around the Type 16 MCV) deployed throughout the Japanese archipelago in the Okinawa Islands in the event of an emergency. As a means to achieve this, the C-2, with its excellent payload, range and speed, is an important item.
@LeptospirosiАй бұрын
I would add synergy with South Korea and The Philippines which requires a large payload per route.
@habahan42574 ай бұрын
Happy to re-upload this video. thanks.
@cruisinguy60244 ай бұрын
I’m really surprised this and the P-1 ASW aircraft were not jumped on my foreign militaries as they seem to be pretty solid designs. I mean, come on. This little bugger has TWO 747-400 engines and as such is no slouch. Personally I think it and the P-1 have a lot of potential.
@The_ZeroLine4 ай бұрын
Impressive cruise and top seed. They did it themselves to continue maintaining a domestic aviation production base and expand it into larger aircraft.
@Leptospirosi4 ай бұрын
A perfect fit for the Italian Air force which would synergize perfectly with the P3 for a much needed long range ASW patrol aircraft due to many commonalities in the airframe. In exchange Italy could offer the M346 for advanced training, on which the JSDAF already trains its pilots in Sardinia, and the C27 Spartan for landing and take of from small islands in the China sea.
@Monkey-ud8bw4 ай бұрын
It’s a great looking aircraft, baby C-17. I’m surprised that this hasn’t done better considering that C-17’s aren’t being produced.
@moodogco4 ай бұрын
Other countries are going for a400m instead as its not far off the payload of the c17 compared too the c130 but has better capabilities then the c130 with short take off & unpaved landings, range & speed etc
@jerryle3794 ай бұрын
@@moodogcoa400 are much older and been selling for decade and not selling to well in recent years , C2 just been offered for the global market in recent years , problem with japanese weapon are people worry about after sell service as Japan haven't sell any weapon to foreign country after WW2 they law only allow the sell of weapon in recent year
@moodogco4 ай бұрын
@@jerryle379 yh I had heard they'd struggled in recent yrs for sales etc as even raf r messing arnd about buying another 6 A400m after retiring the c130 to fill a capability gap!!! But at the beginning that was the case of other countries going for A400m etc
@jerryle3794 ай бұрын
@@moodogco yeah most recent customer of them are Kazakhstan , they trying hard to sell a few to Indonesia but look like the c130j win . The only customer that can guy massive amount of transport plane , nowadays will be India , I wonder who will win ? American c130j or Japan C2 , airbus A-400, or Brazil kc390
@moodogco4 ай бұрын
@@jerryle379 yh imo I wud say that the A400m is the better plane as it can do everything the c130 & more in payload, range & all of the unpaved landings/ take off etc but the American military complex has a lot of sway in foreign countries when it comes too pushing their product
@fredtedstedman4 ай бұрын
beautiful plane !
@chichiboypumpi4 ай бұрын
I like shoulder-wing configurations, but this one I prefer with twin tail.
@itsmuhammad23054 ай бұрын
It's such a beautiful plane
@Clickworker1014 ай бұрын
Looks like a mini globemaster c
@MarcEdig4 ай бұрын
this + rapid dragon 👍
@physetermacrocephalus22094 ай бұрын
It's beautiful
@williamlloyd37694 ай бұрын
Too bad this program had both external and internal issues which extended the development by several years. Also, the absence of international partners didn't give it a larger built-in customer base.
@tamzidkarim94024 ай бұрын
Make a video on the Shaanxi Y 9 please. The PLAAF's mainstay tactical airlifter and base for many other platforms like AEWACS, EW, SIGNIT/ELINT and ASW Maritime Patrol aircraft as well.
@xXSwaghetti.YoloneseXx-uf2bb4 ай бұрын
The C-2 is incredible. Honestly I think the USAF/USMC should consider it. It has the perfect range and speed requirements for the Sino-Pacific theatre, whilst also having rough field performance, only 2 engines (easier maintenance) and it looks cool as fuck.
@teofilogang58314 ай бұрын
Are doing a video on the C-27J SPARTAN anytime soon
@WeaponDetective4 ай бұрын
Thanks for your interest. We added the C-27J to our list. But not this years.
@sortaspicey92784 ай бұрын
Looks great for a transport plane.
@benjit96034 ай бұрын
This is made by KSI in early 2000s. Seen this ni Nagoya.
@hemaccabe42924 ай бұрын
Don't just read the press release word for word. There is only one question. How does it compare to the Embraer?
@jesusrodriguez14614 ай бұрын
C-2 has better range, carry capacity, higher speed, and only requires half the distance to take off.
@hemaccabe42924 ай бұрын
@@jesusrodriguez1461 Thank-you. What's the economic comparison? Fuel cost per mile, cost to purchase, maintenance costs, etc. That would make a great video. You could make a series of videos. Make it like it was an elimination tournament. All currently available options compared 2 per video till you get to a champ.
@apparition134 ай бұрын
@@hemaccabe4292 C-2 should be better on fuel cost because it was designed to fly at commercial speeds and altitudes. Most cargo aircraft are too slow and are limited by air traffic control rules to lower altitudes and therefore thicker air and more drag, which reduces their fuel efficiency. The C-2 was also designed to reach Hawaii from Japan, so it is an airlifter that can do strategic airlift as well as tactical. That's why they designed it for commercial speeds and altitudes. The C-390 is essentially a jet powered C-130 competitor, the C-2 is more like a mini-C-17. I don't know about cost of purchase and per flight hour.
@bgshin28794 ай бұрын
Fun fact: Japan deployed C2 for the evacuation operation in Afghanistan. They evacuated total 1 person.
