Top Gun: Maverick

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

batguy

Sr Member
Maybe Maverick has been leaving MIGs alive when he beats them.

I'm picturing about five MIGs surrounding him alone. They say "We have you, American Cowboy! It's 5-on-1!" Maverick says "Nah. 3-on-1. After I take out your leader, maybe a couple of committed wingmen . . . the last two always bug out. Now, remember guys: you wanted this."
 
Last edited:

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

robn1

Master Member
No those are absolutely F/A-18 Hornet Silhouette. It is most likely just a huge screw-up from the art department. The US only exports Hornets to friendly nations so unless Canada or Switzerland have suddenly become enemies in this movie, that can't really occur. I haven't seen any mention of what they will be using as enemy Mig substitutes yet. Early talk was of drones but that was reportedly dropped. In todays market there are a number of privately owned Mig-29's and 35's. There are also at least 1 privately owned Su-27 in the United States. These could be used.
I was suggesting that if the film is using F/A-18s as MiGs, as the original film used F-5s, than it would make sense for the kill marks to be F/A-18 silhouettes.
 

Nismo

Well-Known Member
Nismo, In todays military aviation the vast majority of pilots will spend entire careers without ever encountering a hostile fighter aircraft. This has been the case since the end of the Vietnam War. In it's entire career with the USN from 1975-2006 the F-14 only had 5 kills, 4 migs and 1 helicopter. (The Iranians, who also have a number of tomcats claim to have shot down 159 enemy planes with it but this is far from confirmed) This low number is in part due to the USAF vectoring its own F-15's to most air-to-air engagements during the gulf war. There hasn't been a US Ace pilot in any flying branch (5 kills) since Vietnam. The closest anyone has gotten since 1975 is 3 kills. In short, Maverick going 30 years with only 3 kills is entirely realistic.
Thanks for the info - so hollywood showed some restraint - go firgure
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

BTTFSpencer

Sr Member
What you guys have to remember regarding the plane livery and costume is that it's a movie reboot and not reality, if you're looking for reality perhaps go back to the Navy or join it right away. Moviegoers aren't looking for reality or historical accuracy in something like this. No one has any illusions about this being how things really are. It's just another Tom Cruise egomobile. It's gonna be really bad, but not because of those reasons.

I'm getting an independence day 2 vibe.
 

Sluis Van Shipyards

Master Member
I am! I am someone who got annoying watching Independence Day because they were using the wrong NATO FOX call when they fired their missiles! :lol They said "Fox 2" which is an infrared missile, when they were firing AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. They should have said "Fox 3" for an active radar guided missile.
 

Maverick8500

Active Member
Yea I have to say that I look for realism within reason. I understand that many of details of TOP GUN are unrealistic. Pilots don't spend their time chasing each other 50 feet apart, trying for missile lock. Pete Pettigrew (the technical advisor on the first movie) talked about the film makers constantly ignoring him in favor of what they wanted because reality wasn't exciting enough for "ma and pa in Oklahoma". The markings don't have to be real, for example i don't need to see accurate VFA-31 or some other real USN squadron markings on the Hornets. They used altered markings from VAW-110 and VFA-25 for the first film, neither ever flew tomcats. But somethings are just typical movie studio stupidity, or worse they assume their viewers are stupid and won't know the difference. The Hornet Silhouettes are one of these screw-ups. Im sure someone in the art dept was told that pilots had silhouettes painted on their planes for each confirmed kill. They in turn took the silhouette of the only plane they knew and slapped it on the side of the Hornet. Too many stupid mistakes leads to "Stealth".
 

Utinni

Sr Member
The helmet he's wearing is i believe ( its a somewhat low res photo) an HGU-68. The USN requires its pilots to have their helmets covered in reflective 3M tape to make them easier to spot should they have to ditch in the ocean at night. Something like 80% is required to be white... obvious the production doesn't care about this, it was already a requirement when the first film was made in 85. but they ignored it then too. He also has a clear visor which is odd, but i assume they can't block his face... The USAF is the ones with the gray helmets. they wear HGU-55's which are almost identical, just a few minor parts differences here and there. They do not require reflective tape in the USAF. they just keep the standard gray paint.
Reflective tape might reek havoc on the cameras/lighting, and glossy white helmets could be an issue too. But I'm guessing the fully painted helmets are easier for the audience to see who is who.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

batguy

Sr Member
Yeah, the embellished helmet paintjobs must be for the audience to identify characters. In an action scene they need to know at every quick glance.

I agree, the stenciling Hornets for kills on the plane seems lazy. The movie prop painter might not have thought people would notice. But a real pilot wouldn't do that.
 

