USN

“You have control.” I grip the control column with my right hand and follow my pilot “Lambo’s” instructions, rolling the M-346 jet trainer into a left-hand turn and applying back stick pressure to ramp up the g-force. “Keep pulling, keep pulling,” he says calmly as I watch the g-meter in the top left of the head-up display tick up past 5g. As he eases the throttles back to idle power, the speed begins to bleed off. As it does, the jet automatically responds by reducing the amount of g-force my stick pressure allows. The jet’s programmable safety system is preventing us from exceeding a pre-selected angle-of-attack limit that means we can’t depart from controlled flight – a critical element of the M-346’s flight control system that enables carefree handling.

TWZ was provided the opportunity to experience many of the M-346’s training-related design safety features first hand during a visit and demonstration flight at the Beech Factory Airport in Wichita, Kansas, in October. Beechcraft, part of Textron Aviation, and its industry partner Leonardo of Italy, shipped a prototype M-346FA (Fighter Attack) variant to the U.S. in September for a series of demos designed to help cultivate awareness of the jet’s capabilities. The two companies are jointly preparing to offer a bespoke M-346N variant in response to the U.S. Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) competition, which seeks to replace the aging T-45 Goshawk.

Fly along with us in the M-346 by clicking the video at the top of the story and check out our full walk around tour of the jet in the exclusive video below:

Leonardo test pilot “Lambo” went on to demonstrate what’s known as the Pilot-activated Recovery System, or PARS, which at the touch of a large red button on the console takes control of the jet and returns it to stable flight, should the pilot become disorientated. I was also able to get a feel for the handling performance through a series of aileron rolls and tight turns. Having got a hands-on grasp of the flight control safety features – we moved onto what Leonardo and Beechcraft see as a fundamentally important element of the M-346 – its embedded tactical training system (ETTS).

“Lambo” selected an air-to-air training scenario in the ETTS menu, and a computer-generated radar scope appeared on the left-hand multifunction display. Although the M-346FA variant can be equipped with a real radar, the training variant relies on virtual mission systems generated by the jet’s computers. Acting as my instructor, “Lambo” tee’d up an enemy target on the synthetic radar display on one of the cockpit’s three multifunction screens. Out of beyond visual range, an “Su-27” was now being tracked. He walked me through how to identify and then target and fire upon the hostile aircraft with one of our virtual AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. As well as air-to-air modes, the M-346’s embedded training system can also generate synthetic targets on the ground for attack training with smart munitions, as well as other important air combat scenarios such as engagements by surface-to-air missiles. 

“Lambo” set up another target, this time a C-130 transport aircraft flying within visual range of us. In addition to a radar track, the software can generate a synthetic electro-optical image from a virtual targeting pod. This enables the student to manipulate the pod imagery, in this case to gain a positive visual identification of a target. The set of demonstrations was carefully planned to illustrate some of the many facets of the ETTS, which enables development of mission management skills during flight training and much more, as I’ll explain later.

After 50 minutes, we were back flying the pattern at the Beech Factory Airport before touching down for a full-stop landing.

M-346 development

The baseline M-346 configuration stems from development of the Yak-130, which started in 1991. In search of a technology partner, Russia’s Yalovlev teamed up with Alenia of Italy in 1993 during the improved relations between Europe and Russia in the post-Cold War thaw, and the joint venture resulted in the first flight of a prototype Yak-130/AEM-130 in 1996. This partnership was dissolved in 2000, and both companies parted ways to pursue separate programs.

Alenia (today known as Leonardo) developed its own substantially modified and aerodynamically different version of the jet trainer. The resulting M-346 embodied many of the attributes found in modern front-line fighter aircraft such as multifunction displays, hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, carefree handling and a helmet-mounted display. The first M-346 was rolled out at the now Leonardo plant at Venegono on June 7, 2003, and made its maiden flight on July 15, 2004.

The lead customer for the M-346 was the Italian Air Force, which procured the aircraft to replace the Aermacchi MB339 jet trainer. As the M-346 entered service with the Italian Air Force, it exposed other air forces and NATO air arms to the aircraft, some of which ultimately seized upon the opportunity to train fighter pilots in partnership with the Italian operator. As the overseas requirement gathered pace, the M-346 became the basis for a new International Flight Training School at Decimomannu in Sardinia from 2018 under a collaboration between the Italian Air Force and Leonardo. Leonardo has also secured sales of the M-346 to Israel, Poland, Singapore and Qatar.

Having initially partnered with General Dynamics and then with Raytheon as prime contractors, Leonardo proceeded alone in offering a version of the M-346 – dubbed the T-100 – for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X trainer competition to replace the T-38 Talon. After a long procurement process, Boeing’s clean-sheet design T-7 Red Hawk was selected by the USAF in 2018.

Leonardo is now partnered with Beechcraft to offer the M-346N to the Navy for the UJTS jet trainer competition, which also looks set to invite proposals from Boeing for the T-7, as well as for the TF-50 from Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin, and from SNC for its new Freedom Trainer.

Suitability to replace the T-45

The T-45 Goshawk has been in service for three-and-a-half decades, and it soldiers-on as the Navy’s singular fast jet training aircraft. The Goshawk is used to teach student naval aviators coming from the T-6 Texan II basic trainer, taking them to their first fast jet “hop,” to then learning the skills required for taking off and landing from an aircraft carrier, as they navigate the challenging path towards gaining their coveted ‘wings of gold.’ 

The Navy has been exploring replacement options for the T-45 for several years, although the timeline for acquiring this new aircraft was pushed back substantially in 2023. The Goshawk has had its fair share of issues in recent years, from a high-profile onboard oxygen generation issue to a number of crashes and subsequent groundings, which have had a significant impact on training output.

The M-346 is powered by twin non-afterburning Honeywell F124-GA-200 turbofan engines that produce 6,280 pounds of thrust each, which enables transonic speed performance for the aircraft. Having two engines is noteworthy as a significant number of single-engine T-45 losses have been caused by bird ingestion. “This airplane is a fantastic replacement for the Goshawk because it is not only a high performing twin-engine, fly-by-wire jet, but also because it’s part of an entire training system.” says Steven Helmer, a Textron Aviation and Defense Flight Test and Demonstration pilot.

The initial climb rate of the M-346 is in the region of 22,000 feet per minute. After getting airborne, a pilot can raise the gear and flaps and pitch up to 20-25 degrees nose high, and leave it there as the jet climbs away. “A high thrust-to-weight ratio translates to very good turn performance as well – the aircraft will sustain as much as 8g at low altitude, and 5-6g at medium altitudes,” comments Helmer, who is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School.

Helmer says that despite having two engines, the M-346N is expected to save in the region of 25-30% in fuel costs per hour compared to the T-45. The bespoke Navy variant is also expected to be offered with an Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto-GCAS).

“The twin-engine setup provides built-in redundancy, particularly for critical systems like electrical and hydraulic, which are independently powered by each engine,” Helmer explains. “This design helps eliminate single points of failure, enhancing overall safety. This advantage becomes even more important with modern aircraft, which demand more onboard power. In contrast, single-engine aircraft with afterburners must rely on highly dependable emergency power units and duplicate several systems to meet safety standards.” 

“The U.S. Navy has indicated to us that they will not require supersonic performance for the UJTS aircraft. There is no advantage to having a supersonic aircraft, particularly in the era of digital fly-by-wire flight controls, which compensate for the change in aerodynamics as an aircraft accelerates through Mach one,” says Helmer. “The ability to sustain supersonic flight comes at a cost in terms of fuel and engine complexity, which would negate some of the operational cost advantage of M-346N. It’s also worth noting that the maximum speed for M-346 is 1.15 Mach, yielding transonic training capability and safety margin for students.”

