[HN Gopher] The US Navy F-14 Tomcat aircrew that inspired the To... ___________________________________________________________________ The US Navy F-14 Tomcat aircrew that inspired the Top Gun Movie Author : rmason Score : 40 points Date : 2022-06-12 20:13 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (theaviationgeekclub.com) (TXT) w3m dump (theaviationgeekclub.com) | sydthrowaway wrote: | Can someone explain in the latest movie why the US couldn't use | its 5th/6th generation fighter? | jeffshek wrote: | Not sure if you mean why in the movie or why they couldn't in | real-life | | in the movie, they bring up the mission requirements at low | altitude render a certain tech of the new gen planes useless | under the scenario because of its dependence on radar iirc | | in real life the decision behind avoiding 5th is because most | of the information about the planes are still highly | classified, ie there is no full feature spec of 5th gen planes | available, so no way united states military would let them film | a plane | jhpaul wrote: | I think partly this comes from the general perception of the | F-35 program as a boondoggle and failure combined with the | decades long production hell this film went through. Also the | sponsorship from Lockheed Martin. | | While it ultimately produced a capable plane, the Joint Strike | Fighter spent 15 years as the next generation, failed to meet | several critical goals, and still hasn't entered full | production. | | Better to stick to concept planes (SR-72), the plane from the | first movie (F-14) and another common carrier plane (F-18). | [deleted] | daemoens wrote: | 6th gen fighters are still in development and aren't anywhere | near ready for anything in a movie. The 5th gen planes are all | single seaters and the Navy didn't want to risk the new shiny | planes. | teekert wrote: | Or you know, swarm some drones in there ;) | | But as you know, the Eagles could have flown the ring to | Mordor, but it would have been a boring story. | phalangion wrote: | I would guess it was to add suspense | brightball wrote: | I can't remember exactly but there was something about the | target that rendered the F-35 and F-22 less than ideal? Plot | device most likely. | caminante wrote: | F35s are single seat, and Tom Cruise can't fly it (alone) for | live-action shots. | zozin wrote: | The F-35C (Navy variant) has barely been deployed out to the | fleet. I think only one squadron is using F-35s and they're | still working on training/integrating the platform into carrier | operations. Didn't Top Gun 2 get filmed 3-5 yrs ago? I don't | think any F-35s were operating with the Navy then. Another | point is that dog fights and exciting maneuvering is dead in | 21st century air-to-air combat. Planes are basically sniping | each other from 40-60+ miles away with missiles. Not as | exciting to watch. | fakethenews2022 wrote: | It was a movie making decision. The flight scenes are not flown | by the actors. Instead they are in the back seat while actual | pilots fly them. | | The f-35c is a single seater. The Navy isn't letting actors fly | their jets. So the only choice is the super hornet. | | The f-22 is an air force jet, not Navy. Top Gun is Navy. The | f-22 is also single seat. | sydthrowaway wrote: | I am from Europe. Can someone explain why the US Navy has so much | presence in the air, why isn't that the purview of the US Air | Force? | [deleted] | dudul wrote: | Nothing to do with Europe vs US. It's just that the US has many | more carriers than any European country. In European countries | with aircraft carriers its the same. The pilots belong to the | Navy. | jollybean wrote: | Aircraft carriers project US force 'anywhere'. | | It's politically complicated to just 'put an airbase | somewhere'. | | This is going to change as Carriers become more difficult to | defend. | | But then so is everything. | ojbyrne wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t... | chrisseaton wrote: | They fly from naval aircraft carriers. | | Exactly the same in European countries with carriers - naval | aviators usually come from the navy. (The UK now also hosts | Royal Air Force and Army Air Corps on carriers.) | dboreham wrote: | The Fleet Air Arm sill exists fwiw. | chrisseaton wrote: | Isn't that basically what I just said? The UK also has | naval aviators, just like the US. | phalangion wrote: | Because of aircraft carriers. Those are the purview of the | Navy, and are a mobile base of operations. | random314 wrote: | In world war 2, naval strategy shifted from battleships to | becoming aircraft carriers. The only role of naval ships in | modern warfare is to carry attack aircraft. | | The US Airforce needs