Navys

“You have control.” I grip the control column with my right hand and follow my pilot “Lambo’s” instructions, rolling the M-346 jet trainer into a left-hand turn and applying back stick pressure to ramp up the g-force. “Keep pulling, keep pulling,” he says calmly as I watch the g-meter in the top left of the head-up display tick up past 5g. As he eases the throttles back to idle power, the speed begins to bleed off. As it does, the jet automatically responds by reducing the amount of g-force my stick pressure allows. The jet’s programmable safety system is preventing us from exceeding a pre-selected angle-of-attack limit that means we can’t depart from controlled flight – a critical element of the M-346’s flight control system that enables carefree handling.

TWZ was provided the opportunity to experience many of the M-346’s training-related design safety features first hand during a visit and demonstration flight at the Beech Factory Airport in Wichita, Kansas, in October. Beechcraft, part of Textron Aviation, and its industry partner Leonardo of Italy, shipped a prototype M-346FA (Fighter Attack) variant to the U.S. in September for a series of demos designed to help cultivate awareness of the jet’s capabilities. The two companies are jointly preparing to offer a bespoke M-346N variant in response to the U.S. Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) competition, which seeks to replace the aging T-45 Goshawk.

Fly along with us in the M-346 by clicking the video at the top of the story and check out our full walk around tour of the jet in the exclusive video below:

Leonardo test pilot “Lambo” went on to demonstrate what’s known as the Pilot-activated Recovery System, or PARS, which at the touch of a large red button on the console takes control of the jet and returns it to stable flight, should the pilot become disorientated. I was also able to get a feel for the handling performance through a series of aileron rolls and tight turns. Having got a hands-on grasp of the flight control safety features – we moved onto what Leonardo and Beechcraft see as a fundamentally important element of the M-346 – its embedded tactical training system (ETTS).

“Lambo” selected an air-to-air training scenario in the ETTS menu, and a computer-generated radar scope appeared on the left-hand multifunction display. Although the M-346FA variant can be equipped with a real radar, the training variant relies on virtual mission systems generated by the jet’s computers. Acting as my instructor, “Lambo” tee’d up an enemy target on the synthetic radar display on one of the cockpit’s three multifunction screens. Out of beyond visual range, an “Su-27” was now being tracked. He walked me through how to identify and then target and fire upon the hostile aircraft with one of our virtual AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. As well as air-to-air modes, the M-346’s embedded training system can also generate synthetic targets on the ground for attack training with smart munitions, as well as other important air combat scenarios such as engagements by surface-to-air missiles. 

“Lambo” set up another target, this time a C-130 transport aircraft flying within visual range of us. In addition to a radar track, the software can generate a synthetic electro-optical image from a virtual targeting pod. This enables the student to manipulate the pod imagery, in this case to gain a positive visual identification of a target. The set of demonstrations was carefully planned to illustrate some of the many facets of the ETTS, which enables development of mission management skills during flight training and much more, as I’ll explain later.

After 50 minutes, we were back flying the pattern at the Beech Factory Airport before touching down for a full-stop landing.

M-346 development

The baseline M-346 configuration stems from development of the Yak-130, which started in 1991. In search of a technology partner, Russia’s Yalovlev teamed up with Alenia of Italy in 1993 during the improved relations between Europe and Russia in the post-Cold War thaw, and the joint venture resulted in the first flight of a prototype Yak-130/AEM-130 in 1996. This partnership was dissolved in 2000, and both companies parted ways to pursue separate programs.

Alenia (today known as Leonardo) developed its own substantially modified and aerodynamically different version of the jet trainer. The resulting M-346 embodied many of the attributes found in modern front-line fighter aircraft such as multifunction displays, hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, carefree handling and a helmet-mounted display. The first M-346 was rolled out at the now Leonardo plant at Venegono on June 7, 2003, and made its maiden flight on July 15, 2004.

The lead customer for the M-346 was the Italian Air Force, which procured the aircraft to replace the Aermacchi MB339 jet trainer. As the M-346 entered service with the Italian Air Force, it exposed other air forces and NATO air arms to the aircraft, some of which ultimately seized upon the opportunity to train fighter pilots in partnership with the Italian operator. As the overseas requirement gathered pace, the M-346 became the basis for a new International Flight Training School at Decimomannu in Sardinia from 2018 under a collaboration between the Italian Air Force and Leonardo. Leonardo has also secured sales of the M-346 to Israel, Poland, Singapore and Qatar.

Having initially partnered with General Dynamics and then with Raytheon as prime contractors, Leonardo proceeded alone in offering a version of the M-346 – dubbed the T-100 – for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X trainer competition to replace the T-38 Talon. After a long procurement process, Boeing’s clean-sheet design T-7 Red Hawk was selected by the USAF in 2018.

Leonardo is now partnered with Beechcraft to offer the M-346N to the Navy for the UJTS jet trainer competition, which also looks set to invite proposals from Boeing for the T-7, as well as for the TF-50 from Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin, and from SNC for its new Freedom Trainer.

Suitability to replace the T-45

The T-45 Goshawk has been in service for three-and-a-half decades, and it soldiers-on as the Navy’s singular fast jet training aircraft. The Goshawk is used to teach student naval aviators coming from the T-6 Texan II basic trainer, taking them to their first fast jet “hop,” to then learning the skills required for taking off and landing from an aircraft carrier, as they navigate the challenging path towards gaining their coveted ‘wings of gold.’ 

The Navy has been exploring replacement options for the T-45 for several years, although the timeline for acquiring this new aircraft was pushed back substantially in 2023. The Goshawk has had its fair share of issues in recent years, from a high-profile onboard oxygen generation issue to a number of crashes and subsequent groundings, which have had a significant impact on training output.

The M-346 is powered by twin non-afterburning Honeywell F124-GA-200 turbofan engines that produce 6,280 pounds of thrust each, which enables transonic speed performance for the aircraft. Having two engines is noteworthy as a significant number of single-engine T-45 losses have been caused by bird ingestion. “This airplane is a fantastic replacement for the Goshawk because it is not only a high performing twin-engine, fly-by-wire jet, but also because it’s part of an entire training system.” says Steven Helmer, a Textron Aviation and Defense Flight Test and Demonstration pilot.