Blending simulation with live flying

Synthetic training has become an intrinsic element of military flying training and a key requirement for any modern training aircraft. This reflects a desire to “download” flying handling and mission systems management to training aircraft, which are cheaper to operate than frontline platforms. It also helps to simplify the path for new aviators as they progress to type conversion for their operational aircraft.

“It’s incredibly important to have a mature synthetic element because that gives you multiple ways to inject different things into the scenario,” says Helmer. “The maturity of it allows you to inject things in a way that’s realistic and that has already been fed back from the customer to the OEM [original equipment manufacturer] to make the system match reality in the best way possible, and that’s going to allow you to have massive cost savings.”

The M-346 aircraft itself sits at the center of a significant integrated training system. Student aviators coming to the M-346 start their fast jet journey with a set of ground-based training aids that promote familiarity with the aircraft, teach safety procedures and mission systems so they are suitably prepared for live flying in the actual aircraft. The simulator elements include desktop procedural training devices and full-motion dome simulators, which afford students realistic handling and a mission systems training environment. 

The live, virtual, constructive (LVC) element of the training system is particularly noteworthy, as it sits across both the simulator and live flying. The simulators can be connected to real M-346s flying missions. This allows live flights to be linked with simulator ‘flights,’ with a student in the air able to “fly” alongside a student wingman in the simulator on the ground, all overseen by an instructor in a real time monitoring station and all connected together via data link.

“Instead of sending up two jets with two red air aggressor jets for perhaps a 2-v-2 mission to generate one student exercise, with this system we can send up a pair of M-346s and generate two virtual jets that are being flown in the simulator. It means we are using half as many actual aircraft,” Helmer says. “With the same number of airplanes on the line, I can generate sorties faster and get students through the syllabus with a lot less friction, or I can have fewer jets and save money that way as well. So either way it’s going to allow a lot more bang for buck for the U.S. taxpayer.”

“The embedded tactical training system, or ETTS, gives us the live, virtual, constructive capability. That’s the live airplane, the virtual part is all of the tracks we can inject synthetically – whether that’s other friendlies, enemy aircraft, enemy ground troops, surface-to-air threats, things of that nature – into the scenario. The constructive part would be having two airplanes [for example], but each one of us has a virtual wingman, either synthetically injected and working in concert, or being flown in the simulator. So, I’m in the airplane and we’re wingmen or we’re fighting each other. It gives the Navy a lot of flexibility in how they train going forward. We’re going to bring in a lot more virtual training and a lot more flexibility to the syllabus to start introducing some advanced concepts sooner.”

The ETTS utilizes a mission computer inside the jet that enables a fully-integrated live virtual constructive menu of options for the instructor and student. It also allows the students to train with simulated stores and sensors, which were demonstrated during our flight. “You can have imagery that looks like you have a [targeting] pod on the airplane even though you don’t. So when I slew around using my HOTAS controls, just like I would in an F/A-18, that’s going to show me an image on the ground that actually matches reality, because we geo-rectify those images based on where we are. So you set up a scenario based on each base you’re at or the en route portion of a flight, for example, and that’s going to show you that relevant imagery,” says Helmer. 

The M-346’s synthetic radar can simulate a mechanically scanned array radar or an electronically scanned radar. It also includes electronic warfare modes that provide a simulated radar warning receiver, missile approach and launch warning system, laser warning system, countermeasures dispensing, and an active electronic countermeasures system. “It really is up to the customer on what they want to see. So you’re bringing in sensors. It’s not just tracks.”

“As far as looking outside is concerned, you’ve got everything on your screens to cue your eyes in the right direction, but what am I actually going to see when I look outside?

From that point, we go forward into augmented reality, which starts with a helmet mounted display, similar to what F-35 and F/A-18 pilots use in the fleet,” says Helmer. Beechcraft says the M-346N is planned to feature computer-generated imagery in the helmet visor for close range air-to-air training. “Now you’re seeing tracks when you look outside, you’re at least seeing a data link track if not seeing some kind of representation of an airplane. So you may be going to the merge [in a dogfight] with an empty piece of sky, but the system is showing you something that’s actually there. There’s a huge training value in that. Granted, we still want pilots to learn how to work with actual other airplanes, but there’s a huge constructive piece that’s allowing you to build a scenario with very few physical assets.”

