History, Politics And Current Affairs

I’ve had a renewed look at this aircraft given the recent announcement of Sweden ordering four of them (hopefully more to come.)

So what is it?


Well it’s Embraer’s attempt at creating a successor to the C-130 series, sort of. The most glaring difference is of course that it’s jet powered rather than a turboprop, which has its pros and cons. It carries a bit more load in terms of weight/paratroopers/passengers, is a bit bigger in general, has a bit longer range, and is a bit faster. In a way you could describe it as a tactical airlifter able to shoulder some missions that would otherwise have necessitated a strategic airlifter. It does have unpaved airstrip capability and short takeoff/landing requirements despite the jets, but in the very low speed regime the turboprops still have some advantages.

But above all my take is that it’s a very modern aircraft, with modern technology throughout, and it offers a more usable air tanking capability that the C-130. Both in the way that all C-390s are equipped to handle that role (just have to attach the removable drogue pods on the wing hardpoints and off you go), but the higher operating speeds it is capable of makes it more compatible with fast jets. Perhaps not helicopters though. Apart from the passenger transport modules that can be inserted there’s also medical evacuation ones and such. In terms of comfort it also beats the C-130, there’s a real crew lavatory, it is quiet and smooth in flight like a modern airliner, and so on.

For the crews it is a bit of a step forward into the current day. It has a glass cockpit (I believe a Honeywell product), with sidesticks and it’s of course a fly by wire setup. Naturally the C-130J also have a glass cockpit but it is fundamentally a 1950’s aircraft underneat the trim so it is a bit more old fashioned in some senses.


Plus the C-390 cost less than the C-130. I think Sweden and the other European nations (I believe the Netherlands, Portugal, Austria and Hungary) that have selected the C-390 have probably made a good choice. The Netherlands calculated that due to speed/cargo capacity/availability differences five C-390s can do the same work as eight C-130s. It’s going to open up some capabilities for Sweden, handling some of the transports that we had to rely on C-17s through our pool cooperation before, and it might also enable us to do some operational air refuelling missions (the single C-130 we have equipped for tanker work is mostly to train fighter pilots with.)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this aircraft?

What's the pricetag difference? How would it compare in effect to the C17, the Kawasaki C-2, and the Airbus A400M?

It seems like the field of medium sized airlift is fairly crowded, and the choice really depends on the specific needs of that country.

I wonder if either the C-390 or C-130J would make a good AWACS

In case of the C-130

kdahm wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 9:18 pm What's the pricetag difference? How would it compare in effect to the C17, the Kawasaki C-2, and the Airbus A400M?

It seems like the field of medium sized airlift is fairly crowded, and the choice really depends on the specific needs of that country.

Excluding the stuff like training, spare parts and such the C-390 seems to cost about $80 million a pop. The C-130J seems to be in the $66-100 million range depending on subvariant and exact equipment fit. The C-390 comes with essentially all the option boxes checked as standard, such as the aerial tanker capability. The C-390 is also said to have lower cost per flight hour.

The C-390 is smaller and can carry less than either of the C-17, A400M and C-2. It is however much cheaper, the others are a bit more than twice the cost (and the C-17 isn’t being produced) plus those big boys would need to have a smaller tactical airlifter in service alongside them for an airforce to be able to do the full range of missions.

So, if you have a need to do the stuff a C-130 can do (more or less) and for instance a C-17 can’t do, but you also would like to be able to do some long haul (strategic) transport as well in a reasonably efficient way and can’t really afford a second aircraft type it seems that the C-390 is an interesting option. Bit of a jack of all trades (but obviously can’t carry the heaviest and bulkiest types of cargo.)

We actually did build a single C-130 AWACS using a modified E-2 radome. The EC-130V was a proof of concept for a Coast Guard AWACS. The program didn't go further due to budget cuts.

How does the C-390 compare to the Airbus turbo-prop tac-lift whatsit ?

And can the C-390 carry 'self defence' pods on its hard-points ??

jemhouston wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 9:37 pm I wonder if either the C-390 or C-130J would make a good AWACS

In case of the C-130

Embraer supposedly is looking at AWACS and remote sensing variants of the C-390, to replace both variants of the R-99(EMB-145 derivative) in service with the Brazilian Air Force, as well as for export. They have also been looking at a SAR variant.

Micael wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 10:05 pm The C-390 is smaller and can carry less than either of the C-17, A400M and C-2. It is however much cheaper, the others are a bit more than twice the cost (and the C-17 isn’t being produced) plus those big boys would need to have a smaller tactical airlifter in service alongside them for an airforce to be able to do the full range of missions.

So, if you have a need to do the stuff a C-130 can do (more or less) and for instance a C-17 can’t do, but you also would like to be able to do some long haul (strategic) transport as well in a reasonably efficient way and can’t really afford a second aircraft type it seems that the C-390 is an interesting option. Bit of a jack of all trades (but obviously can’t carry the heaviest and bulkiest types of cargo.)

My understanding is the C-390 isn't a good replacement for the C-130 as the USAF uses it, i.e., as an inter-theatre transport. However, most air forces use it as their main transport aircraft(just like the USAF uses the C-17, but less capable), and for this role, it is quite well-suited.

gral wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 11:09 am

jemhouston wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 9:37 pm I wonder if either the C-390 or C-130J would make a good AWACS

In case of the C-130

Embraer supposedly is looking at AWACS and remote sensing variants of the C-390, to replace both variants of the R-99(EMB-145 derivative) in service with the Brazilian Air Force, as well as for export. They have also been looking at a SAR variant.

Micael wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 10:05 pm The C-390 is smaller and can carry less than either of the C-17, A400M and C-2. It is however much cheaper, the others are a bit more than twice the cost (and the C-17 isn’t being produced) plus those big boys would need to have a smaller tactical airlifter in service alongside them for an airforce to be able to do the full range of missions.

So, if you have a need to do the stuff a C-130 can do (more or less) and for instance a C-17 can’t do, but you also would like to be able to do some long haul (strategic) transport as well in a reasonably efficient way and can’t really afford a second aircraft type it seems that the C-390 is an interesting option. Bit of a jack of all trades (but obviously can’t carry the heaviest and bulkiest types of cargo.)

My understanding is the C-390 isn't a good replacement for the C-130 as the USAF uses it, i.e., as an inter-theatre transport. However, most air forces use it as their main transport aircraft(just like the USAF uses the C-17, but less capable), and for this role, it is quite well-suited.

Is there any particular aspect to the ”isn’t a good inter-theatre transport” that you’ve heard mentioned? That’s to say, does it relate to something like very short runways or something like that?

Nik_SpeakerToCats wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 1:02 amHow does the C-390 compare to the Airbus turbo-prop tac-lift whatsit ?

They're a different class of aircraft - the A400M is a LOT bigger, think of it as the difference between narrowbody and widebody commercial jets.

Micael wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:20 pm Is there any particular aspect to the ”isn’t a good inter-theatre transport” that you’ve heard mentioned? That’s to say, does it relate to something like very short runways or something like that?

Operation in short, unprepared runways, essentially. Although the C-17 is capable of that, my understanding is the USAF avoids doing it as much as possible. The C-130s, on the other hand are expected to spend a significant part of their lives doing it.

gral wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 10:13 pm

Micael wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:20 pm Is there any particular aspect to the ”isn’t a good inter-theatre transport” that you’ve heard mentioned? That’s to say, does it relate to something like very short runways or something like that?

Operation in short, unprepared runways, essentially. Although the C-17 is capable of that, my understanding is the USAF avoids doing it as much as possible. The C-130s, on the other hand are expected to spend a significant part of their lives doing it.

It’s hard to evaluate exactly how the C-390 compared to the C-130 in this area based on what I’ve found so far. It appears that it can do it to some extent:
https://youtu.be/ivM6nlo9DOU
But, turboprops may still be preferrable in that scenario.