Edraven99

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Yea I have to say that I look for realism within reason. I understand that many of details of TOP GUN are unrealistic. Pilots don't spend their time chasing each other 50 feet apart, trying for missile lock. Pete Pettigrew (the technical advisor on the first movie) talked about the film makers constantly ignoring him in favor of what they wanted because reality wasn't exciting enough for "ma and pa in Oklahoma". The markings don't have to be real, for example i don't need to see accurate VFA-31 or some other real USN squadron markings on the Hornets. They used altered markings from VAW-110 and VFA-25 for the first film, neither ever flew tomcats. But somethings are just typical movie studio stupidity, or worse they assume their viewers are stupid and won't know the difference. The Hornet Silhouettes are one of these screw-ups. Im sure someone in the art dept was told that pilots had silhouettes painted on their planes for each confirmed kill. They in turn took the silhouette of the only plane they knew and slapped it on the side of the Hornet. Too many stupid mistakes leads to "Stealth".
Well would you take advice from someone who was in league with He Who Must Not Be Named??? :D
 

Riceball

Master Member
Yea I have to say that I look for realism within reason. I understand that many of details of TOP GUN are unrealistic. Pilots don't spend their time chasing each other 50 feet apart, trying for missile lock. Pete Pettigrew (the technical advisor on the first movie) talked about the film makers constantly ignoring him in favor of what they wanted because reality wasn't exciting enough for "ma and pa in Oklahoma".
It's not just about excitement, but also a matter of keeping things in frame. In a real BVR dogfight, or even within Sidewinder range the planes are going to be too far away from each other to really get an idea of what's going on. You either have to show one plane at a time firing and dodging missiles, or you'll have to pull back so far that the planes become tiny dots on the screen. This is done all the time with scenes in war movies involving tanks and grunts, they bunch them up much tighter than they would be in reality so they can all fit on screen at the same time.
 

Maverick8500

Active Member
It's not just about excitement, but also a matter of keeping things in frame. In a real BVR dogfight, or even within Sidewinder range the planes are going to be too far away from each other to really get an idea of what's going on. You either have to show one plane at a time firing and dodging missiles, or you'll have to pull back so far that the planes become tiny dots on the screen. This is done all the time with scenes in war movies involving tanks and grunts, they bunch them up much tighter than they would be in reality so they can all fit on screen at the same time.
Right, that was my point, when i said "realism within reason". I understand that's not reality, at least it hasn't been since the days of fighter aircraft in ww2 or Korea who only had machine guns and cannons as offensive weapons. But once missiles became the primary weapon these close-in fights went away for the most part. Yes for movie purposes they do have to take some artistic license. The helmets are another example of that. Each pilot needs to be easily identified by a viewer, as Batguy mentioned, so they gave each one a distinctive color. This isn't reality but its within reason. Utinni: The reflective tape isn't really the issue. The helmets from the original 1985 movie had all their markings in tape over a base paint color. They were done with non reflective vinyl instead of 3M reflective tape so they wouldn't interact with the camera in a negative way, I'm sure they are doing the same thing again. I do think there are ways to satisfy both the need for distinctive designs and the reality of mostly white helmets, but Mavericks helmet is just too iconic to be altered. You wouldn't put Indiana Jones in a baseball cap.

The hornet silhouettes are an example of something I see as not within reason. Its laziness or its filmmakers assuming their audience is dumb. Kinda like when Michael Bay used modern missile destroyers as stand-ins in Pearl Harbor. He would have been better-off with miniatures or CGI. Military movies are full of these kinds of mistakes.

My hope for this movie is that they stick with as many real aerial shots of real jets as humanly possible. CGI only when absolutely necessary (preferably miniatures) The story may not be great, and the sequel will never reach the iconic status the original has but it could still get itself some measure of notoriety with some incredible aviation footage.

BTW rumor has it that next week the production crew will be at one of the San Diego are air museums filming an F-14 tomcat so at least it won't all be "bugs"
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Riceball

Master Member
Yup, Miramar has been Marine Corps since the early to mid '90s. When I was there they mainly flew legacy Hornets out of there, now they're probably flying more F-35s. Along with the actual flying units there are also a good number of other (non-flying) air wing units stationed there as well; not all Air Wing units in the Corps fly or work on planes and helos. You aslo used to be able to occasionally hear S-3s flying around, I think they came from NAS North Island which is not far from Miramar.

As for air to air combat, as I said in my previous post, the art of dogfighting is not dead. Just because we're using missiles doesn't mean that you won't be dogfighting. Even with missiles you still have to maneuver in order to either obtain or break missile lock because no one is going to just continue to fly in a straight line if they realize they have either a missile or radar lock on them.
 

robstyle

Master Member
Word is the main reason production stalled was so Cruise could learn to fly an actual fighter jet, and do so in the film. Just passing along the info as thats how he will try and kill himself in this one.
 

Sluis Van Shipyards

Master Member
Word is the main reason production stalled was so Cruise could learn to fly an actual fighter jet, and do so in the film. Just passing along the info as thats how he will try and kill himself in this one.
I seriously hope that that means he was being shown enough of what to do to look like he's doing what's in the script. I don't think they can condense that training to months for an actor, let alone allow him to fly the plane.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top