US Navy Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS)

GTX said:
Look up MAGIC CARPET
Click to expand...
I am extremely familiar with it. From CATCC, every mode of approach, and Naval Aviation Training. Our students NEED to practice CQ at the SNA level.

Edit:
From the schoolhouse level, the amount of money that could be wasted not getting someone carrier qualled prior to the FRS is going to cause huge headaches. Shit breaks on the boat all the time, you need fallbacks.
 
Last edited:
https://aviationweek.com/defense/li...teams-northrop-grumman-ga-us-navy-trainer-bid
Sierra Nevada Company has brought on two major companies to pitch a new-build trainer aircraft for the U.S. Navy, as it continues to pitch the service on the merits of conducting carrier-representative landings with the future jet.

SNC will team with Northrop Grumman and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. for its Freedom aircraft as it competes for the Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS)—the competition to replace the T-45 Goshawk fleet. SNC, typically an integrator as opposed to an original equipment manufacturer, will need the production capacity that the two other companies can provide.
Click to expand...
 
From the AW&ST article - "Removing the requirement for unflared landings avoids potentially expensive and time-consuming work on the competing aircraft that are not designed to take the punishment."

It's ALWAYS about the money. With this, it is my opinion that the USN has adopted a "pay later" philosophy for manned platforms. Even if manned platforms have automatic landing software, a bullet through the electronic brain means the human will have to do so. Not knowing how will likely be a bad thing.
 
yasotay said:
a bullet through the electronic brain means the human will have to do so.
Click to expand...

All current and future USN tactical jets are unstable FBW designs. A "bullet through the electronic brain" i.e. loss of flight control systems means the aircraft is unflyable. Immediate ejection is the only option left in such a scenario. Provided the escape systems still work and the crew hasn't g-LOC-ed.
 
eagle said:
All current and future USN tactical jets are unstable FBW designs. A "bullet through the electronic brain" i.e. loss of flight control systems means the aircraft is unflyable. Immediate ejection is the only option left in such a scenario. Provided the escape systems still work and the crew hasn't g-LOC-ed.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%
My point was more toward a functioning aircraft that for whatever reason does not have a functioning automatic landing system. Would be ashamed to dump a $50 to $150M jet because the pilot does not know how to land it on the carrier.
 
yasotay said:
My point was more toward a functioning aircraft that for whatever reason does not have a functioning automatic landing system. Would be ashamed to dump a $50 to $150M jet because the pilot does not know how to land it on the carrier.
Click to expand...
What happens for aircraft that don't have a pilot like MQ-25?
 
yasotay said:
Agree 100%
My point was more toward a functioning aircraft that for whatever reason does not have a functioning automatic landing system. Would be ashamed to dump a $50 to $150M jet because the pilot does not know how to land it on the carrier.
Click to expand...

But how is that supposed to happen? The way I understand it, magic carpet is baked into the FCS, it's part of the software. There is no possibility of losing parts of the system. Either it works, or it doesn't.

Apart from that, pilots could still know how to manually land jets, provided they were taught on frontline aircraft.
 
eagle said:
But how is that supposed to happen? The way I understand it, magic carpet is baked into the FCS, it's part of the software. There is no possibility of losing parts of the system. Either it works, or it doesn't.

Apart from that, pilots could still know how to manually land jets, provided they were taught on frontline aircraft.
Click to expand...
While it is likely not a frequent occurrence for software to fail, it does. Usually at the worst point in time. That is my point, pilots who do not receive basic ship landing from the start will put everyone at risk on the carrier. That is the point of the argument. It appears the USN is moving away from teaching carrier landing technique to its new aviators. It has always been a tenant of military aviation, that you train for the worst case. This philosophy appears to be lost on our venture capital bread leaders.
 
Perhaps a bad assumption but I thought the T-45 is used conducting carrier landing qualification. That is the aircraft the USN wants to replace with an aircraft that does not have to land on a carrier. So am I to understand they are transitioning all carrier landing training to only those aircraft aircraft that operate from carriers? Certainly is an option I suppose, but almost a century of successful methodology seems risky to walk away from.
Guess only time and accident rates will tell.
 
yasotay said:
Perhaps a bad assumption but I thought the T-45 is used conducting carrier landing qualification. That is the aircraft the USN wants to replace with an aircraft that does not have to land on a carrier. So am I to understand they are transitioning all carrier landing training to only those aircraft aircraft that operate from carriers? Certainly is an option I suppose, but almost a century of successful methodology seems risky to walk away from.
Guess only time and accident rates will tell.
Click to expand...
Yes the T-45 was used to do carrier quals but is no longer doing that for undergraduate students.

But in a major change to how the service trains aviators, the Navy recently revamped their flight training curriculum so that pilots now graduate from flight school and receive their “Wings of Gold” — the Navy’s formal name for flight wings — without actually landing on an aircraft carrier.

“The final strike carrier landing qualification occurred in March of 2025,” a Navy official told Task & Purpose. “Students in the strike pipeline, those training to fly F/A-18s, F-35s, and EA-18Gs, are no longer required to qualify by landing on a carrier prior to graduation.”
Click to expand...
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-aircraft-carrier-landings-requirement/
As of March, pilots headed for carrier duty will now qualify on carrier landings after they earn their wings, when they move on to learn to fly their assigned fighter jets in units the Navy calls fleet replacement squadrons.
Click to expand...
 

​

https://breakingdefense.com/2026/04/exclusive-lockheed-exits-navy-trainer-aircraft-competition/
Kelly Johnson's 15th rule:
Lockheed Martin has decided not to pursue a competition for a new Navy training jet, the company told Breaking Defense.