The maturity of the M-346 ETTS is viewed by Beechcraft as being a very important factor for UJTS, especially as there will be some critical uses of simulation by the Navy as it retires the T-45 and moves to its next jet, particularly when it comes to training for operations from aircraft carriers.

No call to fly from the aircraft carrier

In March this year, the U.S. Navy publicly released new requirements for its T-45 replacement program, which said the new training aircraft would not need to perform Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) to touchdown. The Navy had already eliminated the requirement for the jets to be able to land on or take off from aircraft carriers, as T-45s have done in the past for student carrier qualifications (CQs).

FCLPs are flown at a land base, and as they are currently flown are designed to mimic as closely as possible the experience of touching down on a real carrier. However, the repeated heavy touchdowns impose a significant structural impact on the airframe and the undercarriage. The current UJTS requirement from the Navy says the new trainer will only be required to fly FCLPs to a wave-off. This means that the student would apply power and perform a go-around instead of touching down. This change to the FCLP syllabus – eliminating repeated touchdowns – means that the new trainer will not “bounce” (touch-and-go on the runways) as students build up their carrier landing skills at their training airfield. Removing FCLP to touchdown from the UJTS requirement opens up the competition to existing land-based training jets, without the need for significant structural modifications.

SNC says that its newly-unveiled clean-sheet Freedom Trainer is the only UJTS competitor currently being offered with a structural design that would allow it to fly FCLP to touchdown. You can read more about this here.

The Navy has already fundamentally changed the way it trains new naval aviators, many of whom don’t fly off a carrier at all until they reach their Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) in charge of the aircraft type they have been assigned to fly in the fleet. “It’s not new,” one former navy instructor pilot told TWZ. “It was done as an experiment initially, but it has now become the default to do initial CQ in the FRS.”

Naval aviators were previously required to fly manual approaches to aircraft carriers, requiring uncompromising levels of skill and competence, with little margin for error. This required skilled throttle and control column inputs to coax an aircraft down onto the deck with precision in order to catch one of the arresting wires. Delta Flight Path technology was conceived to help make the F-35C Lightning II easier to land on an aircraft carrier, even with a pitching and rolling deck. This led to a spin-off program for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler that is known as Magic Carpet or Precision Landing Mode (PLM). Advances in flight control software using PLM have dramatically reduced the piloting challenges of landing carrier-borne strike fighters on a narrow flight deck. PLM features enhanced flight control logic that is designed to make the carrier landing easier and more predictable for the pilot. This has facilitated an evolutionary change in the way that both new aviators train, and how more experienced fleet pilots maintain their carrier currency.

“The Navy has signaled to us that they are already not taking students to the aircraft carrier in all cases [during training], and that their intention going forward is to not take student naval aviators to the aircraft carrier at all in an advanced jet trainer,” Steven Helmer explains. “So as we understand it, the customer is signaling to us that they do not need a carrier-capable airplane.”

The M-346 doesn’t feature a tailhook, even for use on runway arrestor gear in the event of emergencies. “This airplane has multiple redundant hydraulic systems and multiple redundant braking systems, so a tailhook is actually not required for the aircraft, so it was never built into the aircraft,” comments Helmer. “Could we add one if it was required? Absolutely.” The M-346N that will be offered to the Navy could feature PLM in its flight control software, but this will depend on the final requirements when they are issued later this year.

The M-346’s standard landing gear is set up for regular airfield operations. If the Navy decided that FCLP to touchdown would be needed, it would require modifications. “If you were going to do full-rate FCLP touchdowns, i.e., fly the [meat]ball all the way to touchdown, we would need to reinforce that landing gear structurally,” says Helmer. “That’s certainly something we can do and we’ve done a lot of background engineering for that, so that’s an offering we can give to the customers should those requirements change. But as we understand it now, there will be no shipboard operations and no FCLPs to a touchdown.”

The virtual training in the M-346 system would now introduce the aircraft carrier to the students. “We’re going to be bringing in precision landing modes in the simulator, and we’re going to be teaching students how to operate around the carrier using a virtual environment,” Helmer adds. “Then what they get in the jet is the physical feel of it going fast, the g-forces, actually thinking in that dynamic environment so that they have the experience they need when they get to the fleet.”

Building the M-346N

Having been in operation and training new aircrews for over a decade, the M-346 is promoted by Beechcraft as being a proven option for the Navy. “Leonardo has produced about 140 airplanes and they’re on a hot production line. They’re training a number of different air forces, including pilots that are flying the F-35 today. So the airplane has a proven track record of training pilots for 4th, 5th, and eventually 6th-generation fighters. On top of that, the ETTS has proven its worth as they’re using that every day with all the scenarios that I talked about.”

“We’re jumping in at a really good time too, because the airplane is on the verge of a major avionics upgrade [under Block 20],” says Helmer. The M-346N version would be based on the new Block 20 standard. “Leonardo is changing from a multi-function display format to a single large area display touchscreen, really bringing the airplane into the modern fold for avionics. One of the requirements the Navy has signaled to us is that they want to have a large area display, which makes sense because the advanced Super Hornet and the F-35 both have large area displays as well. So it’s really training the aircrew on the same kind of system they’re going to see in the fleet, and that’s kind of the point of an advanced jet trainer is to do that. You’re introducing a lot of new concepts and bringing them into something that’s more in alignment with what they’re going to see when they actually get to their fleet jet.”

Beechcraft has a notable relationship with U.S. Navy aviator training, as Helmer notes. “I flew the Beech T-34 when I was in flight school in 2006. That airplane was getting close to retiring, and it was replaced by the Beechcraft T-6 Texan II. That’s flown by the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and 14 other countries. We have produced more than 1,000 of those, creating decades of experience in the trainer market. On top of that, Beechcraft has involvement in the multi-engine trainer market with the T-44, the C-12, and now the T-54A that’s servicing the Navy’s future needs. So that really gives us a lot of experience in the fixed wing trainer market.” Leonardo is also connected to U.S. Navy training through its TH-73 Thrasher, which is replacing the TH-57B/C Sea Ranger as the undergraduate rotary and tilt-rotor helicopter trainer for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

M-346s are currently assembled in Venegono, Italy, but Beechcraft revealed on October 28, 2025, that M-346Ns would be assembled by the company in Wichita if selected by the Navy.

Current indications call for a formal request for proposals to be issued this coming December, leading to a contract award in 2027. Leonardo will collaborate with Beechcraft on updates for the new M-346N variant to meet U.S. Navy UJTS specifications. “The M-346 is well positioned to address the U.S. Navy’s requirements for an advanced jet trainer, which are unique to the Navy,” Helmer concludes.

The M-346 is clearly a proven solution as an advanced jet trainer that has been teaching new fast jet pilots for over a decade. The International Flight Training School alone has taught student pilots from Austria, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and now the United States, with 10 USAF cadets having arrived in Sardinia in September 2025 to train on the M-346.

At the same time, the M-346 faces stiff competition. Boeing’s T-7A is already in the U.S. military inventory and hundreds of these aircraft will eventually be in service with the USAF as its advanced jet trainer. Korea Aerospace Industries developed the TF-50 in partnership with Lockheed Martin, and it was extensively evaluated under the USAF T-X competition. It too is proven, with variants of the aircraft in service with seven nations. SNC’s Freedom Trainer is a clean sheet design and not proven, yet it is currently the only contender that is offering a structural configuration that would permit FCLP to touchdown.

The T-45 Goshawk is old, it’s struggling with reliability, and the Navy needs a new jet trainer fast that is capable of preparing pilots for the modern platforms they will be flying. Time will tell if the solution will be the M-346N or not, but it certainly has a strong case to make.

Contact the editor: [email protected]