The Navy Air Boss’s Vision for Developing Tomorrow’s Naval Aviators
Naval aviation stands at an inflection point.
For decades, the path to becoming a carrier-qualified pilot followed a rigid template: master basic flying skills, advance to the T-45 Goshawk trainer, execute dozens of practice carrier landings, and only then progress to fleet aircraft.
Vice Admiral Daniel “Undra” Cheever, Commander of Naval Air Forces, is overseeing a fundamental transformation of this model, one that reflects both technological capabilities and generational learning differences that demand new approaches to pilot development.
These comments were derived from his three public interventions in the Summer of 2025, in his USNI Proceedings piece on the future of naval aviation, his interview at Hook 25 and his discussion held at CSIS in August 2025.
The End of an Era: Carrier Training Goes Digital
The most dramatic shift in naval aviation training involves abandoning one of its most iconic traditions. Student naval aviators flying most modern aircraft “are no longer going to the boat carrier calling in the T-45,” according to Admiral Cheever, except for those destined for the E-2 Hawkeye, which lacks advanced landing systems.
This change stems from a technological revolution in aircraft design. “The Super Hornet, the growler and the lightning two joint strike fighter. They all have precision landing modes,” Cheever explains. “And so we’ve discovered that we can train quicker and not have to go to the carrier for those platforms.”
The admiral’s personal experience demonstrates the technology’s effectiveness. During a recent landing on the USS Gerald R. Ford, he activated the precision landing mode: “I clicked the button and it flew the best pass I’ve ever seen. Literally, the ball didn’t move, and I landed exactly where I wanted to land.” This wasn’t luck or exceptional skill.It was technology enabling precision that human pilots couldn’t consistently achieve manually.
The implications for training are profound. For generations, naval aviation’s most challenging skill, landing on a moving carrier deck, required extensive practice and innate ability. Many otherwise qualified pilots washed out during carrier qualification. Now, precision landing modes transfer this demanding task from human motor skills to automated systems, fundamentally changing what pilots need to learn.
Redefining Training Goals
Admiral Cheever’s training philosophy centers on producing “a competent aviator that’s winged to come to my fleet replacement Squadron and be ready to start doing high end tactics.” This competency-based approach emphasizes understanding over rote execution. He wants pilots whose “basics to be so solid that they know how to fly, you know, do wingman stuff and be in control of their aircraft, and handle any emergency, any any basic weapon system.”
This represents a shift from procedural compliance to adaptive expertise. Rather than pilots who execute predetermined responses, the Navy needs aviators who can “take whatever training they have and to adjust on the fly.” This requirement reflects broader changes in air combat, where unpredictable situations demand creative solutions rather than textbook responses.
The emphasis on adaptability connects to Cheever’s broader observation about American strategic advantage: “Americans are taught from birth to be free thinking, to be able to adjust, to be resilient and to adjust to circumstances.” This cultural strength becomes a military capability when properly developed through training that encourages independent thinking rather than rigid adherence to procedures.
The Sixty-Second Revolution: Learning in the Digital Age
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Cheever’s training philosophy involves adapting to how current generations learn. “A two hour PowerPoint presentation is not working right for an 18-year-old today,” he observes. “A 62nd video that gets across to him” proves more effective. This isn’t simply about attention spans. It reflects fundamentally different information processing patterns.
Young sailors and officers arrive with capabilities their predecessors lacked. Before 7:00 AM, they “learn to honor 200 things, and they’re quick at it.” This rapid information processing ability enables new training approaches but requires different instructional design.
Naval Air Forces has implemented these insights systematically. Cheever describes condensing “about 49 trainings that we owned. We took all of the half hour, the 45-minute trainings and got them down to about 60 seconds each.” The new methodology emphasizes “more repetition than long sessions” and helps trainees “churn and learn through them.”
The Navy’s transformation of run-hide-fight training exemplifies this approach. What previously required 48 minutes became “a four-and-a-half-minute video” that conveyed essential information more effectively. Cheever suggests this trend will continue: “My sense is we can get all that training down to about 60 seconds, and it continually update these young folks, because that’s how they learn.”
This methodology challenges traditional military training assumptions. Historically, military instruction emphasized deliberate pacing and repetitive drill to ensure retention under stress. The new approach suggests that rapid, frequent exposure may achieve better results with current generations.
Technology as Training Partner
The integration of artificial intelligence and advanced technologies into pilot development reflects broader changes in aviation operations. Cheever envisions AI providing “decision aids and can help make sense of vast amounts of data to make well-informed decisions,” while “humans will continue to make key life and death decisions.”
