US Navy Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS)

TomcatViP said:
Very respectfully also, if The M-346 wasn´t able to meet USAF sustained g-force KPI, it would be doubtful to have them succeed in this competition without an important redesign of that airframe (I would say stretch it to lower G trim drag).
Click to expand...
The Air Force wanted 6.5+g sustained with an 80% fuel load. The Navy only wants 3.1 sustained at 60% fuel load without buffeting. Should be much easier to achieve even if they have to beef up the airframe to meet the other requirements. And allegedly they found a flight profile able to meet the USAF requirement.

I'd be more concerned about how much weight the structure and undercarriage is going to gain and what that does to every thing else (which includes the g requirement, of course).
 
Hi folks, I know the proposal "Leonardo M-346N" for the Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) program was already posted in the Leonardo M-346 thread, but I will post the lasted article from TWZ here in this topic. As we all know, this proposal is not carrier-capable. That means no beefed upped landing gear and no tail hook, so it will be unable to perform catapult launches from or arrested landings, neither on carriers nor on land bases. Carrier approaches will be practiced from land bases and in the simulator. If the approach is right, the student pilot will be waved off.
Source:
www.twz.com

M-346N Pitched To Replace Navy’s T-45 Goshawk Jet Trainers

The Navy has meanwhile decided that its new jet trainer will not have to operate from aircraft carriers. The Navy has meanwhile decided that its new jet trainer will not have to operate from aircraft carriers.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Video:
View: https://youtu.be/dBD1vlIYAwU?si=UIEKJ75L-EYo2xpe
 
www.flightglobal.com

US Navy ditches field carrier landing requirement for T-45 Goshawk replacement

The US Navy (USN) expects to sign a contract within less than two years to begin replacing its fleet of Boeing T-45 Goshawk jet trainers, after issuing its latest request for information (RFI) linked to the requirement on 31 March.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

RFP will be issued by Dec. 2025 and contract award by Jan. 2027. About a year to evaluate, which is actually brought forward compared to what envisioned last year following delays due to indecision concerning touch down requirements.

Most notably, there are no more carrier landing sink-rate touch down requirements, even for FCLP and let alone deck-based touch-and-go. Probably to save time and cost, as well as give more opportunities to some candidates but I'm still quite puzzled about it.
 
zebedee said:
Look who's popped their hat into the ring... Stavatti... I'm not sure they count as a 'Start-Up' to be honest... pipe-dream, fantasy maybe...
Zeb
Click to expand...

Obscure start-up wants to compete for the US Navy’s new trainer jet
Click to expand...

In fact this sums up the situation quite nicely since years, didn't they even proposed for the NGAD! ... but did they ever build anything flyable in hardware status or are they only creating fancy CGs?
 
Deino said:
In fact this sums up the situation quite nicely since years, didn't they even proposed for the NGAD! ... but did they ever build anything flyable in hardware status or are they only creating fancy CGs?
Click to expand...

They seem to have built travel cases for musical instruments. That's it. No aerospace hardware at all.
 
zebedee said:
To be honest even the cgi is pretty rough...

Personally i would lump them in the same basket as the duPont Aerospace and MysteryJet/Jetcraft ventures...

Zeb
Click to expand...
And ARCA lol
 
There are quite significant differences:
- Looks smaller
- Nose contour
- Swept wings
- Fuselage cross section that makes away with central Sensor bay
- Inlets with smaller boundary layer slots
- Not a full Design at this stage. What we are given to see are very basic component design (see the landing gear despite it being a major key design point, as advertised by the design goals).
- Braced for 9g (I am not sure Scorpion has that much)
- Less powerful engines (~3000lbf Vs 4000)

1755870255772.png
Textron Scorpion

To compare with : https://www.sncorp.com/capabilities/freedom/
 
Last edited:
They used the Buckeye for 50 years, but now they want to replace the Goshawk after a little more than 30 years?

I don't get it. They could refurbish the airframes or get new ones, equip them with glass cockpits and done. In fact, refurbishing alone should suffice, for they could do all but carrier training with an ordinary (USAF) jet trainer.

I strongly doubt that getting an all-new aircraft into service (all-new airframes, engines) will cost less and I also doubt that training success will be much better, particularly compared to keeping Goshawks for carrier training only with a more modern land-based jet trainer doing most of the advanced training.
 
red admiral said:
I'm amazed that SNC's concept isn't based on the Textron Scorpion given the similarities
Click to expand...
The similarity is probably because I designed both, but these are completely different airplanes with different sets of design requirements. There is zero IP transfer between the two.
 