“Following formal notification to the U.S. Navy, Lockheed Martin has decided not to pursue the UJTS [Undergraduate Jet Training System] solicitation after careful analysis,” the company said in statement. “We will continue to focus on delivering innovative training solutions and seek opportunities to strengthen our partnership with the U.S. Navy. We remain confident the T-50 platform is a leading-edge fighter trainer with strong capabilities and future potential.”
Click to expand...
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2026/06/boeing-bows-out-of-navys-new-trainer-jet-competition/
WASHINGTON — Boeing is exiting the competition for the Navy’s new training jet, the defense firm announced today.

While Boeing had previously said it would compete for the Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS), the company told Breaking Defense it has determined that the T-7A Red Hawk training jet they are producing for the Air Force doesn’t fulfill Navy requirements.

“Boeing is focused on meeting our commitments, and we bid for programs where we believe we can provide the right solution tailored to our customers’ needs and requirements. After careful evaluation, we have determined the T-7A does not meet the U.S. Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System requirements,” a Boeing spokesperson said in a statement to Breaking Defense.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
Very surprising. Boeing are claiming the F404 is the primary reason for the withdrawal, that is cannot meet without development what UJTS has stated as requirements. This could be the same reason the T-50 was also withdrawn and that the requirements favour twin engines.

Looks to me like the M-346 is going to have a good couple of years.
Click to expand...
No faith in SNC and the Freedom trainer?
 
What is the Over-Under that this iteration of the UJTS moves forward versus getting substantially reworked? The departure of Boeing really only seems to leave one serious/viable offeror in the form of Textron-Leonardo. SNC too, I guess, if the USN thinks that they can take a clean-sheet design to series production within the budget (and schedule) they have allocated to this program.

Is Boeing playing hardball to get some of the requirements within the RFP descoped somewhat?
 
I have a strong suspicion the M-346 has it in the bag. Beechcraft has a monopoly on the fixed wing naval aviation training. Literally any thing with a T minus the Goshawk is theirs, so naturally, and quote:

"The Beechcraft® M-346N jet is a proven aircraft, assembled in the USA solution for the US Navy Undergraduate Jet Training System program that offers a broad range of training capabilities combined with long-term reliability"

Its a done deal. I am just praying they have figured out a way to sort of CCA/hook quals within it.
 
I must admit that I find this decision by Boeing (and KAI/LM) and especially the pointing towards the F404 as the issue extremely surprising. The engine is still in production and has a long life ahead of it - arguably the F404 will long outlive the F414. It also already has a USN support base at FRCSE, although they have wound back support in recent years as F/A-18s head towards sundown. I also find the twin engine theory interesting given the USN has flown single engined T-45s for years and the F-35C is single engined too. I suspect there is something deeper here rather than just a simple issue such as 1 vs 2 engines.

The comment "that the UJTS engine qualification requirements would require additional long-cycle development work, and potentially limit its ability to meet the Navy’s initial operational capability target for the new jet trainers." intrigues me. I wonder if GE Aerospace is refusing to do something here which is thus pulling the others down?
 
Last edited:
There might be a problem with the airframe that would be too costly to adapt due to a flawed design* or commercial disagreement with Saab. Remember that this is not the first time Boeing has been reluctant to modify the basic airframe despite the huge number of aircraft contracted.

*For example the revolutionary assembly process that called for less fasteners was never talked again since Boeing got the airframe in hands...
 
TomcatViP said:
There might be a problem with the airframe that would be too costly to adapt due to a flawed design* or commercial disagreement with Saab. Remember that this is not the first time Boeing has been reluctant to modify the basic airframe despite the huge number of aircraft contracted.

*For example the revolutionary assembly process that called for less fasteners was never talked again since Boeing got the airframe in hands...
Click to expand...
I doubt that would be the case given how watered down the training sets are now compared to what they used to be.

Other than the engine issue that Boeing themselves stated given the delays for USAF intro into service Boeing might struggle to meet the additional per year number of jets the USN requires from the current line, 25 per year in 2035. I'm not sure on the floor space available for T-7A assembly but the USAF is expecting 60 aircraft a year from 2030 to 2036. Adding 25 aircraft per year is a 40% increase and might be a struggle for Boeing?
 
Unlikely. This airframe is mostly metal and off the shelf hardware, already mass produced. There are no significant cost extending or opening a new line as compared to the foreseeable profits of a high revenue item that is a naval trainer. (see how SNC is ready to go all-in, right from the starting blocks)
 
Would GE be able and willing to surge F404 production to cover that increase in production needs, though? I am involved with other aircraft programs where the production rate is somewhat constrained by the volume at which engine manufacturers can (or choose to) produce relatively lower-volume older engines... would GE be able to entertain a 40% increase in annual production demand for F404s without having to invest to generate additional production capacity?
 
TomcatViP said:
Easy: cancel any order for the 100 or so Gripen from Canada...
Click to expand...
Well they are F414s, a different engine but built I believe at the same facility. F404s are still being made for T-50s and Tejas Mk-1As as well as the T-7A while F414s are going to KF-21, Tejas Mk2, Gripen E/F and AMCA is that ever gets off the ground as well as the last few SHs. A lot of production and GE has reportedly had some issues meeting demand.
 
Remember that LM's stated reason for backing out was that they assessed it to be impossible to fulfill the requirements for domestically manufactured contents in the given time frame. They were not citing the engines.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom