VIDEO: In Japan, Kawasaki flies 2nd XC-2 prototype

It’s a big day for Kawasaki Heavy Industries. One year and a day after first flight of the first XC-2 airlifter, the Japanese airframer has completed the maiden flight of the second test aircraft, according to video posted today on YouTube. Compared to the red-striped XC-2 unveiled last year, the second XC-2 sports a new military-gray paint scheme. Japan has ordered the C-2 to replace Lockheed Martin C-130s and Kawasaki P-1s. The XC-2 is similar in size to the Airbus A400M. Instead of the A400M’s four turboprops, however, the C-2 fleet will be powered by two General Electric turbofans.


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.


10 Responses to VIDEO: In Japan, Kawasaki flies 2nd XC-2 prototype

  1. sferrin 27 January, 2011 at 11:03 pm #

    Nice. So will this be allowed to compete against the A400 in the international market?

  2. rob 28 January, 2011 at 12:46 am #

    why chose an older engine CF6 vs GENX or similar?
    Interesting to know how performance varies vs A400

  3. RunningBear 28 January, 2011 at 1:07 am #

    Is this a C-17/2? A baby C-17, Globemasterette??

    Is Boeing assisting in the design and does it have any of the C-17B features?

    Competition, just what the A-400 doesn’t need!

  4. jesus 28 January, 2011 at 12:48 pm #

    you can compare the tactical perf of the A400M
    The A400M (30t load) can land on soft field in 800m and can make one take off of the same field in 1000m with similar weight.
    Kawasaki “can’t” (don’t was make for that) land of one soft field.He need one airfield of minimum 900m for land with similar capacity of the A400M and he need 2300m on the airfield for take off with all capacity (stuff and petrol,125t)he need 2300m minimum.

    The Kawasaki was really similar in the paper, but he don’t was one tactical plane.
    You can’t go land in the desert or launch force like the A400M can make.
    The A400M don’t just was one transport aircraft like one c-17 or the kawasaki, he was THE plane.
    I think, when we go at war we don’t have one airfield where we will go

  5. PMS 28 January, 2011 at 7:10 pm #

    Jesus – you must live in Seville…
    It is quite clear that XC-2 purportedly trades its STO capabilities for the range.

  6. jetcal1 28 January, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    AeroXavier, is that you?

  7. para 29 January, 2011 at 9:19 am #

    Jesus pointed out the obvious part that the poster before him did not know. The A400M is a tactical STOL plane, the XC-2 is designed to operate from operational paved airstrips.

    I disagree a bit about the notion, that the A400M is THE plane though…the tactical/strategic combo part is spin on behalf of EADS, originally the tactical part was much more relevant.

    Furthermore, no, the XC-2 will not be a competitor for any aircraft, for the simple reason that this design is exclusively for Japanese use and heavy export restrictions make the foreign purchase of any Japanese military hardware impossible.

  8. aeroxavier 29 January, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    yes jesus is aeroxavier, i have to many name in to many blog, i forget sometimes and i write funny name

  9. asdf 30 January, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    i think that japan is thinking about easing its export restrictions or has done so already. i don’t know exactly but google will help.
    btw, how does the embraer 390 compare to the a400m? is the former in the league of the kawasaki or is it also rough field capable as the latter? also, why did the 400 choose turboprops and c-2 (or everyone else) turbofans? for the rough field suitability or is there more to it?

  10. para 2 February, 2011 at 3:00 am #

    Japanese corporations are pushing the government hard to ease restrictions, yes. The outcome is still uncertain though. Furthermore, any Japanese military hardware has a significant amount of US tech in it, through patents, licence production etc. Even if all export restrictions would fall tomorrow, this would put Japanese exports at a significant disadvantage, they would need approvals for everything.

    Regarding the Embraer. Not even close in capabilities to both…its a fair-weather C-130JJ with turbofans.

    The A400M-decision for turboprops was caused by STOL-, rough field- and fuel economy requirements. The An-70 developers choose propfans for similar reasons.

Leave a Reply