Weird to want *another* entry into an already overcrowded field, given the C-130, Y-9, C-390, An-178, so on and so forth.


Yea, I'd understand if they were trying to develop C-17-equivalent since there's a niche market - A400M is the closest it gets to the C-17 but not quite there. But developing another aircraft in similar class as those you mentioned seems a bit redundant. Who knows, the project goal may change if UAE is actually serious about the program.


This could also be SK wanting to be able to produce its own cargo aircraft if it wanted to instead of relying on foreign offerings.


Yea that's the driving factor for most ROK acquisition these days. It's a double edged sword.


A400M's inability to move MBTs is a big handicap.


Not only that, but the USAF has shared multiple times that it's looking at replacing the C-130 with an aircraft that has revolutionary, as opposed to evolutionary, capabilities. They are looking at VTOL, stealth and extreme range. The most likely outcome is a tiltrotor similar to the concepts that came from Joint Heavy Lift, Joint Future Theater Lift and JMR-Ultra. If the Koreans/Emiratis start their airlift project now it will probably compete with the C-130 replacement for most of its life.


That's... dubious, given there's a hard limit how much signature reduction is possible with prop aircraft (and thus tiltrotors). Tiltjets have proven vulnerable to catastrophic failure while lift fan designs have high parasitic mass/volume, none of which are desirable in a transport, and both are considerably less efficient for long range cruising than a turboprop. Furthermore, the stealthiest aircraft shapes (Doritos & variants) are not very efficient at carrying boxy cargos like Armored Fighting Vehicles. I mean, you can certainly get stealthier than current transport/tanker flying barn tier radar returns, but even shrinking your RCS to a few meters (and again, even that level isn't happening if you use propellers) won't mean much in an age of ever more powerful sensors designed to ferret out 5th gen fighters and stealth bombers.


From what I understand the design would not be VTOL, stealthy and long range, it would be one of the three.


Depends on what concept ends up being pursued, but [Bell's concept](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41801/bell-unveils-vtol-aircraft-concepts-that-all-feature-fold-away-rotors-for-jet-speed-flight) is aimed to be 2 of the 3 (possibly even 3/3). The concept uses folding rotors that would tuck in during cruise mode, addressing the signature concerns that /u/Eltnam_Atlasia mentioned. There are outstanding technical challenges and the first versions of this concept [wouldn't have any convertible engines](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41997/bells-plan-to-finally-realize-a-rotorcraft-that-flies-like-a-jet-but-hovers-like-a-helicopter) that future versions would, but the concept is promising enough for the USAF to fund it.


So they want something similar to [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_Quad_TiltRotor)? It's basically a VTOL C-130.


Yes, but all the modern concepts are twin rotors, just very large.


Like a [Mil V-12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12), but tiltrotor?


Like [this](https://image02.seesaawiki.jp/h/n/harmony-gold_japan/78413148bde6056f.jpg) and [this](https://i1.wp.com/defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/joint_heavy_lift.jpg)


South Korea building its own C-2 equivalent. Why wasn't the C-2 considered I wonder.


Because Japan still hasn't said sorry


He is talking about why UAE haven't chosen C-2


However, South Korea and Japan are working together to counter Chinese threats.


One interesting thing about the C-2 is its cruising and top speed is faster than all the other tactical and strategic cargo planes of the world. It is probably the fastest. Over Mach 0.8


It's really not terribly different than other turbofans. The C-5 and C-17 top out at 0.79, while the C-2 is 0.82. That's only going to make a 30 minute difference over a 12 hour flight. (For comparison, a 747 freighter has a normal cruise speed of 0.845, and it tops out at 0.92, so none of the military airlifters are particularly fast by cargo plane standards)


The reason Japan rejected C-17 is because of its slow cruise speed. Mach 0.7-ish. I guess even slightly faster matters


There's a small enough difference between the two that I wonder if it might not be a tiny bit pretextual, or maybe the C-2 had a couple other things going for it too, but it's certainly possible.


Possibly. I mean remember they were building and developing the C-2 along with their maritime patrol aircraft the P-1. Those two planes share a lot of parts and commonality.


Yeah, that would definitely be a factor if they were already making effectively a shared platform. It's also almost definitely more fuel efficient, since twins have an inherent advantage there over quads (hence the near complete replacement of quads by twins in commercial aviation).


Modernized version to carry missiles as a bomb truck (like with Rapid Dragon)?




Considering ROK has already developed far more complex fixed wing aircraft, it's not that far fetched. UAE would obviously serve as a financial backer to the program.


Don't underestimate the complexity of military cargo aircraft. The A400M was a bigger challenge to Airbus than almost any of their passenger craft.


A400M also had a ton of non-technical issues that made technical issues far worse. Such as members pulling out, funding being gutted, orders being cancelled, decision to go handed props causing certification timeline of the engines to effectively be doubled, used uncertified parts and acted surprised they needed to be tested and certified, etc. It wasn't so much a technical shitshow, but a political one, that caused the A400M to challenge Airbus so much. Engine in particular was by far the single biggest source of issues. With the MC-X, ROK is likely just going to use 2 off the shelf engines, which dramatically cuts out most of the issues Airbus had.


needed to find a recent enough relevant comment to ask my question to ahem The thing that sticks out to me about not only the C-2 but the Korean concept as well is the use of two jet engines, vs the A400M’s turboprops or the C-17’s four engines, particularly how the former two's low speed performance would hold up to the turboprops, despite the C-2's known shortfield performance?