The initial climb rate of the M-346 is in the region of 22,000 feet per minute. After getting airborne, a pilot can raise the gear and flaps and pitch up to 20-25 degrees nose high, and leave it there as the jet climbs away. “A high thrust-to-weight ratio translates to very good turn performance as well – the aircraft will sustain as much as 8g at low altitude, and 5-6g at medium altitudes,” comments Helmer, who is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School.

Helmer says that despite having two engines, the M-346N is expected to save in the region of 25-30% in fuel costs per hour compared to the T-45. The bespoke Navy variant is also expected to be offered with an Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto-GCAS).

“The twin-engine setup provides built-in redundancy, particularly for critical systems like electrical and hydraulic, which are independently powered by each engine,” Helmer explains. “This design helps eliminate single points of failure, enhancing overall safety. This advantage becomes even more important with modern aircraft, which demand more onboard power. In contrast, single-engine aircraft with afterburners must rely on highly dependable emergency power units and duplicate several systems to meet safety standards.” 

“The U.S. Navy has indicated to us that they will not require supersonic performance for the UJTS aircraft. There is no advantage to having a supersonic aircraft, particularly in the era of digital fly-by-wire flight controls, which compensate for the change in aerodynamics as an aircraft accelerates through Mach one,” says Helmer. “The ability to sustain supersonic flight comes at a cost in terms of fuel and engine complexity, which would negate some of the operational cost advantage of M-346N. It’s also worth noting that the maximum speed for M-346 is 1.15 Mach, yielding transonic training capability and safety margin for students.”

Blending simulation with live flying

Synthetic training has become an intrinsic element of military flying training and a key requirement for any modern training aircraft. This reflects a desire to “download” flying handling and mission systems management to training aircraft, which are cheaper to operate than frontline platforms. It also helps to simplify the path for new aviators as they progress to type conversion for their operational aircraft.

“It’s incredibly important to have a mature synthetic element because that gives you multiple ways to inject different things into the scenario,” says Helmer. “The maturity of it allows you to inject things in a way that’s realistic and that has already been fed back from the customer to the OEM [original equipment manufacturer] to make the system match reality in the best way possible, and that’s going to allow you to have massive cost savings.”

The M-346 aircraft itself sits at the center of a significant integrated training system. Student aviators coming to the M-346 start their fast jet journey with a set of ground-based training aids that promote familiarity with the aircraft, teach safety procedures and mission systems so they are suitably prepared for live flying in the actual aircraft. The simulator elements include desktop procedural training devices and full-motion dome simulators, which afford students realistic handling and a mission systems training environment. 

The live, virtual, constructive (LVC) element of the training system is particularly noteworthy, as it sits across both the simulator and live flying. The simulators can be connected to real M-346s flying missions. This allows live flights to be linked with simulator ‘flights,’ with a student in the air able to “fly” alongside a student wingman in the simulator on the ground, all overseen by an instructor in a real time monitoring station and all connected together via data link.

“Instead of sending up two jets with two red air aggressor jets for perhaps a 2-v-2 mission to generate one student exercise, with this system we can send up a pair of M-346s and generate two virtual jets that are being flown in the simulator. It means we are using half as many actual aircraft,” Helmer says. “With the same number of airplanes on the line, I can generate sorties faster and get students through the syllabus with a lot less friction, or I can have fewer jets and save money that way as well. So either way it’s going to allow a lot more bang for buck for the U.S. taxpayer.”

“The embedded tactical training system, or ETTS, gives us the live, virtual, constructive capability. That’s the live airplane, the virtual part is all of the tracks we can inject synthetically – whether that’s other friendlies, enemy aircraft, enemy ground troops, surface-to-air threats, things of that nature – into the scenario. The constructive part would be having two airplanes [for example], but each one of us has a virtual wingman, either synthetically injected and working in concert, or being flown in the simulator. So, I’m in the airplane and we’re wingmen or we’re fighting each other. It gives the Navy a lot of flexibility in how they train going forward. We’re going to bring in a lot more virtual training and a lot more flexibility to the syllabus to start introducing some advanced concepts sooner.”

The ETTS utilizes a mission computer inside the jet that enables a fully-integrated live virtual constructive menu of options for the instructor and student. It also allows the students to train with simulated stores and sensors, which were demonstrated during our flight. “You can have imagery that looks like you have a [targeting] pod on the airplane even though you don’t. So when I slew around using my HOTAS controls, just like I would in an F/A-18, that’s going to show me an image on the ground that actually matches reality, because we geo-rectify those images based on where we are. So you set up a scenario based on each base you’re at or the en route portion of a flight, for example, and that’s going to show you that relevant imagery,” says Helmer. 

The M-346’s synthetic radar can simulate a mechanically scanned array radar or an electronically scanned radar. It also includes electronic warfare modes that provide a simulated radar warning receiver, missile approach and launch warning system, laser warning system, countermeasures dispensing, and an active electronic countermeasures system. “It really is up to the customer on what they want to see. So you’re bringing in sensors. It’s not just tracks.”

“As far as looking outside is concerned, you’ve got everything on your screens to cue your eyes in the right direction, but what am I actually going to see when I look outside?

From that point, we go forward into augmented reality, which starts with a helmet mounted display, similar to what F-35 and F/A-18 pilots use in the fleet,” says Helmer. Beechcraft says the M-346N is planned to feature computer-generated imagery in the helmet visor for close range air-to-air training. “Now you’re seeing tracks when you look outside, you’re at least seeing a data link track if not seeing some kind of representation of an airplane. So you may be going to the merge [in a dogfight] with an empty piece of sky, but the system is showing you something that’s actually there. There’s a huge training value in that. Granted, we still want pilots to learn how to work with actual other airplanes, but there’s a huge constructive piece that’s allowing you to build a scenario with very few physical assets.”

The maturity of the M-346 ETTS is viewed by Beechcraft as being a very important factor for UJTS, especially as there will be some critical uses of simulation by the Navy as it retires the T-45 and moves to its next jet, particularly when it comes to training for operations from aircraft carriers.

No call to fly from the aircraft carrier

In March this year, the U.S. Navy publicly released new requirements for its T-45 replacement program, which said the new training aircraft would not need to perform Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) to touchdown. The Navy had already eliminated the requirement for the jets to be able to land on or take off from aircraft carriers, as T-45s have done in the past for student carrier qualifications (CQs).

FCLPs are flown at a land base, and as they are currently flown are designed to mimic as closely as possible the experience of touching down on a real carrier. However, the repeated heavy touchdowns impose a significant structural impact on the airframe and the undercarriage. The current UJTS requirement from the Navy says the new trainer will only be required to fly FCLPs to a wave-off. This means that the student would apply power and perform a go-around instead of touching down. This change to the FCLP syllabus – eliminating repeated touchdowns – means that the new trainer will not “bounce” (touch-and-go on the runways) as students build up their carrier landing skills at their training airfield. Removing FCLP to touchdown from the UJTS requirement opens up the competition to existing land-based training jets, without the need for significant structural modifications.

SNC says that its newly-unveiled clean-sheet Freedom Trainer is the only UJTS competitor currently being offered with a structural design that would allow it to fly FCLP to touchdown. You can read more about this here.

The Navy has already fundamentally changed the way it trains new naval aviators, many of whom don’t fly off a carrier at all until they reach their Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) in charge of the aircraft type they have been assigned to fly in the fleet. “It’s not new,” one former navy instructor pilot told TWZ. “It was done as an experiment initially, but it has now become the default to do initial CQ in the FRS.”

Naval aviators were previously required to fly manual approaches to aircraft carriers, requiring uncompromising levels of skill and competence, with little margin for error. This required skilled throttle and control column inputs to coax an aircraft down onto the deck with precision in order to catch one of the arresting wires. Delta Flight Path technology was conceived to help make the F-35C Lightning II easier to land on an aircraft carrier, even with a pitching and rolling deck. This led to a spin-off program for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler that is known as Magic Carpet or Precision Landing Mode (PLM). Advances in flight control software using PLM have dramatically reduced the piloting challenges of landing carrier-borne strike fighters on a narrow flight deck. PLM features enhanced flight control logic that is designed to make the carrier landing easier and more predictable for the pilot. This has facilitated an evolutionary change in the way that both new aviators train, and how more experienced fleet pilots maintain their carrier currency.

“The Navy has signaled to us that they are already not taking students to the aircraft carrier in all cases [during training], and that their intention going forward is to not take student naval aviators to the aircraft carrier at all in an advanced jet trainer,” Steven Helmer explains. “So as we understand it, the customer is signaling to us that they do not need a carrier-capable airplane.”

The M-346 doesn’t feature a tailhook, even for use on runway arrestor gear in the event of emergencies. “This airplane has multiple redundant hydraulic systems and multiple redundant braking systems, so a tailhook is actually not required for the aircraft, so it was never built into the aircraft,” comments Helmer. “Could we add one if it was required? Absolutely.” The M-346N that will be offered to the Navy could feature PLM in its flight control software, but this will depend on the final requirements when they are issued later this year.

The M-346’s standard landing gear is set up for regular airfield operations. If the Navy decided that FCLP to touchdown would be needed, it would require modifications. “If you were going to do full-rate FCLP touchdowns, i.e., fly the [meat]ball all the way to touchdown, we would need to reinforce that landing gear structurally,” says Helmer. “That’s certainly something we can do and we’ve done a lot of background engineering for that, so that’s an offering we can give to the customers should those requirements change. But as we understand it now, there will be no shipboard operations and no FCLPs to a touchdown.”

The virtual training in the M-346 system would now introduce the aircraft carrier to the students. “We’re going to be bringing in precision landing modes in the simulator, and we’re going to be teaching students how to operate around the carrier using a virtual environment,” Helmer adds. “Then what they get in the jet is the physical feel of it going fast, the g-forces, actually thinking in that dynamic environment so that they have the experience they need when they get to the fleet.”

Building the M-346N

Having been in operation and training new aircrews for over a decade, the M-346 is promoted by Beechcraft as being a proven option for the Navy. “Leonardo has produced about 140 airplanes and they’re on a hot production line. They’re training a number of different air forces, including pilots that are flying the F-35 today. So the airplane has a proven track record of training pilots for 4th, 5th, and eventually 6th-generation fighters. On top of that, the ETTS has proven its worth as they’re using that every day with all the scenarios that I talked about.”

“We’re jumping in at a really good time too, because the airplane is on the verge of a major avionics upgrade [under Block 20],” says Helmer. The M-346N version would be based on the new Block 20 standard. “Leonardo is changing from a multi-function display format to a single large area display touchscreen, really bringing the airplane into the modern fold for avionics. One of the requirements the Navy has signaled to us is that they want to have a large area display, which makes sense because the advanced Super Hornet and the F-35 both have large area displays as well. So it’s really training the aircrew on the same kind of system they’re going to see in the fleet, and that’s kind of the point of an advanced jet trainer is to do that. You’re introducing a lot of new concepts and bringing them into something that’s more in alignment with what they’re going to see when they actually get to their fleet jet.”

Beechcraft has a notable relationship with U.S. Navy aviator training, as Helmer notes. “I flew the Beech T-34 when I was in flight school in 2006. That airplane was getting close to retiring, and it was replaced by the Beechcraft T-6 Texan II. That’s flown by the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and 14 other countries. We have produced more than 1,000 of those, creating decades of experience in the trainer market. On top of that, Beechcraft has involvement in the multi-engine trainer market with the T-44, the C-12, and now the T-54A that’s servicing the Navy’s future needs. So that really gives us a lot of experience in the fixed wing trainer market.” Leonardo is also connected to U.S. Navy training through its TH-73 Thrasher, which is replacing the TH-57B/C Sea Ranger as the undergraduate rotary and tilt-rotor helicopter trainer for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

M-346s are currently assembled in Venegono, Italy, but Beechcraft revealed on October 28, 2025, that M-346Ns would be assembled by the company in Wichita if selected by the Navy.

Current indications call for a formal request for proposals to be issued this coming December, leading to a contract award in 2027. Leonardo will collaborate with Beechcraft on updates for the new M-346N variant to meet U.S. Navy UJTS specifications. “The M-346 is well positioned to address the U.S. Navy’s requirements for an advanced jet trainer, which are unique to the Navy,” Helmer concludes.

The M-346 is clearly a proven solution as an advanced jet trainer that has been teaching new fast jet pilots for over a decade. The International Flight Training School alone has taught student pilots from Austria, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and now the United States, with 10 USAF cadets having arrived in Sardinia in September 2025 to train on the M-346.

At the same time, the M-346 faces stiff competition. Boeing’s T-7A is already in the U.S. military inventory and hundreds of these aircraft will eventually be in service with the USAF as its advanced jet trainer. Korea Aerospace Industries developed the TF-50 in partnership with Lockheed Martin, and it was extensively evaluated under the USAF T-X competition. It too is proven, with variants of the aircraft in service with seven nations. SNC’s Freedom Trainer is a clean sheet design and not proven, yet it is currently the only contender that is offering a structural configuration that would permit FCLP to touchdown.

The T-45 Goshawk is old, it’s struggling with reliability, and the Navy needs a new jet trainer fast that is capable of preparing pilots for the modern platforms they will be flying. Time will tell if the solution will be the M-346N or not, but it certainly has a strong case to make.

Contact the editor: [email protected]

Our Jamie Hunter went to Wichita to fly aboard Beechcraft’s M-346 jet trainer, which could replace the Navy’s T-45 Goshawk. Steven Helmer, a flight test and demonstration pilot for Textron Aviation and Defense, gave us a walk-around tour of the M-346 prior to taking to the skies.

The demonstrator Beechcraft is using is an M-346FA (fighter-attack) model of Leonardo’s M-346 Master family of jets. Leonardo and Textron, the latter of which owns Beechcraft, have joined forces for the Navy’s next generation trainer opportunity. The Navy’s M-346 variant will be configured slightly different, with the company giving the concept the designation M-346N. You can read all about this proposed variant here.

The next generation Navy jet trainer is unlikely to be required to land or launch from a carrier, a controversial move to say the least, but this decision has opened up the field to types that won’t require as extreme of a modification.

With all that being said, check out our walk-around tour below and stay tuned for a much deeper dive in the M-346 for the Navy in an upcoming video of Jamie’s flight.

You can also check out Textron’s pitch for the M-346N in our previous video below from Sea, Air, Space symposium earlier this year:

Contact the author: [email protected]

NORFOLK, Va. — President Trump did not let the government shutdown interfere with a stop in Virginia on Sunday to salute the Navy as it celebrates its 250th anniversary.

“I believe, ‘THE SHOW MUST GO ON!’” Trump posted Friday night on his social media site. And he wrote before leaving the White House for Naval Station Norfolk, “This will be a show of Naval aptitude and strength.”

The government shutdown that began Wednesday has triggered partisan blame in both directions as military personnel are working without pay, several thousand federal employees are furloughed and Trump has put on hold energy projects in Democratic-run areas such as New York and Chicago.

There is the possibility that an event designed to honor the Navy could be dragged into the bitter politics.

Trump accused Democrats in his post of enabling the shutdown and trying “to destroy this wonderful celebration of the U.S. Navy’s Birthday.”

Senate Democrats rejected efforts to preserve a continuation of government operations when the new budget year started Wednesday. They cited the lapse in subsidies that could cause health insurance costs to climb rapidly for people who get coverage through the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Democratic lawmakers also have sought to reverse cuts to Medicaid that Trump signed into law.

On top of that, both sides cite a mutual sense of distrust.

Democrats oppose Trump’s move to have his administration decline to spend congressionally approved funds, saying it undermines the budgeting process, among other concerns. Meanwhile, Trump has threatened to lay off federal workers at what he called “Democrat Agencies.”

Among those joining Trump for the festivities were First Lady Melania Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Navy Secretary John Phelan, Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins and U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), a former Navy rear admiral who was a White House doctor during Trump’s first term.

After his arrival in Norfolk, Trump went to the USS George H.W. Bush and spoke to the sailors and handed out challenge coins.

The Trumps watched a military demonstration while standing on the deck of the aircraft carrier. Navy destroyers launched missiles and fired shells into the Atlantic, Navy SEALs descended from helicopters and fighter jets catapulted off.

Awaiting Trump’s speech was a large crowd on a pier, mostly sailors in their dress white uniforms and some families.

Trump on Tuesday addressed a gathering of military leaders abruptly summoned by Hegseth from across the globe to Virginia. The Republican president proposed using U.S. cities as training grounds for the armed forces and spoke of needing military might to combat what he called the “invasion from within.” Hegseth declared an end to “woke” culture and announced new directives for troops that include “gender-neutral” or “male-level” standards for physical fitness.

The administration is seeking to reshape Pentagon culture and use military resources for the president’s priorities, including quelling domestic unrest and fighting what he calls a surge in violent crime, despite statistics to the contrary.

Trump has also engaged the U.S. military in an armed conflict he says is targeting foreign drug cartels, leading to four deadly strikes on boats in the Caribbean that Washington says were involved in trafficking. Critics have called the attacks extrajudicial killings in violation of international law.

Boak and Finley write for the Associated Press and reported from Washington and Norfolk, respectively.

President Donald Trump says he has been seriously talking with Navy Secretary John Phelan about adding “battleships” with gun-centric armament and heavily armored hulls back into America’s naval force structure. There are immediate questions about the feasibility and practicality of the Navy fielding any sort of battleship, a type of vessel the service has not had in its active inventory since 1992. At the same time, Trump’s comments do touch on real questions about the future of naval guns for major surface warships, especially amid ongoing work globally on railguns, and the potential value of added armor to respond to threats, including cruise missiles and drones.

Trump talked about the prospect of a new battleship for the Navy at an unprecedented all-hands meeting of top U.S. military officers at the Marine Corps’ base in Quantico, Virginia, yesterday. War Secretary Pete Hegseth had called for the gathering and had addressed the attendees first.