Micael wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 11:05 pm It’s hard to evaluate exactly how the C-390 compared to the C-130 in this area based on what I’ve found so far. It appears that it can do it to some extent:
https://youtu.be/ivM6nlo9DOU
But, turboprops may still be preferrable in that scenario.

'Can do it, but not as well as the C-130' is my understanding. Short-field performance is certainly worse than the C-130(but numbers are difficult to find).

Embraer has teamed up with Northrop Grumman and is trying to get the US Airforce interested in a boom equipped version as a tanker to supplement the KC-46s. Article here: https://www.twz.com/air/kc-390-with-a-r ... ll-it-bite

Micael wrote: ↑Wed Feb 25, 2026 8:41 pm Embraer has teamed up with Northrop Grumman and is trying to get the US Airforce interested in a boom equipped version as a tanker to supplement the KC-46s. Article here: https://www.twz.com/air/kc-390-with-a-r ... ll-it-bite

I would like a KC-2. If its possible that is. Besides, we need more transports and real replacements for the C-5M & C-17s in the pipeline.

Micael wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:20 pm
Is there any particular aspect to the ”isn’t a good inter-theatre transport” that you’ve heard mentioned? That’s to say, does it relate to something like very short runways or something like that?

What does Sweden want to do with it? Move stuff to another continent or to a different location within Europe, maybe just across the Baltic?

M.Becker wrote: ↑Fri Feb 27, 2026 9:48 am

Micael wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 5:20 pm
Is there any particular aspect to the ”isn’t a good inter-theatre transport” that you’ve heard mentioned? That’s to say, does it relate to something like very short runways or something like that?

What does Sweden want to do with it? Move stuff to another continent or to a different location within Europe, maybe just across the Baltic?

Primarily tactical airlifter within Europe, including short runway operations and paratrooper drops. Secondary role that opens up with this buy is longer transports as necessary. Those have preferrably been handled by C-17s from the NATO pooling cooperation, in some cases leased capacity mainly in the form of Ukrainian transports (before the war), but in some cases such as Afghanistan was forced to be handled to a large degree by our old C-130s. They were not really fit for that purpose, and if a similar need develops somewhere down the line the C-390 would be much better for such long distance transports.

Micael wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 7:08 pm
Primarily tactical airlifter within Europe, including short runway operations and paratrooper drops. Secondary role that opens up with this buy is longer transports as necessary.

The latest version of the C-130 seems to fit the primary role like a glove but the 390 is trending in Europa, albeit in small numbers per country, including the Swedish buy.

Founds permitting, go for a mix because one size doesn't fit all and the 130J is also in service with several European militaries.

M.Becker wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 7:39 pm

Micael wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 7:08 pm
Primarily tactical airlifter within Europe, including short runway operations and paratrooper drops. Secondary role that opens up with this buy is longer transports as necessary.

The latest version of the C-130 seems to fit the primary role like a glove but the 390 is trending in Europa, albeit in small numbers per country, including the Swedish buy.

Founds permitting, go for a mix because one size doesn't fit all and the 130J is also in service with several European militaries.

I don’t think funds and other aspects will permit two types. C-130J were on the table for a while but fell out of favor for various reasons. One reason (not necessarily the biggest one) that made some people in the airforce sceptical was the realization during the accident investigation of the Norwegian C-130J into a mountain in Sweden some years ago that the manufacturer was being rather uncooperative with the investigation, and that raises some red flags in how said manufacturer would be to deal with in the current day if we were to acquire J models to replace the H model ones.

Of all the stupid things to do. If you screw up and come clean people will understand. If you cover it up or don't cooperate, they'll look for ways to screw you up.

jemhouston wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 8:24 pm Of all the stupid things to do. If you screw up and come clean people will understand. If you cover it up or don't cooperate, they'll look for ways to screw you up.

It makes sense if the only thing the company cares about is the quarterly stock review, gotta think of the shareholders! *rlyneedsabarfemoji*