This partnership model requires different training than previous generations received. Pilots must learn to work with AI systems as collaborators rather than tools, requiring skills in system monitoring, failure recognition, and appropriate intervention. These capabilities differ significantly from the manual flying skills that dominated traditional training.
The challenge extends beyond individual pilot development to organizational culture. Military aviation has traditionally emphasized pilot authority and individual responsibility for aircraft control. Integrating AI systems requires cultural adaptation to shared authority models where humans and machines contribute different capabilities to mission success.
Training programs must prepare pilots for this hybrid environment while maintaining the judgment and leadership skills that remain uniquely human. The balance between technological reliance and human capability becomes critical, particularly in contested environments where electronic warfare might degrade automated systems.
The iPhone Principle: Simplicity Through Sophistication
Admiral Cheever’s approach to complex systems training draws inspiration from consumer technology. He advocates making military systems “simple enough and understandable enough to use, kind of like your iPhone.” This principle emerged from his experience at TOPGUN, where he ensured “the tactics were simple enough for me to execute. I think that’s why they brought me there, because I was the simplest guy there, the basic and if I could do it, then the rest of the fleet was going to be able to do it.”
This philosophy challenges military acquisition practices that often prioritize capability over usability. Complex systems that require extensive training and exceptional operators limit tactical flexibility and increase training costs. Systems designed for intuitive operation enable faster learning and broader competency distribution across the force.
Training programs must prepare pilots to use simplified interfaces effectively while understanding underlying system complexity enough to recognize and respond to failures. This requires deeper technical knowledge than pure operational training provides, but less than traditional engineering approaches demand.
Cultural Transformation: Respect and Intellectual Engagement
Admiral Cheever’s retention philosophy directly impacts training design. “Treat them right, train them right. Don’t waste their time. Make them expert, make them world class, show them what right looks like, and then get out of the way and let them lead and win.” This approach recognizes that current generations expect meaningful, intellectually engaging training experiences.
His observation about junior officers being “smarter than I ever was” and providing detailed, actionable feedback suggests training programs must engage intellectually curious students rather than demanding compliance with traditional methods. This represents a significant cultural shift from hierarchical military training traditions.
The “don’t waste their time” principle has practical implications for curriculum design. Traditional military training often included activities justified by tradition rather than learning objectives. Current trainees, accustomed to efficient information delivery, resist training perceived as busy work or outdated content.
This cultural transformation requires careful management. Military effectiveness depends partly on discipline and standardization that may conflict with individualized learning approaches. Training programs must maintain essential military culture while adapting to generational learning preferences.
Implications for T-45 Replacement
The upcoming trainer aircraft selection process reflects these changing training priorities. When discussing the T-45 replacement, Admiral Cheever emphasizes “the speed of the acquisition and then the sustainment of the aircraft system, and then a little bit of the how are we going to train our air crew in the future, smarter, more effectively and efficiently.”
Notably absent from his priorities is traditional emphasis on carrier landing capability. This omission suggests fundamental changes in trainer aircraft requirements. If operational aircraft handle carrier landings through automated systems, trainer aircraft need not replicate this capability.
The selection criteria instead prioritize acquisition speed and sustainment efficiency which are practical considerations for maintaining training throughput while controlling costs. This approach reflects broader Department of Defense emphasis on rapid acquisition and lifecycle cost management.
The TOPGUN Evolution: Advanced Training Adaptation
Admiral Cheever’s experience at the Naval Air Warfare Development Center, home of TOPGUN, informs his broader training philosophy. The Weapons Tactics Instructor program has expanded from its original fighter focus to encompass “every type/model/series,” creating tactical experts across all naval aviation communities.
The modern TOPGUN emphasizes “live, virtual, and constructive training” that prepares for “high-end warfighting against the most lethal threats.” This mixed-reality approach enables complex scenario training impossible with live-only exercises while maintaining the stress and realism essential for combat preparation.
The cultural elements that made TOPGUN effective, developing warriors who are “talented, have passion and personality, but remain humble, approachable, and credible, ” remain relevant despite technological changes. These human qualities enable effective learning and knowledge transfer regardless of the specific systems being taught.
In fact, my own visits to NAWDC and familiarity with the MISR program reinforce Cheever’s observations. NAWDC focuses on fleet operations and air-enablement of the fleet rather than focusing simply mastering traditional carrier operational skills.
As the Navy rolls out in the period ahead new elements on the deck of carriers, what I have referred to as the “integratable air wing.” The ability of viators to interact with other fleet, and joint and partner assets is an increasingly key requirement for operational success.
Rather than simply integrating existing platforms around modest, sequential modernization efforts, the integratable air wing concept envisions a robust transformation process in which new assets enter the force and create a swirl of transformation opportunities, challenges, and pressures.
The air wing becomes part of broader kill web concepts of operations where platforms work together in dynamic, distributed networks. Naval avition – and one should remember that Marines are naval aviators – enable the fleet, rather than simply being the epicenter of the fleet.
Naval aviation is evolving from platform-centric to network-centric operations, leveraging new technologies not just as replacements but as transformational capabilities that enable entirely new ways of operating in the maritime domain. It is not just about learning what we have done; but it is working the path to what we can do
Balancing Innovation with Fundamentals
The challenge in transforming naval aviation training lies in distinguishing between essential skills that must be preserved and outdated practices that technology can replace. Admiral Cheever’s emphasis on handling “any emergency” and being “in control of their aircraft” suggests that some traditional pilot skills remain essential. The question becomes how much manual flying capability pilots need when most operations rely on automated systems.
The integration of manned-unmanned teaming adds another dimension to this challenge. Pilots increasingly need skills in managing autonomous systems and understanding machine decision-making processes. These capabilities require different training than traditional stick-and-rudder skills, but may prove equally important for mission success.
Generational Leadership and Knowledge Transfer
Admiral Cheever’s recognition that junior officers are “smarter than I ever was” reflects a broader challenge in military organizations: how experienced leaders can effectively guide personnel with different capabilities and learning styles. The traditional model of senior officers teaching junior ones their own methods may not work when generations learn differently.
This challenge extends beyond individual training to organizational knowledge management. Experienced aviators possess tactical insights and judgment developed through years of operations but may struggle to transfer this knowledge using methods that work for current generations. Training programs must facilitate this knowledge transfer while respecting both generational differences and operational wisdom.
The solution likely involves hybrid approaches that combine experienced judgment with modern delivery methods. Senior aviators might provide strategic insights and decision-making frameworks while younger instructors handle detailed system training using contemporary methodologies.
The Retention Imperative
Training transformation directly impacts retention rates, a critical concern for maintaining naval aviation capability. Admiral Cheever’s philosophy of making personnel “world class” experts in their fields while eliminating unnecessary distractions addresses retention through job satisfaction rather than purely financial incentives.
Current generations expect meaningful work and efficient processes. Training programs that waste time or fail to develop genuine expertise risk losing talented personnel to civilian opportunities. The challenge lies in maintaining military discipline and standards while providing the intellectual engagement current generations expect.
The “treat them right” principle extends beyond training methodology to broader personnel policies. Eliminating bureaucratic obstacles and focusing on mission-essential activities improves both effectiveness and satisfaction. This approach requires continuous evaluation of which requirements truly serve operational needs versus organizational inertia.
Looking Forward: Training for Unknown Futures
Admiral Cheever’s training philosophy must prepare pilots for threats and technologies that don’t yet exist. His vision extending to 2050 and 2075 acknowledges that current training decisions will impact naval aviation’s effectiveness for decades.
The emphasis on adaptability and independent thinking provides a hedge against uncertainty. Pilots trained to understand principles rather than memorize procedures should adapt more easily to new technologies and tactical situations. However, this approach requires validating that conceptual understanding translates to operational performance under stress.
The integration of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and other emerging technologies will likely require additional training adaptations. Current changes in naval aviation training represent the beginning of a longer transformation process rather than a final destination.
Conclusion: Balancing Revolution with Heritage
Vice Admiral Cheever’s approach to naval aviation training reflects careful balance between embracing technological capabilities and preserving essential military qualities. The elimination of T-45 carrier qualifications for most platforms represents dramatic change, while the emphasis on competency and adaptability maintains continuity with naval aviation’s warrior culture.
The success of this transformation will be measured in operational performance rather than training efficiency metrics. Technology-enabled shortcuts in training programs only prove valuable if they produce pilots capable of winning in combat. The ultimate test lies in whether pilots trained under new methodologies can adapt to unexpected challenges and maintain effectiveness under operational stress.
As naval aviation evolves toward manned-unmanned teaming and greater technological integration, training programs must continue adapting while preserving the fundamental qualities that have made American naval aviators effective: adaptability, technical competence, and the judgment to make correct decisions under pressure. Admiral Cheever’s vision provides a framework for this evolution, but implementation will require continuous refinement based on operational experience and emerging requirements.
For an article which highlights Vice Admiral Cheever’s perspective as presented this sumner, see the following: