9 ms·
The US Navy F-14 Tomcat aircrew that inspired the Top Gun Movie
- bitwize 4y agoOne 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 4y agoAh 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.
- afterburner 4y agoAlthough I don't think the 2nd movie claimed that was Top Gun's purpose, it was just a secret mission training happening on Top Gun premises with Top Gun graduates/high achievers.
- closewith 4y agoThat'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 4y ago[deleted]
- wheelinsupial 4y agoThe Jocko Podcast has a long interview with the "Godfather of TOPGUN" Dan Pedersen [1]. [1] https://jockopodcast.com/2020/05/20/230-push-the-envelope-and-test-yourself-the-founding-of-top-gun-with-dan-pederson/ https://jockopodcast.com/2020/05/20/230-push-the-envelope-an...
- technothrasher 4y agoThe Fighter Pilot Podcast also has a good episode with the (then) commander of TOPGUN that compares and contrasts the school to the original film. https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/007-topgun-vs-top-gun/ https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/007-topgun-vs-t... I believe they have some more recent episodes about the new film too, but I'm not currently caught up on the podcast.
- the__alchemist 4y agoSame with USAF Weapons school. "Patches" are instructors-of-instructors. They grade and instruct others during their instructor upgrades. They also write tactics papers, and are considered POCs for the squadron for various things. They also are in charge of training plans, and give or delegate academic briefings. Anecdotally, they are some of the hardest workers in the squadrons. And, as `closewith` said, they standardize tactics and information flow between squadrons and communities.
- bradknowles 4y agoI had a brother-in-law who taught at USAF Fighter Weapons School. He was also a right royal bastard with paranoid schizophrenia and extreme narcissistic syndrome. Thanks $DEITY my sister-in-law finally managed to complete her divorce against him. And he's still being a right royal pain in the ass to her. I don't wish ill on many people on this planet, but he's at the top of that list.
- khazhoux 4y agoOk, but can we talk about the word “pellucidly” for a moment? Clearly (no pun intended) this isn’t in the common English vernacular. In fact, I’ve never once heard or read it before. May I ask where you found it?
- technothrasher 4y agoI usually see it associated with very clear water, as in a 'pellucid pool'.
- swayvil 4y agoPellucid is randomly common in 40s-60s scifi.
- squarefoot 4y agoYou probably mean Pellucidar, the fictional hollow Earth populated by prehistoric humans and creatures imagined by writer Edgar Rice Burroughs.
- lukeasrodgers 4y agoI recall having come across it in articles on/translations of continental philosophy. I've never heard anyone use it in conversation.
- billfruit 4y agoIts not an uncommon word. "Of all that is most beauteous—imaged there In happier beauty; more pellucid streams, An ampler ether, a diviner air, And fields invested with purpureal gleams; Climes which the Sun, who sheds the brightest day Earth knows, is all unworthy to survey." -- Wordsworth
- sydthrowaway 4y agoCan someone explain in the latest movie why the US couldn't use its 5th/6th generation fighter?
- daemoens 4y ago6th 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 4y agoOr 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.
- actionfromafar 4y agoBut were the Eagles immune to the lure of the power inherent in the ring itself? The whole plot hinges on that a hobbit was the most resilient against the corruption of the Ring. The Eagles were proud and powerful creatures. A ring-wraith Eagle would have been quite the setback to Gandalfs' plans.
- simonh 4y agoThe Nazgul had Fellbeasts which constitute a pretty formidable air defence capability, and they may well have had more than that.
- phalangion 4y agoI would guess it was to add suspense
- brightball 4y agoI 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 4y ago
- sydthrowaway 4y agoI 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?
- ojbyrne 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t...
- chrisseaton 4y agoThey 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 4y agoThe Fleet Air Arm sill exists fwiw.
- chrisseaton 4y agoIsn't that basically what I just said? The UK also has naval aviators, just like the US.
- phalangion 4y agoBecause of aircraft carriers. Those are the purview of the Navy, and are a mobile base of operations.
- random314 4y agoIn 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.
- anonymousiam 4y agoThis article doesn't mention it, but there's presently a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Paramount by the heirs of the author of the original story (Top Guns). More here: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/09/i-feel-the-need-the-need-to-file-frivolous-copyright-lawsuits-to-cash-in-on-top-gun/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/09/i-feel-the-need-the-need...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- smeej 4y agoReading the article you linked, the lawsuit sounds so spurious as not even to be worth mentioning.
- simonh 4y agoI have my doubts about it's merits too, but the fact is the first film cited the article as an inspiration in the end credits, and the studio licensed the article for adaptation. The license was cancelled a few years ago.
- shakahshakah 4y agoLast week's "Bloomberg Law" on radio touched on this -- unfortunately can't find a link that contains it, but it was at the end of the episode broadcast over this past weekend. In a nutshell, law prof said the article (Top Guns) was a non-fiction work, didn't bear much resemblance to the movie (no competition, no RIO dies, no female manufacturer rep, no MIGs, etc., really just a day-in-the-life of two guys at Top Gun), and Paramount likely didn't need the license for the first movie either. Also touched on differences re what copyright covers for non-fiction v. works of fiction, a even if it was held up in court what the $$ damages would be (in a lot of cases the courts look to the past to establish a value of such a license, and in this case they have the exact example from the first movie re what the willing seller agreed to with Paramount).
- technothrasher 4y agoSo what country were they attacking in the movie? It was Iran, right? It's the only country I could figure that the US doesn't want enriching uranium and also still flies F-14s. The only thing that doesn't fit is that, as far as I know, Iran has no snow covered mountains within a short distance of any body of water that the US would have a carrier in. Well that and they don't have any Russian 5th gen fighters, but neither does Russia really.
- kayodelycaon 4y agoThe enemy fighters were “MIG-28s” (actually T-5s). They were black and had a yellow circle with red star on the tail. I don’t think the enemy country was mentioned. Edit: according to the Top Gun wiki, the audio commentary says North Korea. https://topgun.fandom.com/wiki/MiG-28 https://topgun.fandom.com/wiki/MiG-28
- technothrasher 4y agoThe enemy country was clearly purposely not mentioned, and I think intended to be "generic bad guy".
- haliskerbas 4y agoPropaganda need be timeless after all
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoIncorect. The enemy aircraft were all Su-57, Russia's 5th gen fighter.
- simonh 4y agoRight, the enemy fighters in the first movie were MIG-28s.
- kayodelycaon 4y ago
- raybb 4y agoAccording to a recent tweet[1]: > Top Gun made $357 million at the box office. > But its biggest impact – a 500% boost to Navy recruitment. It's not that surprising but does show just how powerful movies can be in influencing the public perception. https://twitter.com/nathanbaugh27/status/1533061609488367616 https://twitter.com/nathanbaugh27/status/1533061609488367616
- mhh__ 4y agoYou can see F-14 in various states of wing-sweep or decomposition on Google or Bing maps if you look at Iranian airfields. Last time I checked bing has more of them.