VR and simulation training for military aircraft maintenance

Last updated October 21, 2026

Virtual maintenance trainers that let maintainers rehearse procedures on a digital aircraft before working on a real one.

This guide lists 12 providers of immersive aircraft maintenance training, in alphabetical order: AVATAR Partners, Boeing, CAE, DiSTI, FlightSafety International, HTX Labs, Lockheed Martin, Mass Virtual, Moth+Flame, Pinnacle Solutions, Rolls-Royce and VRAI. The order is not a ranking. Each provider is described with the same fields, from its own materials and public records, with sources.

1. Questions buyers ask

2. Overview

Immersive aviation maintenance training lets aircraft maintainers practice procedures on a virtual aircraft or engine before working on the real one, using virtual reality headsets, augmented reality overlays or 3D simulations on a computer. Air Force units use it for tasks such as propeller, tire and brake changes and auxiliary power unit operation.

Products range from desktop virtual maintenance trainers that simulate aircraft systems, to rooms of VR headsets where many airmen train at once, to AR job aids that show step-by-step instructions on a tablet or headset. Units use them alongside hands-on training, not instead of it.

A common reason units adopt it is limited aircraft availability: training on a real aircraft takes it away from missions, and at least one Air Force Reserve unit has no aircraft assigned. At Travis Air Force Base, the C-17 training element's lead reported a 45% cut in classroom requirements and a 72% decrease in overall training time.

The problem

The Air Force has struggled to keep enough experienced maintainers. GAO found gaps in experienced maintainers in 7 of 8 fiscal years through 2017; new maintainers leave technical school at the 3-level and need years of on-the-job training to reach the 5- and 7-levels.

Hands-on training competes with missions for aircraft. One C-130 maintenance group said it asked for an aircraft to be down three days a week to train students, and an Air Force Reserve group with no assigned aircraft built a virtual hangar to train crew chiefs and specialists.

Maintenance affects readiness. GAO reported that only 4 of 49 aircraft types met their annual mission capable goal in most years from fiscal 2011 to 2021, and that F-35 organizational-level maintenance was affected by issues including a lack of technical data and training.

Mandates and programs

• GAO review of the Air Force aircraft maintainer workforce (GAO-19-160, 2019). Requested in the conference report for the FY2018 defense authorization act, GAO found the Air Force had narrowed overall maintainer staffing gaps but lacked experienced 5- and 7-level maintainers. It recommended retention goals and a strategy, which the Air Force provided in March 2021.
• GAO reports on aircraft mission capable rates (GAO-23-106217, 2022; GAO-23-105341, 2023). GAO found only 4 of 49 aircraft types met annual mission capable goals in most years from fiscal 2011 to 2021, and that the F-35 fleet's mission capable rate was about 55 percent in March 2023, partly because of maintenance challenges.
• AETC Technical Training Transformation (T3). Air Education and Training Command's Technical Training Transformation, part of its Maintenance Next experiments, put VR into the crew chief fundamentals course at Sheppard Air Force Base in summer 2020; students learned the same fundamentals in about half the time, Air Force Times reported.
• National Guard Bureau VR maintenance simulators (2024). The National Guard Bureau distributed VR simulators to all Air National Guard wings at the start of 2024. The 190th Air Refueling Wing received five, with software covering KC-135 tasks and other Air Force airframes, placed in shops from engines to avionics.
• Air Mobility Command VR maintenance modules at Travis Air Force Base (2025). In February 2025, Travis Air Force Base's 60th Maintenance Operations Training Flight and Air Mobility Command's logistics directorate scanned equipment to build VR maintenance modules for the C-17, C-5M and KC-46A, covering tasks such as auxiliary power unit operation, harness and lanyard use and cockpit panel training.

3. Providers compared

Every provider below is described with the same fields and the same length limits, from its own published materials and public records. Where a provider does not publish something, the entry says “Not published.” Providers are in alphabetical order.

4. What to ask a vendor

1. Which of our aircraft, variants and maintenance tasks do you already model, and how is that content kept current? Training is only useful if it matches the configuration your maintainers work on, so check how the vendor updates models and procedures when aircraft are modified.
2. Does the training use current technical order or IETM data, and who updates it when technical data changes? GAO found F-35 organizational maintenance was affected by a lack of technical data and training, so the link between training content and technical data is worth checking.
3. What results have you measured with a military customer, and how were the numbers measured? Many published figures on time or proficiency gains come from vendors or unit reports rather than independent studies, so ask for the method behind any number.
4. Which networks is the software authorized to run on, and does it hold an authority to operate? Some immersive platforms hold an authority to operate on Air Force networks, while others run on stand-alone devices or in the cloud, which changes what your IT and security teams must approve.
5. Can it run disconnected, on stand-alone headsets or laptops, in hangars and deployed locations? Base infrastructure can limit VR: an AETC leader said installations need fast, widespread wireless access and more electrical outlets to support it.
6. How does the system record what each trainee did, and can it export results to our training records or LMS? Virtual practice does not replace hands-on sign-off on the aircraft, so trainee data should support existing training records rather than create a separate system.
7. How many trainees can practice at once, and what does the instructor see during a session? Travis Air Force Base's maintenance training flight cited the ability for multiple airmen to train at the same time in a closely monitored setting as a major benefit of VR.
8. Which contract vehicles can we use to buy it, and is any part funded through SBIR or an OTA? The buying path affects speed and competition; for example, a successfully completed OTA prototype can lead to a follow-on production award without competitive procedures.

5. How buying works

Some aircraft programs buy maintenance training devices as part of a platform training system on long-term contracts: the C-130J Maintenance and Aircrew Training System, which provides training products and support services to the Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, continued in 2026 under a new 10-year IDIQ contract.

The Air Force also orders training systems through multiple-award contracts such as Training Systems Acquisition IV (TSA IV), an IDIQ covering analysis, design, development, production, installation, integration, testing and sustainment of Air Force training systems; the T-7A Maintenance Training System was ordered under it in 2025.

Small businesses can enter through the SBIR program: Phase I tests feasibility over six to twelve months, Phase II funds up to two years of development, and Phase III moves the work into use with non-SBIR funds. AFWERX STRATFI awards can extend SBIR projects.

Other paths include GSA Multiple Award Schedule contracts, which give government buyers access to commercial products and services at pre-negotiated prices, and other transaction agreements for prototype projects; a successfully completed prototype can lead to a follow-on production award without competitive procedures.

For SBIR, GSA schedules, OTAs and other routes in general, see How buying works.

6. More questions