[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)