Report Highlights

Simulators in the United States: Market Overview

The U.S. simulators market reached USD 6.8 billion in 2024 and draws demand from three pools: civil aviation, defense, and healthcare education. Civil aviation and defense together account for roughly 70 percent of revenue. Federal authority is concentrated: the Federal Aviation Administration qualifies flight simulation devices under 14 CFR Part 60, while the Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) in Orlando procures most military trainers. Private operators such as FlightSafety International and CAE have led commercial training capacity, whereas government has set the qualification standards that define the market's form.

Policy has shaped the market's structure more than price competition. Part 60 divides devices into Levels A through D, and only Level D full-flight simulators deliver the training credit airlines need for type rating, which concentrates revenue in a few high-cost systems. The Department of Defense, by contrast, is the dominant buyer for military trainers, making that segment largely government-led. Healthcare simulation is the most private segment, driven by hospital purchases and university medical schools, with accreditation rather than procurement mandates setting demand.

Policy-Driven Growth in US Simulators

Three mechanisms drive demand. First, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Public Law 118-63) directs the FAA to address pilot workforce training pathways, pushing airlines and academies toward simulator-based training that earns credit under Part 60 Level D qualification. Second, the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act, signed in December 2024, funds live, virtual, and constructive integration, which translates into networked trainer procurement through PEO STRI. Third, the Army's Synthetic Training Environment (STE) and the Air Force's Pilot Training Next program convert appropriated budgets into multi-year simulator contracts.

The transmission mechanism is contractual. Each Part 60 qualification creates recurring demand for full-flight simulator hardware, software upgrades, and recertification, so airlines purchasing Level D devices generate predictable aftermarket revenue. Defense programs under STE follow a similar pattern, with PEO STRI awarding base contracts and option years tied to annual appropriations. Healthcare growth is driven by ACGME Common Program Requirements, which require documented competency assessment that residency programs commonly deliver through simulation, expanding hospital purchases of high-fidelity manikins from Laerdal Medical and Gaumard Scientific.

Regulatory Barriers and Compliance Costs

Part 60 qualification is the principal barrier to entry. The FAA's Flight Standards Service conducts initial and continuing qualification evaluations, and a Level D qualification can take 12 to 18 months from application to approval. Evaluation fees and engineering documentation costs commonly run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per device. Export controls add a second barrier: military trainers fall under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120–130) and USML Category IX, requiring Directorate of Defense Trade Controls licenses for any foreign sale.

Procurement rules add cost. The Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 8301–8305) and DFARS domestic source restrictions under 48 CFR Part 225 require defense simulators to contain qualifying U.S.-origin components, limiting use of foreign motion-base and visual systems. Medical simulators face hospital credentialing and accreditation audits administered through The Joint Commission, which add compliance cost without a uniform national license. Price controls are absent, though Medicare Graduate Medical Education payments under 42 CFR Part 413 indirectly constrain hospital simulation budgets.

Policy-Created Opportunities in the United States

Pilot Training Next, the Air Force program launched in 2023, creates an opportunity for software-defined trainers that substitute for legacy full-motion hardware. Vendors able to deliver networked, reconfigurable training devices qualify for pilot training pipeline contracts administered through the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center. Cubic and L3Harris are positioned to capture early tranches of this procurement because their existing training architectures already support networked operation.

Pilot workforce policy creates demand for Level D devices at regional carriers. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 provides a policy basis for airlines and training academies to add simulator capacity, and academies certified under 14 CFR Part 141 can offer simulator-based flight hours. Florida and Texas, which host major training academies, are the most likely locations for new Part 142 training centers. Healthcare opportunities arise from ACGME-driven residency requirements, favoring high-fidelity manikins and standardized assessment kits.

Market at a Glance

Leading Market Participants

• CAE
• FlightSafety International
• Lockheed Martin
• L3Harris Technologies
• Cubic Corporation
• Moog Inc.
• Doron Precision Systems
• VirTra
• Gaumard Scientific
• Laerdal Medical

Regulatory and Policy Environment

The primary legislation is 14 CFR Part 60, Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use, administered by the FAA's Flight Standards Service under Title 49 of the United States Code. Compliance requires qualification against the Qualification Performance Standards in the Part 60 appendices, recurring evaluations, and Master Qualification Inspections. Upcoming changes include FAA alignment of qualification standards with ICAO Doc 9625 Edition 4, with rulemaking expected in 2026, and implementation of pilot training provisions from the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. Defense procurement authority derives from the FY2025 NDAA, while ITAR, administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, governs exports.

Compared with regional peers, the U.S. framework is performance-based and agency-led. The European Union applies EASA CS-FSTD requirements and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 under a harmonized design-and-approval model, while Canada's Transport Canada requirements largely mirror ICAO Doc 9625. The U.S. defense market is more restrictive on foreign sourcing than European peers because of Buy American and DFARS rules. Operators also cite the FAA's qualification timeline as longer than EASA's, creating friction for cross-border fleet deployment.