a land base and small aircraft that has | to travel longer distances. It's not tactically advantageous. | SkyMarshal wrote: | > The ~~only~~ _main_ role of naval ships in modern warfare | is to ~~carry~~ _support and defend_ aircraft _carriers_. | | FTY | chrisseaton wrote: | > The only role of naval ships in modern warfare is to carry | attack aircraft. | | That's not true - naval ships are also used to launch | missiles, to land marines, to sweep for mines, to fight other | ships trying to do these things, etc. | | It's not even true that carriers only do attack. They also do | fighter roles, anti-submarine, helicopter platforms, air | defence platforms, etc. | throway98752343 wrote: | Same question about why the US's navy marines fought in the | deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan far from any beaches, rather | than leaving the land warfare to the US army. | fakethenews2022 wrote: | Aircraft carriers for force projection. The US Navy has more | aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. The US | Navy broken out from the US armed forces would be the second | biggest air force in the world. | likeabbas wrote: | Copy pasted from a Reddit thread: | | > The main differences are Navy pilots focus on maritime strike | missions and anti submarine warfare. Strike missions involve | the carrier air wing which is embarked. All of the squadrons in | the air wing are responsible for supporting the fighter | aircraft in their strikes off of the carrier. It is essentially | a forward deployed force. | | > As for ASW we have P-8s which do strategic anti sub warfare. | These focus on strategic issues and tracking subs. | | > Air force isn't a maritime strike operation like the navy is. | They can focus more on single operations such as bombing, air | to air, etc. The navy uses on strike aircraft for a multitude | of missions while the Air Force uses multiple aircraft for | different missions. | | > Air Force is also responsible for something called Internal | Air Defense (IADS). This is basically intercepting aircraft | that try and attack the United States. If anyone tried to bomb | us and crossed into our air space the Air Force would be ready | to scramble and send fighters up to stop them. | fmakunbound wrote: | Basically all our taxes go to military. The military can't even | say no, we've got everything we need to Congress, so sure why | not. | chrisseaton wrote: | > Basically all our taxes go to military. | | This isn't true - defence is like 16% of Federal spending, | and not even all of that is the military. | | > The military can't even say no, we've got everything we | need to Congress, so sure why not. | | And this isn't relevant either for this context. It's argued | for some specific issues, such as production of main battle | tanks, but the explanation for that is to maintain | manufacturing capability. | | Naval aviation is pretty clear capability requirement in the | modern operating environment - it's how we'd defend for | example Taiwan - and isn't due to the reasons you're saying. | bitwize wrote: | One of the interesting things about TOPGUN is that it wasn't | there to train _pilots_. It was there to train flight | _instructors_. TOPGUN graduates were expected to give | presentations on flight technique, tactics, and principles and | were graded very strictly by a panel of judges: if you couldn 't | make the Navy's latest knowledge of aircraft weapons systems | pellucidly clear to the average pilot, you didn't pass. The idea | was that the best pilot in a unit would be sent to TOPGUN, then | return to their unit to teach the other pilots how to fly to the | needed standard. | | We see Maverick do this in _Top Gun: Maverick_ , but both movies | seem to reinforce this notion that TOPGUN's purpose is to train | elite pilots to fly difficult missions when that's not really the | case. It's kind of like Interpol in the movies, when you see | "Interpol agents" going undercover or conducting investigations. | Interpol doesn't have field agents of its own; its job is to | coordinate communication and collaboration between national law | enforcement agencies. | t0mas88 wrote: | Ah yes and this was more noticeable in Top Gun Maverick | compared to the original. Almost the whole second movie is | about training a team of pilots for a specific mission. | closewith wrote: | That's how more or less all centralised courses at all levels | work in militaries. Attendees bring back to their units the | standardisation, updates, and best practices from the | centralised schools. This happens at all levels, from | airman/sailor/private to staff colleges. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-12 23:00 UTC)