Tailhook 2025

U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever, commonly referred to as the service’s “Air Boss,” is still “eagerly awaiting” a new F/A-XX next-generation carrier-based fighter despite the uncertainty now swirling around that program. Cheever already sees a key boost in capability for the Navy’s carrier air wings on the horizon in the form of the MQ-25 Stingray tanker drone, which could leverage its very long range to perform other missions in the future, as TWZ has previously explored in detail.

Cheever, whose formal title is commander of Naval Air Forces, talked to TWZ‘s Jamie Hunter about F/A-XX and MQ-25 on the sidelines of the Tailhook Association’s annual symposium last Friday.

F/A-XX is “ready for down-select, to which of the vendors you would go with, and we’re just excited,” Cheever said. For “Naval Aviation, fourth, fifth, and sixth-generation on an aircraft carrier is a phenomenal capability and absolutely needed for air superiority, which allows [for] sea control.”

The Navy was reportedly close to announcing the winner of the F/A-XX competition in March, hot on the heels of the U.S. Air Force choosing Boeing’s F-47 as the sixth-generation fighter component of its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) effort. Boeing and Northrop Grumman are understood to be the remaining contenders for F/A-XX.

However, in June, the Pentagon announced as part of the rollout of its Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal that it was moving to complete initial development work related to F/A-XX, but then freeze the program indefinitely. The stated reason for this decision was to avoid competition for resources that could hurt the USAF’s F-47. There has been pushback on the concerns that America’s aviation industry can support two sixth-generation fighter programs simultaneously, including from Boeing.

“They [the Navy] haven’t made a decision yet. So that’s what the down-select is. We’re waiting for the decision, and I’m not the decision maker. I’m just eagerly awaiting,” Vice Adm. Cheever told TWZ last week.

Cheever’s comments add to the murkiness that currently surrounds F/A-XX. In recent months, other senior Navy officials have voiced support publicly for continuing with the next-generation carrier-based fighter program. Members of Congress have also been making moves to keep F/A-XX moving ahead as planned in the upcoming Fiscal Year 2026 budget.

“Nothing in the Joint Force projects combat power from the sea as a Carrier Strike Group, which at the heart has a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN). To maintain this striking power, the CVN must have an air wing that is comprised of the most advanced strike fighters,” Adm. Daryl Caudle, Chief of Naval Operations, the Navy’s top officer, wrote in response to a question about F/A-XX ahead of his confirmation hearing in July. “Therefore, the ability to maintain air superiority against peer competitors will be put at risk if the Navy is unable to field a 6th Generation strike fighter on a relevant timeline. Without a replacement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler, the Navy will be forced to retrofit 4th generation aircraft and increase procurement of 5th generation aircraft to attempt to compete with the new 6th generation aircraft that the threat is already flying.”

“The Navy has a validated requirement for carrier-based 6th generation aircraft, and it is critical that we field that capability as quickly as possible to give our warfighters the capabilities they need to win against a myriad of emerging threats,” he added.

The Navy has now long presented F/A-XX as critical to ensuring its carrier air wings can continue to project power in the face of ever-growing threats, especially in any future high-end fight, such as one against China in the Pacific. The aforementioned MQ-25 Stingray also remains a top priority in this regard.

“To me, it [MQ-25] is the key that unlocks manned-unmanned teaming on the aircraft carrier. So once we get MQ-25 flying, and it’s supposed to fly in 2025, that is the big thing,” Vice Adm. Cheever told TWZ at Tailhook. “Now, I unlock all of the manned-unmanned teaming that can happen on the aircraft carrier in the future.”

“If you think about it, I have all these strike fighters that are configured as tankers, and I can free them all up to be strike fighters again, instead of tankers,” Cheever added. “And that is just that is an exponential increase in our strike and fighting capability and capacity.”

What the Air Boss is referring to here is the current use of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with buddy refueling stores to provide organic tanker capacity to the Navy’s carrier air wings. The Navy has estimated in the past that 20 to 30 percent of carrier-based Super Hornet sorties are taken up by aerial refueling. In addition to eliminating the need for Super Hornets to perform this function, the MQ-25 also offers additional benefits in terms of its own range and on-station time, which will significantly extend the air wing’s operational reach.

As noted, the goal now is for the MQ-25 to fly for the first time this year, a key milestone for a program that has suffered delays and cost growth. The current hope is to reach initial operational capability (IOC) with the Stingray sometime in Fiscal Year 2027, around three years later than originally expected.

On top of being tankers, the baseline MQ-25s are set to be delivered with a secondary intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability. The Stingray’s baked-in capabilities, especially its range, open doors to the drones, or future variants or derivatives thereof, taking on a host of other missions, including kinetic strike and airborne early warning, as TWZ has laid out in-depth in this past feature.

“It’s got a lot of potential,” Vice Adm. told TWZ last week. “[It’s got] huge range.”

“Absolutely,” Cheever said when asked specifically about the MQ-25 taking on additional roles in the future, though he did not elaborate.

In terms of MQ-25 as a springboard to adding more uncrewed capabilities in the Navy carrier air wings, “the future of Collaborative Combat Aircraft, and that kind of thing, is TBD [to be decided], still to come. That work’s still to be done, and there’s a lot of folks in that space,” Cheever added.

By the Navy’s own admission, it is following the lead of the Air Force, and the U.S. Marine Corps to a lesser extent, when it comes to plans for future Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) ‘loyal wingman’ type drones, and is looking to leverage the work those services are doing now. The Navy has previously outlined one vision for future CCAs that are low-cost enough to be “consumable,” and expended as one-way attack munitions or targets for use in training or test evaluation activities at the end of relatively short service lives. The service has also expressed a “strong interest” in the MQ-28 Ghost Bat, originally developed by Boeing’s subsidiary in Australia for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). You can read more about the current state of the Navy’s CCA plans in TWZ‘s earlier reporting from this year’s Tailhook symposium.

Overall, Cheever’s comments at Tailhook underscore that the Navy is still pressing to proceed with F/A-XX as a critical part of its larger plans to modernize its carrier air wings.

Contact the author: [email protected]

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]

Naval aviators need to be able to trust any future drone wingmen as much as their human counterparts, a U.S. Navy strike fighter tactics instructor has told TWZ. This echoes past comments from members of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Marine Corps, and is set to be a critical factor in turning the Navy’s still very nascent and evolving crewed-uncrewed teaming vision into a reality.

Navy Lt. Cdr. Mark “Tugboat” Jbeily talked about ‘loyal wingman’ type drones, now commonly called Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), and crewed-uncrewed teaming, and how they factor into his service’s plans for future carrier air wings, with our Jamie Hunter at the Tailhook Association’s annual symposium today. Jbeily is a career F/A-18 pilot and TOPGUN graduate currently assigned as an instructor to the Strike Fighter Weapons School, Pacific (SFWSPAC) at Naval Air Station Lemoore in California.

“I think, currently, we’re [the Navy] still figuring out exactly what the specific type of [CCA] platform is going to look like, how it’s going to integrate into the air wing, [and] how we’re going to use it for maximal advantage,” Jbeily explained. “But I think some common themes … are going to be consistent regardless of the specific platform, range, vendor, whatever it is.”

“You know, the wings on your chest are a sign of trust, ultimately, right? They represent that you’ve been through an established training pipeline. You’re going to behave in a predictable manner, in a standardized manner. We can trust you with this awesome power of an F-18 or F-35,” he continued. “How do we take that concept of trust and now bring it to collaborative autonomy, or manned-unmanned teaming? How do we train to get them comfortable so, in the same way that if you and I were flying, if you were my wingman, I would know you’re going to behave in a repeatable, consistent [manner]?”

“I can have insight on your behaviors. We can do a thorough debrief about why did you do this or why did you do that?” Jbeily added. “And the key, I think, is going to be, regardless of the specific platform, how do we build that element of trust, and how do we get folks comfortable to be able to use it in a combat scenario if we have to.”

The video below from Collins Aerospace offers a vision of what a future conflict involving U.S. CCAs, including ones launched from carriers, teamed up with crewed fighters might look like.

When it comes to advanced autonomous capabilities, whether they be integrated into drone wingman or another platform, the essential need for trust has now been a common refrain from members of the U.S. military for years. This trust will be just as critical during routine training and other day-to-day activities involving crewed-uncrewed teams as it will be during any future combat scenario, for exactly the kinds of reasons that Lt. Cdr. Jbeily cited today.

At a separate conference earlier this year, a U.S. Marine Corps aviation officer highlighted how just making sure that CCA-type drones do not collide with their crewed companions remains a challenge. TWZ noted at the time that this underscored the many basic problems still to be solved before CCAs can be regularly deployed, launched, recovered, supported, and otherwise operated at all, let alone employed tactically.

In speaking with TWZ today, Lt. Cdr. Jbeily further talked about how CCAs could be incorporated in training in the future using what are called live, virtual, constructive (LVC) concepts. As the name indicates, LVC training blends together real and simulated elements in real-world and virtualized settings using a mixture of systems networked together, as you can read about in more detail here. LVC concepts are already regularly used as part of research, development, test, and evaluation activities related to advanced uncrewed capabilities. In line with his comments on trust, Jbeily put particular emphasis on the need for the live component.

“We already, within the Navy, have an established process of, if you take, for example, live-fires for missiles, air-to-air missiles, folks will go down to our test and evaluation ranges and actually live employ a real missile against some sort of drone or something,” he said. “And that is meant to build that comfort, so, ultimately, when game day comes, you’re not going to rise to another level, you’re going to fall back to your basic level of training.”

“I think that when you think about the Live, Virtual, Constructive piece of this, there’s absolutely going to be a component, because you’re never going to see these collaborative combat aircraft, potentially, right? They may be dozens or hundreds of miles away, even,” he continued. “So, there’s got to be a constructive bit, but I think, ultimately, if we want to get that comfort level of having another piece of metal in the sky that you either join on, or you trust to employ weapons, or you trust to execute your mission command, there has to be some element of live flight. What the specific combination will be and where we can realize optimizations, I think, is still kind of to be determined, but it’s a place that I think we can realize gains on both ends, both the live and the sort of virtual, constructive piece.”

On a broader level, the Navy still has yet to settle on a clear vision for how it will incorporate CCAs into its future carrier air wings and what forms those drones might take, as a result. In the past, the service has put forward a concept for lower-cost carrier-capable drone wingmen in the past that envisions them being “consumable,” and expended as one-way kamikaze drones or aerial targets for training or testing use at the end of relatively short service lives. In recent years, the Navy has also openly talked about a more general goal to eventually see the aircraft in its carrier air wings become at least 60 percent uncrewed.

In addition, the Navy is party to a tri-service CCA agreement with the Air Force and the Marines, but, by its own admission, is trailing behind those services on all fronts. The Air Force currently has two CCAs – General Atomics YFQ-42A and Anduril’s YFQ-44A – under development, and is already looking toward future designs. The Marines are in the process of transforming their work with the XQ-58A Valkyrie into an operational capability.

The Navy’s current stated focus is on getting the MQ-25 Stingray tanker drone into service, which it hopes will lay the foundation for adding more uncrewed aircraft to its carrier air wings. The service has also expressed a strong interest in Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat, a loyal wingman-type drone.

“I think right now, within the experimental community, the VXs [air test and evaluation squadrons], there’s a lot of discussion there,” Lt. Cdr. Jbeily told TWZ today about what might be on the horizon drone-wise for the Navy. “I think that the Air Force has potentially taken the forefront on this with their Collaborative Combat Aircraft program.”

The Air Force’s CCA program does appear to be the leading effort in this vein across the services, as you can read about more in TWZ‘s past reporting.

“I think that those decisions about what we’re going to buy, when we’re going to buy it, are a little bit above my level, but I know that the Navy is still deeply interested in looking in terms of how we can, for the purpose of maintaining warfighter advantage, how we can keep the Navy and the Air Wing relevant with this sort of precision, mass and collaborative autonomy,” Jbeily added. “[The] Air Boss’s big initiative has been MQ-25 in ’25 to get sort of that specific aerial refueling platform, [to] lessen the burden on Super Hornets, which currently perform the aerial fueling role. So I think what that’ll end up being is a good model for how do we integrate autonomous systems into the air wing and ensure that we can get folks comfortable to accomplish these missions.”

The “Air Boss” that Jbeily is referring to here is Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever, head of Naval Air Forces. “MQ-25 in ’25” refers to the goal for the Stingray to fly for the first time before the end of this year, a milestone that has already been much delayed, reflecting larger schedule slips and cost growth for the program.

“There’s so much sense of urgency and purpose amongst our junior officers who recognize the peer competition that we’re in and recognize the role that the Navy will play in providing peace through deterrence, and we want to prepare for the future fight,” the strike fighter tactics instructor told TWZ today, speaking more generally. “That urgency that you see amongst the junior officers is focused on being the change and bringing the change, and not simply accepting business as usual.”

“We just want to keep the carrier relevant and effective, and that’s the energy that’s shared amongst junior officers.”

As noted, the Navy does see drones as a key element of its future carrier air wings. Ensuring that there is trust in those uncrewed aircraft to perform, especially among the junior officers who will be flying alongside them, will be of vital importance.

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]