Japan beats Brazil in range, payload, maintenance, quality, and guess what else? Price.
@franciscocarlospopriaga74574 ай бұрын
Deve ser por isso que ninguém compra C2 e muitos estão comprando C390😂
@bekicot884 ай бұрын
C2 is very expensive
@PhylphyPhil4 ай бұрын
No, it does not
@Sir_Godz4 ай бұрын
its a beuty
@ianmangham45704 ай бұрын
Beauty
@fahadkelantan4 ай бұрын
Brazil's Embraer can't fly without American engines, American avionics, and American critical components. Kawasaki is actually Made in Japan.
@DrVictorVasconcelos4 ай бұрын
What are you talking about? They use 2x General Electric CF-6 engines. They use Brazilian iron for the fuselage, only the KMS6115 composite is made in Japan.
@luanarmoa47874 ай бұрын
chora mais
@arrentino4 ай бұрын
Infelizmente é um fato, a Embraer procura voluntariamente a extrema dependência da tecnologia americana
@kilo49114 ай бұрын
Embraer also uses Colin Aerospace control system
@fahadkelantan4 ай бұрын
American Engineering is what enables both Japan and Brazil to even build anything. Secondly, the GE engines on the Kawasaki are made by a GE & Mitsubishi joint project. A technology transfer.
@thomasfrank2804 ай бұрын
Japan ro Hawaii? Now that sounds familiar
@paleoph61684 ай бұрын
🤨
@azexnewmai36074 ай бұрын
🙂↔️🙂↔️🙂↔️
@山下清-n9z3 ай бұрын
For many of us Japanese, Hawaii is a wonderful tourist destination.😃😃😃😃
Twin jet is questionable choice for military transport where fuel economy and maintenance cost is a secondary consideration. Basically cargo plane must be able to takeoff with one engine failed. So for a plane with say 100 tons of capacity on all engine, a quad jet can safely fly 75, whereas a twin jet can only fly 50. This is why the C2 has substantially lower load capacity than the IL76 despite having more total thrust than the latter. For a military transport, this can be the difference of whether the plane can carry a MBT or not. I would guess C2 was deliberately crippled this way so it cannot compete with C17.
@SYNtemp4 ай бұрын
Unless you see these planes taking off/landing in places directly under enemy fire, the engine-out problem isnever more dramatic during last 50 years or so, as engine reliability has gone way up. Civilian planes TOO requre OEI (one engine inoperative) operation, especially at start and still need to be able to show positive rate of climb even on single engine (using emergency power rating of the remaining engine, which ofcourse reduces its remaining service life). So no, just like in civilian use, the "main" big transport aircraft are overwhelmingly using two engines configuration, just like for example the C390, and it's not a problem. A400 only has 4 engines bcse it's turboprop, and there are no such big turboprop engines that produce enough power in only 2 of them.
@mrmakhno30304 ай бұрын
C 2 shouldn't be compared with Il 76, or at least you should compare it with the right variant. Compare C 2 with the latest model of Il 76 make no sense since its a strategic airlifter.
@moss5504 ай бұрын
@@mrmakhno3030 Why not, Il76 is only 2.5 meter longer than the C2. Empty Il76 weight 92.5 tonnes vs C2 69 tonnes, yet the four D-30KP produce total of only 470kN vs C2's twin GE CF6 531kN. So the two planes are roughly the same size, but C2 is lighter and have more powerful engines, yet the 4 engine Il76 has a lift capacity of 50 tonnes vs 36 for the twin jet C2. Guess what, double the C2 capacity 36*2 = 72, and 72*(3/4) = 54 which is roughly the capacity of a Il76. Had the C2 been fitted with quad jet, it would be able to safely lift much more. (C17 is 53m long and is much larger than the Il76)
@SYNtemp4 ай бұрын
@@moss550 Carrying capacity of old models Il-76 is 42/48t, only the latest MD-90A version has 60t, while having among other things reworked wing, which has 10% bigger wingspan and also higher surface area. You could say C-2 (which has btw. max capacity of 37,6t) is over-engined but otherwise far lighter built, and smaller, thus no wonder it can carry less load. It wasn't REQUIRED to carry more. Yes it fails to transport MBT, but that is for many countries not the requirement... If you like to compare it to anything, compare it to C-390... same concept, same number of engines, about 50% more capacity... Trust me, if Japan would be serious about offering C-2 to international customers, there are many who would take these parameters for interresting (also the range!) and for right price would consider it.
@yo2trader5394 ай бұрын
This plane was designed to use Japanese runways, especially regional runways which have shorter distance. I won't get into it, but it was designed for specific cargo, enemies, and runways in mind.
@nagasako74 ай бұрын
It's like Boeing 777 without a neck 😅
@zapokoin61334 ай бұрын
Japan also buys the new C-130. The c27 spartan is not a good plane. He took to USA and retired early. They were not satisfied. If the Japanese were smart, they would offer it to the Turks. I think they would take it. they need.
@RLVIDEOS20244 ай бұрын
*similar to KC390*
@marcelomariano35864 ай бұрын
Not similar. Inferior by far !!!
@myway66494 ай бұрын
De outra categoria, maior.
@dhananjaypatel56184 ай бұрын
India poor😂😂
@marcelomariano35864 ай бұрын
Sorry, but it is far, far below the Embraer KC-390.
@natami72234 ай бұрын
Las alas del KC390 son de Kawasaki Industry of Brazil.
@LeptospirosiАй бұрын
Are you serious?!? The C2 and the 390 are not even in the same Class. The C2 can carry double the payload at twice the distance for reference, which means, who is looking for a C2 is NOT look big for a 390 and Vice Versa