Last edited:
lastdingo said:
They used the Buckeye for 50 years, but now they want to replace the Goshawk after a little more than 30 years?

I don't get it. They could refurbish the airframes or get new ones, equip them with glass cockpits and done. In fact, refurbishing alone should suffice, for they could do all but carrier training with an ordinary (USAF) jet trainer.
Click to expand...
By the time the replacement cycle finishes the aircraft will be over 40 years old. The T-45C also already has a glass cockpit.

A number of other operators of the Hawk are alao looking to or have replaced their fleets so it shouldn't surprise that the USN is also keen to move to a new type.
lastdingo said:
I strongly doubt that getting an all-new aircraft into service (all-new airframes, engines) will cost less and I also doubt that training success will be much better, particularly compared to keeping Goshawks for carrier training only with a more modern land-based jet trainer doing most of the advanced training.
Click to expand...
The minute you have two fleets of aircraft it is costing you a lot more to sustain. There is no way the USN will keep both. It might cost more in initial replacement but will likely have lower costs over the next 30 years compared to continuing to operate the T-45.

The USN also doesn't need to do carrier training anymore as current and future airframes are so much easier to land on the boat compared to previous generations.
 
Machdiamond said:
The similarity is probably because I designed both, but these are completely different airplanes with different sets of design requirements. There is zero IP transfer between the two.
Click to expand...
In detail there is plenty of difference, but I was really struck by the configuration layout similarities and some of the external lines. Quite a family resemblence / design style.
 
Scott Kenny said:
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Yeah, suuuuuuuure they don't.
Click to expand...
if you don't like it take it up with the USN, they are the ones that defined or in this case relaxed that requirement. technology moves on and this is a simple example of that.
 
Ozair said:
if you don't like it take it up with the USN, they are the ones that defined or in this case relaxed that requirement. technology moves on and this is a simple example of that.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the USN's batting average regarding requirements has been rather poor of late...
 
A new Aermacchi derivative model named M346N is now flying with Textron/Beechcraft in the US:

theaviationist.com

Beechcraft M-346N Begins U.S. Showcase Tour for Navy UJTS

Textron Aviation Defense will showcase the Beechcraft M-346N’s capabilities as a “ready-now” solution for the U.S. Navy Undergraduate Jet Training System.
theaviationist.com theaviationist.com

Notice the last part summarizing the RFI:
The RFI then moves to suitability and performance attributes, beginning with the capability to maintain fixed Angle of Attack (AoA) approach targeting 3.25 degree glideslope while maintaining field of view during FCLPs. As for the performance, the Navy is looking for an aircraft capable of a speed of at least Mach 0.9/450-500 KIAS, sustained AoA over 20 deg, sustained load factor of at least 6 G, operating ceiling of at least 41,000 ft and turn rate of at least 12 deg/sec.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if the 346 is not still underperforming in some of these KPP.
 
Last edited:
Nice views of the synthetic training environment with simulated enemy Aircraft Carrier and (Chinese?) Flankers.

Notice that Aermacchi and Textron took the time to integrate a serious ladder to access safely the rear cockpit repeatedly. Even if clearly non-transportable by the aircraft itself, the willingness to offer a safe access to IP is commendable.

1760180474180.png
 
Last edited:

U.S. Navy Sets New Trainer Fleet Size Target | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Navy wants to field 216 new training aircraft to replace its T-45 Goshawk fleet.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
The service on Dec. 15 posted a new draft request for information (RFI) for its Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS), which further outlined the Navy’s schedule for the new aircraft. The Navy wants the total aircraft fleet of 216, with an initial low-rate initial production lot starting with seven to start and growing to a full-rate production of 25 aircraft per year.

Under the new schedule, the Navy will release its formal RFP in February 2026, a slight delay because of the government shutdown. A contract award is expected in the second quarter of 2027. That award will be for engineering and manufacturing development of UJTS and procurement of the first production lot. The solicitation says the first low-rate initial production (LRIP) delivery will be to Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi.
Click to expand...
 
The worst of all is that the USN is largely the main training center for NATO Carrier training... No arrested landings for US naval aviators would certainly means joining the fleet butt naked also for their NATO partners!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom