By Rebecca L. Grant, Ph.D., Vice President, Lexington Institute.
The full text of this article is available below and in RealClearDefense here.
April 18, 2025 – The Navy is ready to unveil a secret sixth-generation fighter for its Ford and Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, but that’s not the only plane on their shopping list. The Navy also needs a future-focused advanced trainer for its carrier pilots to replace the T-45 Goshawk.
Carrier air wing operations are more vital than ever. Just look at the constant carrier sorties in Central Command’s campaign against the Houthis – and China’s activity near Taiwan with its carrier Shandong. Even with advances in uncrewed aircraft and collaborative drones, the Navy must produce pilots for fleet combat and support aircraft for years to come. Drones are only just making their debut in carrier air wings, with the MQ-25 Stingray set to fly this year and go to sea in 2026.
That said, naval aviation is evolving fast, and the way young pilots train is changing, too. The days of building a trainer that serves as a mini fighter for practice dogfights and carrier landings are long gone. What the advanced student pilots need is AI in the cockpit and “air under their butts” in the form of plenty of affordable flying hours that prepare them for complex missions.
Navy pilots begin their careers in what the service refers to as undergraduate pilot training. There’s no Top Gun movie about this phase, but rest assured, it is a crucial year in which naval aviators are made – or washed out. Student pilots first fly the T-6B Texan, then move to the orange-and-white T-45, which has been used for the advanced stages of naval undergraduate pilot training since 1991. “I think of it as ‘tired iron,’” Rear Admiral Rich Brophy, Chief of Naval Air Training, said of the T-45.
Advanced pilot training depends more than ever on mastering data. For advanced pilot training, the Navy’s strike curriculum has over 20 stages, from low-level flight to offensive weapons and tactics employment. Students need a trainer to help them master data alongside air combat maneuvering. “The suffusion of data, and how the person in the cockpit is managing that, has become as important as their actual airmanship,” said former F/A-18 pilot David “DW” Kindley in an interview with Ward Carroll. “We’re getting to a place where the jets are fast, but they are easy to fly. So, there’s a lot more attention on cockpit management, managing all the other aircraft in the sky with me. The training command has to evolve with that,” Kindley added.
To truly prepare strike pilots for a smooth transition to the fleet, the Navy’s new trainer needs to be designed for Live, Virtual, Constructive training (LVC), which combines real aircraft in flight with virtual missions “flown” in simulators. For an advanced trainer, it is literally possible to set up virtual scenarios in the cockpit to simulate radar intercepts and other complex missions – even if the trainer does not have the full instrumentation of a combat aircraft. If designed with information in mind, the advanced trainer can be programmed to fly profiles of different fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-generation aircraft. The software is so good that students can fly an endless array of missions. This also provides students – and their instructors – with terabytes of data, delivering detailed insights into their performance and progress, a feature not previously available.
Two considerations are paramount specifications for the T-45 replacement.
First is the ability to upgrade software. When buying its trainer, the Navy should settle for no less than a non-proprietary Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) architecture, ensuring that the US Navy owns the technical baseline and can integrate new features as strike warfare evolves.
Second, this new advanced trainer must be affordable enough to operate, allowing student pilots to get plenty of time in the cockpit. “Air under their butts” is another way to describe it. There is simply no substitute for sufficient flying time. Practicing the Live, Virtual, and Constructive scenarios works best when sorties are long enough to accomplish syllabus goals. As the Navy has struggled to keep the T-45 going, the costs of downtime for maintenance and truncated sorties have become apparent.
For the T-45 replacement to have any chance of reducing the actual operating and support costs for advanced training, the Navy has to ask for a trainer designed for lower costs in key areas, such as fuel burn, engine maintenance, and more. Operating costs can’t be an afterthought.
The Navy has already proven they can change their ways. Take the example of carrier landings. Over the last decade, software-guided Precision Landing Mode has become the standard. “It’s an absolutely different way of flying the ball,” said Brophy, who called it “the easiest thing ever.” As a result, many student naval aviators are qualifying for carrier landings in the F/A-18EF Super Hornet instead of the T-45. According to the Navy, it’s going well. “I haven’t had my heart race once,” commented a fleet replacement squadron commander. The next trainer will still require Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP), a specific landing profile that allows young naval aviators to master the unique carrier landing skills.
The Navy is poised to reap the benefits of advanced technology to deliver affordable, sophisticated training. The emphasis on AI in various forms should lead the Navy to prioritize a “future-proof” design that can be continually upgraded to meet the demands of fifth- and sixth-generation aircraft. It’s the best way to ensure new carrier pilots are ready to take on China and all the challenges ahead.
This article was originally published on the Lexington Institute: For T-45 Replacement, Young Navy Carrier Pilots Need AI And “Air Under Their Butts” (From RealClearDefense) | Lexington Institute
Legal Disclaimer:
The Global Policy Institute (GPI) publishes this content on an “as-is” basis, without any express or implied warranties of any kind. GPI explicitly disclaims any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information, images, videos, or sources referenced in this article. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of GPI. Any concerns, copyright issues, or complaints regarding this content should be directed to the author.