SNCs

The Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) has shared new insights with TWZ into its proposal to replace the U.S. Navy’s T-45 Goshawk jet trainers. The company announced yesterday that it was putting forward its twin-engine Freedom jet, the only clean-sheet design currently known to be in the running, to meet the Navy’s future Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) needs.

Our Jamie Hunter had a chance to talk in depth about the Freedom jet with Ray “Fitz” Fitzgerald, Senior Vice President of Strategy and Technology at SNC, and Derek Hess, Vice President of Strategy at SNC, at the Tailhook Association’s main annual symposium, which kicked off yesterday.

As part of its rollout yesterday, SNC had already highlighted the Freedom jet’s 16,000-hour airframe life and ability to perform 35,000 touch-and-goes and/or Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) landings in that time, which we will come back to later on. The company also says Freedom has a 40-percent lower lifecycle cost than the existing T-45, as well as the ability to fly 30- to 40-percent longer sorties. In terms of performance, SNC says the jet is “representative” of 4th and 5th generation types, being able to pull down to -3 and up to +8 Gs, and reach an angle of attack up to 27 degrees.

“The advantages that we’re bringing to the table is that it’s a clean sheet design, which means that we are tailoring this exactly to the Navy’s needs. So, we talk about, train like you fight, zero compromises,” Fitzgerald said. “Every aircraft in the world has its compromises, but the Navy is special.”

“So, the three things that we’re trying to get across as a value proposition for the Navy, number one is over the entire life cycle of the of the aircraft, the entire life of the aircraft, is a significant cost savings,” he explained. “This plane was designed around two engines. These two engines have 20 million hours of flight time on them, well sustained out there in the world.”

The Freedom jet is designed around a pair of Williams FJ44-4M turbofan engines. FJ44 variants are in widespread use globally, especially on business jets, such as members of the popular Cessna Citation family. Having two engines also offers an additional margin of safety over single-engine types. The Navy’s existing T-45 jet trainer is notably a single-engine aircraft.

The “number two value proposition is that we are the only competitor right now, and this is very important, that can do field carrier landing practice, FCLP-to-touchdown,” he added. “Very important for the Navy. You have to train like you fight. And every time you land on an aircraft carrier, you’re flying it into the deck. You’re not flaring or pulling throttles back. FCLP-to-touchdown is critical.”

FCLP landings, which are part of the Navy’s current curriculum for training naval aviators, are conducted at bases on land, but are structured to mimic as closely as possible the experience of touching down on a real carrier. In March, the Navy publicly released new requirements for the UJTS effort, which axed the need for its future jet trainers to be capable of performing FCLP training. Years ago now, the service had already announced that it was eliminating the requirement for the jets to be able to actually land on or take off from carriers, as T-45s do now. If the Navy does not reverse course, these controversial changes are set to fundamentally alter how the service trains new naval aviators. They 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.

SNC’s Fitzgerald also took the time to point out here that the 16,000-hour airframe life SNC says the Freedom jet will offer is double the Navy’s current stated requirements for UJTS.

“The third point in the value [proposition] is the fact that when we designed this, and [if] we are selected by the Navy, we are handing the Navy the entire digital package for this aircraft,” he continued. “We want to have the ability to compete in the future for future changes, but the Navy will have the data. They can do upgrades, modifications, whatever. They’re going to own it [the data rights] on onset.”

Fitzgerald claimed that this is the first time in the history of U.S. defense contracting where an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) has offered this level of data rights, and described it as an “absolute game-changer.”

The core elements of SNC’s proposal are reflected in the basic design of the Freedom jet.

“I think it is a natural tendency to go, ‘how do you replace the T-45?’ That’s not the question we had ourselves,” Hess, the Vice President of Strategy at SNC, said. “We pride ourselves on delivering, solving tough problems for our customers, in this case, the U.S. Navy. So what we designed this aircraft around is better quality training for UJTS at a lower lifecycle cost than they’re currently paying.”

“The landing gear is a dead giveaway that this was always envisioned for the naval training mission,” he continued. For “FCLPs, using this trailing link landing gear is a huge design cycle.”

A trailing link or trailing arm landing gear is specifically designed to help smooth the impact of landing and/or operating from rougher fields.

One of “the other things that we did was put a cockpit in this that is a thoroughly modern cockpit that can display things like an F-35 or an F-18,” Hess continued. “And then we gave it an eight G capable platform and a 27 degree high AOA [angle of attack] maneuvering capability. And we did that because we just avoided the supersonic and transonic region.”

“If you try and do something that gets up into that transonic region, you compromise on what your wing is, and therefore you can’t get the performance,” he explained. “And so that’s why you need a giant engine that pushes you through the drag rise of what a normal, typical fighter wing is. This is a much higher aspect wing, and we get the G onset rate, the sustained turn rates, and maneuvers that you need to train young men and women to become naval fighter pilots.”

“So all of the modeling that we have done in the MBSE [model-based systems engineering] and fluid dynamics world has been borne out by our wind tunnel testing and all those kinds of things. And we’re always a degree or two conservative,” Hess also said. “For example, this is a 32-degree angle of attack capability that we tame down to 27 degrees to make sure that it has level one handling qualities. The other thing is, this aircraft, this wing, builds all the lift through conventional means. Where you have other aircraft that have large chines on them, and that is what you need when you get into the transonic region, because your wing can’t produce that lift, so you do vortex lift over those large chines, and that’s, frankly, where you end up with problems in handling qualities, is because you can’t control the shedding of the vortices and things of that nature.”

“And it becomes a watershed there, right? So when you start with the chines, that the drag coefficient on that becomes huge, which means you need a bigger motor to dig that out, which means higher fuel – you know, just boom, boom, boom. It just bespoke,” Fitzgerald also interjected. “We started with the motor, went with the wing, went with the training capability up front, and really thought this through.”

In addition to its core shaping, Freedom’s wing will feature leading-edge slats and flaperons, as well.

Hess and Fitzgerald were responding here to a specific question about the use of digital modeling in the Freedom’s design. While digital engineering has proven to be useful across the aerospace industry, there has been growing skepticism about the full extent of the benefits it offers in recent years. Boeing’s T-7A Redhawk jet trainer for the U.S. Air Force had been a notable poster child for digital engineering and design tools, but developmental troubles with that aircraft have added to a growing view that the technologies are not as revolutionary as many had hoped. A navalized version of the T-7 is also a contender to replace the Navy’s T-45s.

“I really think it is important to say you don’t need a fighter to learn how to fly a fighter,” Hess added. “You need something that gives you all the tools to practice everything you want to and then move the graduates who are more prepared to get into those gray jets after graduating in this airplane.”

“You can complete a lot more training in this jet at a much lower cost per hour,” Fitzgerald, the SNC Senior Vice President of Strategy and Technology, further noted. “And then as you step into the fleet, you’re not having to burn the very exquisite, expensive aircraft to do very mundane training tasks.”

It is important to reiterate here that SNC’s proposal, overall, stands in contrast with the Navy’s currently stated requirements, especially when it comes to the matter of FCLP capability. The requirements changes, which have notably come on the back of Navy investments in virtualized training and automated carrier landing capabilities like Magic Carpet, have significantly opened the field offerings based on existing land-based jet trainer designs. In addition to Boeing’s navalized T-7, Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) have been offering the TF-50N, while Textron and Leonardo are pitching what is now branded as the Beechcraft M-346N. Both of those aircraft are based on in-production designs with significant global user bases already.

“You want … your – I call it your lizard brain – to be trained to do the things you are going to do when things go south on you, because the way a [former Air Force pilot] like me lands an airplane is 180 degrees different than a carrier guy,” Hess said in talking about why SNC has made FCLP capability a focus of its proposal. “I touch down, go to idle. He touches down, slams down, goes to MIL [maximum non-afterburner thrust], and is ready to take off again.”

“This is why FCLPs are so important,” Fitzgerlad, a former naval aviator himself, added. “On that dark, stormy night, and everything’s just going bad, you rely on muscle memory, right? So when you think about muscle memory, as a carrier aviator, you’re on speed, so you’re on the right AOA, so the hook and the gear are the right AOA to trap, and everything hits at the same time. If I’m at a slow AOA, it means my nose is up, which means the hook grabs first and slams you down. You can break a jet like that. If I’m at a fast AOA, the nose is lower, hook is up, you skip across, and you go flying again, which is not good either.”

“So every single time we’re doing an FCLP, as soon as you fly into the deck, you crash into that deck, he [the Air Force pilot] goes idle, and [says] ‘I want a nice flare, soft thing.’ We [naval aviators] fly it into the deck, and as soon as we touch it, it’s full power, 180 out,” he continued. “So that muscle memory, I mean, it’s what will save lives.”

SNC’s Hess also argued that if the Navy’s future jet trainers do not allow for FCLP landings, it will put additional more onus on FRSs and operational units to do that training. That, in turn, could take time away from other priorities and increase wear and tear on the Navy’s fighter fleets.

In addition, while SNC is a firmly established name when it comes to the special mission aircraft conversion and modification business, especially for U.S. government customers, Freedom is its only foray to date into actually building an aircraft from scratch. The jet first emerged from a partnership with Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI, and also abbreviated TUSAS in Turkish), but SNC has been working on it independently for some years now.

“The Navy hasn’t really put out hard requirements yet. We’re expecting a draft RFP [request for proposals] soon, this fall, with a hard RFP by winter. That’s the latest we’ve heard from the Navy,” Fitzgerald said. “I think they’re still trying to figure out what their hard requirements are, which is why we’re here, trying to say, ‘Hey, make sure the aperture is open enough so that we can compete,’ because that’s what we want to do. That’s all we’re asking for is a shot at the table.”

Altogether, the Navy’s forthcoming UJTS competition is shaping up to be hotly contested, as well as an important watershed moment for how the service trains new naval aviators going forward.

Contact the author: [email protected]

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]