“I think we should maybe start thinking about battleships,” Trump said, adding that he had spoken to Secretary Phelan on the matter. “Some people would say, ‘No, that’s old technology.’ I don’t know. I don’t think it’s old technology when you look at those guns.”

“It’s something we’re actually considering, the concept of battleship, nice, six-inch side, solid steel. Not aluminum, aluminum that melts. If it looks at a missile coming at it, [it] starts melting as the missile’s about two miles away,” he continued. “Now those ships, they don’t make them that way anymore, but you look at it, your Secretary [Phelan] likes it, and I’m sort of open to it. And bullets are a lot less expensive than missiles.”

“It’s something we’re seriously considering,” he reiterated. 

It is unclear if Trump was talking about attempting to recommission any of the four ex-Iowa class battleships, which are preserved as museum ships at various locations around the United States, or building new ones. How seriously the Navy is or isn’t looking at a future battleship force of any kind is also not clear.

“The Navy is committed to maintaining a modern and effective fighting force. An updated Battle Force Ship Assessment and Requirements review has been initiated in alignment with the forthcoming National Defense Strategy,” a Navy official told TWZ when asked for more information. “This work is about fielding the right capabilities, with the right numbers and in the right theater. Once force structure decisions are finalized, they will be announced publicly and executed with speed. Until then, internal deliberations will not be previewed.”

The Navy uses the term “Battle Force” to collectively refer to its fleets of aircraft carriers, submarines, major surface combatants, and amphibious warfare ships, as well as combat logistics vessels and some other types of auxiliaries.

In response to additional queries on the matter, the Office of the Secretary of War also redirected us to the Navy.

This is not the first time that Trump has put forward a version of the battleship proposal. A decade ago, speaking from the deck of the former USS Iowa, then-candidate Trump raised the prospect of recommissioning that ship into service should he be elected. Trump won that election, but Iowa remained berthed in the Port of Los Angeles in California, where it still sits today.

On a level, the idea of recommissioning the Iowas reflects past precedent. These were the last battleships built for the Navy, and their main armament initially consisted of nine 16-inch guns, three in each of three turrets, which could hit targets up to around 23 miles away. Each one also had 20 five-inch guns spread across multiple turrets, along with other weapons. The four ships in the class – the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin – were first commissioned into service between 1943 and 1944, and they all served during World War II in the Pacific.

Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin were then decommissioned between 1948 and 1949 as part of post-war drawdowns. Two more ships in the class that were still under construction when Japan surrendered were scrapped entirely.

The Navy recommissioned Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin between 1950 and 1951 to serve in the Korean War. All three of those battleships, along with the USS Missouri, were subsequently decommissioned before 1960. New Jersey briefly returned to service once more between 1968 and 1969, taking part in the Vietnam War.

In the 1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, the four Iowas were put through a deep overhaul and upgrade program before being recommissioned yet again. The modifications most notably included launchers for as many as 32 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and up to 16 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, something worth emphasizing in light of Trump’s remark that “bullets are a lot less expensive than missiles.” At that time, the ships also received new radars, electronic warfare systems, and other improvements, including Mk 15 Phalanx close-in defensive gun systems.

Until Ticonderoga class cruisers with 122 Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells, as well as upgraded Spruance class destroyers with 61-cell Mk 41 arrays, began entering service in the late 1980s, the modified Iowa design had the largest Tomahawk load of any single ship in the Navy’s inventory.

The four battleships continued to serve through the end of the Cold War, before being decommissioned between 1990 and 1992. Missouri and Wisconsin remained in service just long enough to take part in the Gulf War.

In 2015, there was a case to be made, albeit already increasingly remote, that recommissioning at least some of the Iowas one more time might have been feasible. The former Missouri and New Jersey had been stricken from the Navy’s rolls in 1995 and 1999, respectively, but Iowa and Wisconsin remained in mothballs until 2006. After that, they were turned into floating museums, but Congress only allowed that to happen with the express understanding, enshrined in law, that the U.S. military could ask for them back should the President invoke certain provisions of the National Emergencies Act. In 2007, legislators further clarified that this meant, among other things, that “spare parts and unique equipment, such as 16-inch gun barrels and projectiles, if donated,” could also “be recalled if the battleships are returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency.”

A debate about the need, or lack thereof, for naval gunfire support to aid in future amphibious operations had been a central factor in the decision to keep the ships in a regenerative state. This was also later tied into the fate of the Zumwalt class stealth destroyers, also known as DDG-1000s, which we will come back to later.

A decade on now, the prospective cost and time to get any of the former Iowa class battleships serviceable again can only have increased, and likely dramatically so. Rehabilitating their now thoroughly dated steam-powered propulsion systems and training personnel to operate them would present particular challenges. TWZ touched on similar issues years ago amid discussions about recommissioning the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, which first entered service in 1961. The Navy ultimately decided to scrap Kitty Hawk, as well as the ex-USS John F. Kennedy, another ship in its class that had been in mothballs for years.

No country in the world is currently building new warships of a size and with a configuration in line with traditional battleships. Any attempt to do so in the United States would be very costly and manpower intensive. At the end of their final resurrections, the Iowas had over 1,500 crewmen aboard. That is well over five times the crew size of a Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Even assuming automation could cut that number down, making a very large crew commitment to a single surface combatant would be problematic for a Navy that has had trouble in the past meeting recruiting goals.

Beyond all this, in the context of modern naval warfare, there are glaring questions about the basic utility of a very large surface combatant, which would also require a large crew, and that devotes much of its available volume to relatively short-ranged guns. Operating ships like this on a day-to-day basis would be extremely costly and could be otherwise complicated for a U.S. Navy that has struggled to sustain the fleets it has now.

A gun-centric ship would also need to get in very close proximity to use those weapons against any targets at a time when the reach of adversary anti-access and area denial capabilities is only growing. This would only further narrow the scope of operations it could undertake, given that it could easily find itself vastly outranged in many circumstances by threats at sea, ashore, and/or in the air. Such a vessel would already be an obvious high-value target for enemy forces, which would create challenges for more independent operations outside of a larger surface action group.

The future of the very kinds of amphibious operations where naval gunfire support could be most of use is increasingly in question. Since 2020, the U.S. Marine Corps has been engaged in a complete overhaul of force structure centered on new concepts of operations that put significantly less emphasis on deploying via traditional large amphibious warfare ships.

Trump’s comment yesterday that ammunition for naval guns is cheaper per round than a missile is accurate, but this reality does not exist in a vacuum. Missiles have become the dominant naval weapons on larger surface combatants worldwide for attacking targets at sea and on land, as well as in the air, in large part because of the vastly longer reach and precision that they offer over even very large caliber guns. Major surface warships in service today, including in the U.S. Navy, do still typically feature at least one general-purpose main gun, but with a decidedly secondary role to their missile magazines, although these are far smaller than the Iowa class’ main guns. They also generally have arrays of other smaller guns, but for close-in defense.

It is worth noting here that top Navy officials have talked in the past about the need to think about future surface warfare plans outside of the lens of total missile launch capacity, especially as the service’s fleets have contracted in size. A key driver in those discussions has been how to fill the gaps that will come from the retirement of the last of the Ticonderoga class cruisers, now set to come at the end of the decade, which will take hundreds of VLS cells out of service. That being said, large caliber guns historically associated with battleships have not been discussed as any kind of alternative.

Concepts for battleship-like arsenal ships packed with VLS cells, which might also have some degree of secondary gun armament, have been put forward in the past. This rebalancing of capabilities could help just their cost.

We have seen some of this debate play out already in a way with regard to the Zumwalt class stealth destroyers. A pair of 155mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) tucked away inside stealthy turrets, and coupled with specialized long-range rounds, were core features of the finalized DDG-1000 design explicitly intended to meet continued demand for naval gunfire support.

However, the intended ammunition from the AGSs became so costly that the Navy decided not to buy any, rendering the AGSs effectively dead weight. The service is now in the process of stripping at least one of the turrets from each of the three DDG-1000s in order to refit them with the ability to launch Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missiles.

Defense spending drawdowns immediately following the end of the Cold War led the Navy to severely truncate its overall plans for the Zumwalt class, overall. This is why only three of the ships were ever built, one of which still has yet to be commissioned into service. The DDG-1000 program has seen major cost and significant technical issues amid persistent questions about the expected roles and missions of these ships. The USS Zumwalt, the USS Michael Monsoor, and the future USS Lyndon B. Johnson are all currently assigned to a unit charged primarily with research and development and test and evaluation tasks. How much it will cost to keep this tiny fleet of exotic ships operational remains a burning question.

There is a line of development that could offer significant new capability in the naval gun space: railguns. Weapons of this type, which use electromagnets rather than chemical propellants to launch projectiles at very high speeds, hold the promise of offering a new and flexible way to rapidly engage targets at sea, on land, and in the air, and do so at considerable ranges for a gun. Railguns also offer magazine depth and cost-per-round benefits over missiles.

Between 2005 and 2021, the Navy was actively working toward an operational railgun capability. The estimated unit cost of the rounds for that weapon was pegged at around $100,000. In addition to being cheaper than missiles, this was also much less pricey than the rounds the Navy had been developing for the guns on the DDG-1000s, which had soared to some $800,000 per shell before that effort was axed.

The Navy halted work, at least publicly, on its prototype naval railgun in the early 2020s, citing technical hurdles. Planned at-sea testing had been repeatedly pushed back at that point. Development of the ammunition has continued for use in existing 5-inch naval guns, as well as weapon systems on land.

Other countries, including China, have also been pursuing this capability in recent years. Just this year, Japan has made significant strides in this realm, as TWZ has been following closely. This might presage the coming introduction of a new category of gun-armed naval vessels, which some experts and observers have quipped to be something of a second coming of the battleship.

Trump’s remarks yesterday also touched on the fact that battleships like the Iowa class offered a higher degree of physical armor protection than is found on modern surface combatants. In particular, battleships were historically characterized by thick armor ‘belts’ along the outside and/or on the interior of the hull above and below the waterline. The main belts on the Iowas, made of steel, were 13.5 inches thick, and they also had extensive armoring elsewhere.

Though it is also not clear what the President was necessarily referring to specifically when he mentioned “aluminum,” those comments do reflect a still-ongoing debate when it comes to the construction of naval warships. Aluminum and aluminum alloys offer certain advantages in naval shipbuilding, particularly when it comes to weight and cost. However, there has been much discussion over the years about their relative durability, as well as their lower melting point and fire resistance compared to available steels.

Persistent cracking on the aluminum superstructures on Ticonderoga class cruisers played a real role in the Navy’s decision to insist on all-steel construction for the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers. The service’s all-aluminum Independence class Littoral Combat Ships have notably suffered from cracking over the years, as well.

Whether it means battleship-like protection or not, there is a case to be made for renewed focus on passive armoring of surface warships as the maritime threat ecosystem continues to expand and evolve. A modern take on the armor belts of traditional battleships could provide valuable additional layers of defense against anti-ship cruise missiles, including types with specially designed penetrating warheads.

Even more limited additional armor could also provide useful extra protection against attacks involving lower-tier weapons, especially one-way attack drones, which are in increasing use, even by non-state actors. Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen have shown how dangerous drones can be to ships at sea, especially if they are layered in with cruise and ballistic missiles and other munitions. The Houthis have also demonstrated how much pressure this puts on the missile magazines on modern warships. Those threats would only be magnified in higher-volume attacks in any future high-end conflict, such as one on the Pacific against China.

Added battleship-like armor may be effective in shrugging-off many types of anti-ship missile attacks, but it would still have its limits, especially against anti-ship ballistic missiles capable of drilling down into hardened targets from directly above just as a byproduct of the high speeds they reach in the terminal phase of their flights. Any extra armoring would require many design trades and considerations. The added mass would require larger propulsion and mechanical support systems, which would then push the ship to be even larger and more complex. Speed requirements could be relaxed although presumably the ship would have to keep-up with a carrier strike group, which would require it to meet or exceed the speeds of other ships designed to do so.

The U.S. Navy is in the process now of devising the requirements for its next surface warship, a future destroyer currently referred to as DDG(X). There are few things more central to the design of a naval vessel than what armament it should have and what materials should be used in its construction.

At the very end of last year, the Navy turned some heads with pictures from a ceremony marking the end of Capt. Matt Schroeder’s time as head of the DDG(X) program office, and Mr. Jim Dempsey’s taking over of that role. A cake at the event featured a rendering of the ship with no main gun at all on the bow, something that had been present in previous official artwork. Though it was just a cake, there is no indication that the source image came from an unofficial source. The Navy also does not appear to have clarified since then whether or not this reflects a design concept currently under consideration.

Beyond battleships, President Trump has also taken a very vocal interest in Navy ship design, in general, over the years, which could have other impacts on the service’s plans. At the tail-end of his first term, the President said he had personally intervened to turn the design of the Constellation class frigate from “a terrible-looking ship” into “a yacht with missiles on it.”

“I’m not a fan of some of the ships you do. I’m a very aesthetic person, and I don’t like some of the ships you’re doing, aesthetically,” Trump said during another portion of his remarks just today. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s stealth.’ I say that’s an ugly ship.”

Even before he was confirmed to his post, Navy Secretary Phelan had said Trump was also texting him in the middle of the night to complain about what is commonly called “running rust” on American warships.

In 2017, Trump had also suggested that the Navy should ditch electromagnetic catapults for launching aircraft on its Ford class aircraft carriers and go back to using steam-powered types. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) has been plagued by issues over the years, which the Navy has spent considerable resources working to mitigate.

All of this comes as the Navy continues to struggle, broadly, with acquiring and fielding new warships and otherwise modernizing its fleets, as well as sustaining the vessels in its inventory already. The Constellation class frigate program, which is already three years behind schedule and on track to deliver the first ship nearly a decade after awarding the initial contract, has become a particular poster child for these failings. Constellation was supposed to reduce risk and keep costs relatively low by using an in-production design as a starting point, but the ship now only has around 15 percent commonality with its ‘parent,’ the Franco-Italian Fregata Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM), as you can read more about here.

“All of our programs are a mess, to be honest,” Secretary Phelan told members of Congress during a hearing back in June. “Our best-performing one [program] is six months late and 57 percent over budget.”

The Trump administration and Congress have pushed to try to reverse these trends in recent years, including by working to incentivize U.S. shipbuilders and exploring how foreign companies might be able to assist. The Navy has also put increasing emphasis on acquiring larger numbers of smaller vessels, including multiple tiers of uncrewed types, to help bolster its capabilities and operational capacity, while also maximizing available resources. In the meantime, China, in particular, has been surging ahead in naval warship production, as well as the expansion of its capacity to build those vessels, something TWZ has been sounding the alarm on for some time now.

It’s also important to remember that Trump often makes grand pronouncements about potential future military acquisition efforts that do not come to fruition.

Still, while the idea of the Navy operating battleships again is extremely remote, Trump’s influence could emerge in other ways in the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, especially as DDG(X) evolves.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Sept. 4 (UPI) — Virginia-based Leidos is expanding the Royal Navy’s autonomous fleet with a medium-sized craft to support the rapid tactical deployment of commando forces.

Leidos announced it has designed and produced 24 autonomous medium surface-insertion craft that can deploy commando strike teams, light tactical-mobility platforms, offboard systems and medium combat loads from long range.

“Sea Dagger represents a pivotal step in equipping the U.K.Commando Force with the capability to operate with greater agility, survivability and intent in a complex and congested maritime environment,” said Adam Clarke, Leidos U.K. & Europe senior vice president and chief executive officer, in a news release.

“The Leidos design reflects our commitment to delivering resilient, future-ready platforms that can adapt to the complexities of modern warfare, ensuring capability, availability and operational advantage from day one,” Clarke said.

The Sea Dagger can exceed 40 knots and is the first craft of its size to combine speed, range, vehicle delivery and adaptable modular mission systems in a single autonomous craft, according to Leidos.

Leidos developed the Sea Dagger as part of the U.K. Commando Force program, which is a fully enclosed craft that can operate in coastal and shallow-water areas.

The Sea Dagger is a fully enclosed, medium-sized vessel that is equipped with a bow-mounted ramp for the rapid loading and unloading of commando troops and equipment during military operations.

Its design incorporates artificial intelligence, high-tech sensors, weapons and command-and-control capabilities to create an autonomous fastcraft that is the culmination of 30 years of fast-craft development.

The Sea Dagger “helps ensure the [U.K. Commando Force] can respond quickly with the tools, training and systems needed to face the evolving threats and demands of modern conflict,” according to Leidos.

The autonomous maritime platform is similar to those that U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle recently said the U.S. Navy needs to modernize its fleets and address national defense needs.

Caudle told the Senate Armed Services Committee such craft are needed to modernize the Navy during a July 24 confirmation hearing ahead of the admiral being elevated to the nation’s chief of naval operations.

The Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) has rolled out a new pitch for a successor to the Navy’s T-45 Goshawk jet trainers. Interestingly, SNC’s proposal focuses heavily on the ability of its clean-sheet twin-engined Freedom jet design to meet certain carrier training requirements that the Navy has axed from its T-45 replacement plans.

SNC made a formal announcement about putting the Freedom jet forward for the Navy’s forthcoming Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) competition today, around the Tailhook Association’s main annual symposium, at which TWZ is in attendance. SNC has been working on the Freedom design in cooperation with Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI, and also abbreviated TUSAS in Turkish) for years now. Freedom was previously presented as a contender for the U.S. Force’s T-X trainer requirements, a competition Boeing won with what became the T-7A Redhawk. SNC has also teased the aircraft as a possible T-45 replacement in the past. TAI is not mentioned in the current pitch to the Navy.

The Navy currently has just under 200 T-45Cs in service, which are used to train future Navy and Marine aviators. The original T-45A variant, a carrier-based derivative of the British Aerospace (subsequently BAE Systems) Hawk jet trainer, began entering Navy service in 1991. The C model fleet includes a mixture of new-production and upgraded A-model jets with new avionics and glass cockpits. Other upgrades have been added to the jets over the years, as well. A proposed land-based T-45B was never produced.

“SNC’s Freedom Family of Training Systems” is “the only training aircraft capable of carrier touch-and-go and Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) to touchdown with a 16,000 hour airframe life,” a product card handed out at the Tailhook Association symposium declares. “Freedom delivers uncompromising training performance and significant lifecycle cost savings for the U.S. Navy training enterprise.”

Beyond the airframe life, SNC also asserts that Freedom offers a 40 percent lower lifecycle cost than the existing T-45, as well as the ability to perform 35,000 touch-and-goes and/or FCLP landings in that time – something we will come back to. The company also says the jet can fly 30 to 40 percent longer sorties and offers performance “representative” of 4th and 5th generation types, including the ability to pull down to -3 and up to +8 Gs, and reach an angle of attack up to 27 degrees.

“With a focus on efficient aero performance, low lifecycle cost, FCLPs to touchdown and UNS-ownership of Digital Technical Data Package (DPP) rights, Freedom stands ready to elevate naval aviation training standards by allowing the Navy to train the way you fight – zero compromise,” it adds.

“Its innovative design and robust reliability … eliminate the need for unplanned Service Life Extension Programs (SLEP),” according to a separate press release put out today. “Further, Freedom’s US Navy-owned digital design and modular open system architecture ensures that NAVAIR controls future upgrades for the life of the UJTS program including the capability for seamless third-party system integration.”

Of particular note here are the numerous references to touch-and-go and FCLP landings. The Navy’s current naval aviation training cycle utilizing the T-45 involves FCLP landings, which are conducted at airfields on land, but are structured in a way that “simulates, as near as practicable, the conditions encountered during carrier landing operations,” according to the service. This is then followed by touch-and-goes on an actual aircraft carrier, and then actual carrier landings and catapult departures.

In 2020, the Navy publicly disclosed that it was looking to axe requirements for the future UJTS aircraft to be capable of performing actual carrier landings and takeoffs. By 2023, the Navy had moved forward with that decision, but with FCLP and touch-and-go landings still part of the syllabus. Last year, it then emerged that the Navy was also looking to eliminate the FCLP requirement, cited as a key cost and schedule driver for UJTS, something that was confirmed when new requirements were publicly released in March. In the future, naval aviators may not see a carrier until they reach the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) in charge of the aircraft type they have been assigned to fly.

Carrier-capable aircraft have to be designed in fundamentally different ways from their land-based counterparts, especially when it comes to the landing gear, which is typically heavily reinforced. Carrier landings are substantially harder on aircraft, overall, given the need to get down quickly in a very confined landing space that can be moving independently, coupled with the stress of catching an arrestor wire. Launch via catapult imparts additional stresses on airframes that land-based aircraft do not experience. Sustained operations at sea also require additional hardening against corrosion from saltwater exposure. All of this, in turn, can also make aircraft designed to operate from carriers more complex and expensive than similarly capable types that only need to fly from bases ashore.

Eliminating various carrier landing requirements immediately opens up a host of additional options for a new jet trainer, which could also be lower cost and lower risk. At the same time, there has already been criticism and concern for years now about the potential downstream impacts from cutting live training events from the naval aviator pipeline that cannot be fully recreated in any sort of virtualized environment.

SNC’s proposal taps into this entire debate and is presented as offering a hedge against the Navy changing course again in the future.

“It is clear to SNC that since early 2020, the Navy has been considering compromising its long-standing and important requirement to train with FCLP-to-landing,” the company told Aviation Week. “It is important to the Freedom Team that the U.S. Navy has an option to continue its essential FCLP training and avoid the unnecessary risk and cost associated with foregoing that requirement in the [Chief of Naval Air Training] syllabus.”

“As a clean-sheet design focused on the UJTS mission, the design features for FCLP-to-touchdown are minimal and affordable,” SNC further noted. “SNC believes FCLP-to-touchdown should be, at a minimum, a scored objective in the UJTS competition.”

Beyond the specifics of the Freedom design, it is certainly interesting to see a company openly buck a customer’s stated requirements. It does look set to make SNC’s proposal for UJTS distinct from the other competitors, which include a navalized version of the T-7 from Boeing, the TF-50N from Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), and the M-346N offered by Textron and Leonardo. The TF-50N is based on KAI’s T-50, a losing entrant in the Air Force’s T-X competition, but an increasingly popular type worldwide (including in its FA-50 light combat jet form). In July, Textron and Leonardo also unveiled a new pitch to the Navy involving the M-346N, but rebranded as a Beechcraft product. Beechcraft is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Textron.

Boeing’s T-7, the Lockheed/KAI TF-50N, and the Textron/Leonardo M-346N “are not designed to take that type of beating [from FCLP landings and other carrier training], and would require re-engineering to the point where some industry officials have said UJTS would become an engineering and manufacturing development program,” Aviation Week noted in a report last year.

It is worth noting here that the Navy had previously wanted to phase out the T-45 by 2018 and that the current UJTS plan has itself been delayed. The goal had been to kick off a formal competition last year and pick a winner in 2026. The UJTS contract award date is now projected to come sometime in 2027.

“SNC has worked to support the Navy for more than 40 years and the Freedom Trainer program represents the culmination of our decades of experience and unwavering commitment to safety and superiority for the U.S. Navy,” Jon Piatt, executive vice president of SNC, said in a statement today. “We are proud to leverage our deep expertise and innovative spirit to deliver a training solution that not only meets the Navy’s current needs but also anticipates future demands. This is a testament to our dedication to providing cutting-edge technology and superior performance for our nation’s sons and daughters who will train as naval aviators for generations.”

It remains to be seen what the Navy will pick as the successor to its T-45. With SNC’s Freedom in the running, there is a potential that the winner of the UJTS competition will still have at least some capacity to perform FCLP landings, whether the Navy requires pilots in training to perform them or not.

Contact the author: [email protected]