Top Gun: Maverick (Top Gun 2 is comin)

[renegadeleader1]

If that patch is his father's what was a navy fighter pilot doing onboard the USS Galveston, a light cruiser in 1963-64?

[JB0]

52 minutes ago, renegadeleader1 said:

If that patch is his father's what was a navy fighter pilot doing onboard the USS Galveston, a light cruiser in 1963-64?

They did say his father died under mysterious circumstances. 

[Uxi]

I'm sure it's good reason in story.  And it's just a convenient coincidence the ChiComs won't be offended at the same time.  It's not like international distribution is a much bigger concern in 2019 than 1986.... It's not like they would have even heard about the whole Battleship , Red Dawn remake, etc all faced the same issue.

[RedLion]

In the opening shot I though it was Isamu flying towards the screen! I love how Macross Plus borrowed of of Top Gun, and how Top Gun 2 is giving a serious head nod to Macross Plus in return!

[JetJockey]

Well I watched the trailer and thought it was cool. Then I watched it on mute and thought something different. I haven't seen the most recent Mission Impossible. But these days Tom Cruise keeps selling these stunts that he is doing in the movies. Which is fine. But you still need to make a good movie. Not just a look what crazy stunt I do in the movie, movie. Especially when you know there will be some cut that's not him or a CG performance. For example that shot over the river that someone pointed out. I would be shocked if they let Tom Cruise pilot alone that low over water at that speed. So some of this stuff comes off a bit like something in those old Super Dave shows just with more realism to me.

 

But the trailer does play up that nostalgia which I don't know how it will turn out in the final movie. Tron Legacy by the same director did the same thing, which I mentioned before. And the original Tron is a way better movie. My fear is it will probably be the same with Top Gun 2. Tron and Top Gun are two of my favorite movies which I've seen hundreds of times. I only need one hand for the number of times I've seen Tron Legacy. I hope Top Gun 2 won't be the same.

[JB0]

30 minutes ago, JetJockey said:

I would be shocked if they let Tom Cruise pilot alone that low over water at that speed.

There's like a negative 300% chance that the US Navy is going to let a civilian pilot one of their fighters alone, even if he DOES have a pilot's license. It was obvious from the start that it wasn't going to be Cruise doing any aviation stunts.

[Dobber]

He’s just riding in the back of a F/A-18F which is a 2 seater. But he is in the there having to withstand the g’s and such.

Chris

[JB0]

I want a blooper reel of Cruise getting airsick.

[grss1982]

9 hours ago, RedLion said:

In the opening shot I though it was Isamu flying towards the screen! I love how Macross Plus borrowed of of Top Gun, and how Top Gun 2 is giving a serious head nod to Macross Plus in return!

An awesome nod would be if the F-18 did the inverted flying while hugging ground that Isamu did in Macross Plus.

I was quite surprise by the announcement of this movie, but a part of me has this nagging feeling it might flop.

[Shadow]

An old making of the first Top Gun.

[Chronocidal]

4 hours ago, JB0 said:

I want a blooper reel of Cruise getting airsick.

So, I seriously doubt this'll happen.  While they may not let him fly a Hornet, I believe the P-51 you see a clip of in the trailer is his personal aircraft.  Whether he flew it in the movie, I don't know, but he was commuting to the filming site in it.

[kalvasflam]

I am sure he was a backseater on the F-18.  I think the Youtube video pointed out that this was likely an F version of the plane.  Besides, those shots of him were probably all done on a check ride, they might pull a few acrobatics, but you can be sure they'll be approved ahead of time, and probably have a very senior pilot up front.  The Navy would want positive publicity, and it would never do if Cruise is hurt or killed in the process.  All in all, this movie was probably less dangerous in terms of stunt shot than the last Mission Impossible, where he jumped out of a C-17 a bunch of times, or the one before where he hung from the side of an A-400.

Whatever else you can say about the man, he earns his paychecks.

 

 

[wmkjr]

I wanna see the plane he flies that needs him in that pressure suit and helmet. Maybe an Aurora type?

[JB0]

11 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

So, I seriously doubt this'll happen.  While they may not let him fly a Hornet, I believe the P-51 you see a clip of in the trailer is his personal aircraft.  Whether he flew it in the movie, I don't know, but he was commuting to the filming site in it.

Spoilin' my fun, like a big spoiley spoiler.

 

Gotta admit, it is awesome that he actually OWNS AND OPERATES a fighter plane.

...

Pity he couldn't get a Tomcat off the Navy when they decommissioned 'em all.

[JetJockey]

I thought he might get a real F-14 but that was before I realized the costs of maintaining a plane with a jet engine. Add in that the F-14 is a twin engine military aircraft and even an actor like Tom Cruise would probably pass on that. The costs of keeping the Mustang flying are relatively cheap in comparison. I wouldn't be surprised if he owned a decommissioned F-14 though. Even if it's just a shell. I remember seeing a youtube video where some people stumbled across the ruins of a decommissioned F-14 I think.

 

And if Top Gun 2, is all about love letter to aviation or however he put it in that interview. And since Maverick is flying Tom Cruise's plane which I don't think was a Navy plane. And going from the trailer, Maverick seems to have Tom Cruise's interests with bikes everywhere and flying at least three planes. It might be possible that Maverick is flying the Blackbird as that's another notable aviation plane that a lot of people love.

[Chronocidal]

35 minutes ago, JetJockey said:

I thought he might get a real F-14 but that was before I realized the costs of maintaining a plane with a jet engine. Add in that the F-14 is a twin engine military aircraft and even an actor like Tom Cruise would probably pass on that. The costs of keeping the Mustang flying are relatively cheap in comparison. I wouldn't be surprised if he owned a decommissioned F-14 though. Even if it's just a shell. I remember seeing a youtube video where some people stumbled across the ruins of a decommissioned F-14 I think.

While the F-14 was an insanely maintenance heavy aircraft, the costs of maintenance aren't what keep F-14s out of the hands of civilians, sadly.  The government heavily regulates what's left of those aircraft.  In fact, I remember reading when it was discovered that people were pilfering components from boneyards, and selling them on ebay (and probably the black market), they ordered any remaining F-14 major components shredded.  I don't know how many are left beyond the ones scattered around as gate guardians.

The Mustang is a different story entirely, since you can actually buy new ones of those now.  I forget who does it, but there is a modern assembly line that produces them for air racing, with all the bells and whistles of a modern aircraft in terms of navigation/communication. 

There are quite a few jets that can be fairly easily operated by civilians though.  Certain Vietnam-era MiGs are popular on airshow circuits, and I've heard that the A-4 Skyhawk is actually gaining a fairly large civilian presence, due to its good handling qualities, and easy maintenance.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Chronocidal

[TangledThorns]

[Shadow]

^

Slightly off-topic on the F-14. I still wish the Navy would have retained a small handful of F-14s to use as aggressor aircraft for simulating longer-range engagements. I can't imagine keeping 5-7 Tomcats operational would have been that costly.

[F-ZeroOne]

23 hours ago, Shadow said:

Another former F/A-18 pilot's reaction.

 

Oh, bless him for the "Doug Masters" reference!

[Dynaman]

4 hours ago, Shadow said:

^

Slightly off-topic on the F-14. I still wish the Navy would have retained a small handful of F-14s to use as aggressor aircraft for simulating longer-range engagements. I can't imagine keeping 5-7 Tomcats operational would have been that costly.

Keeping a small batch of aircraft flying is VERY expensive.  Mechanics need to be kept up to speed on those particular aircraft, and if they are aging they will require more maintenance then younger aircraft so dedicated crews, parts would need to be kept on hand and the F14 has some unique to that airframe, etc...

Edited July 21, 2019 by Dynaman

[Sanity is Optional]

Not just that, the electronic components in these old aircraft are downright ancient. I'm talking 500nm aluminum on silicon chip designs.

No American company produces them anymore, you can barely find them, and even if you do there's a better than even chance they're Chinese knockoffs, usually without the durability and radiation resistance of the genuine article.

The older it gets, the harder it is to repair without doing full refits, and a full refit would need a full set of exhaustive testing to go with. 

[Shadow]

Understood. I can understand parts for the older F-14A/B would be tough to maintain. Was it just as difficult to maintain the D models even with their digital upgrades?

[Chronocidal]

I don't think the F-14D was produced in any significant amount that would make it much easier to acquire those components, and by that point in the program, I think the plane was close to bankrupting Grumman due to bad contract arrangements and fixed-cost issues.  

Even if the electronic components were readily available though, the airframe was unique enough, and underwent enough wear and tear, that keeping even a tiny group in flyable condition would require a fair library of replacement mechanical components that were long out of production.

As I understand it (and please, anyone with better knowledge correct me here), it's not as though manufacturers keep producing components for a plane after the initial buy.  What you get is a full package, which includes a number of full aircraft off the production line, as well as a stock of replacement components intended to keep the planes flying for their service life.  After that, the production lines shut down, and reconfigure to make other aircraft, so if you run out of spares faster than anticipated, it's going to be very expensive to bring back up the production line to make more.

I would imagine that's why Boeing re-opening the production lines for the Super Hornet is such a relatively big deal.  It's not just that the Navy is getting more planes, it's that the production lines are available to restock the supply chain with fresh spares, and depots can stop cannibalizing older airframes to keep newer aircraft flying.

[Vifam7]

A couple of years ago, I recall the US Marines having to raid a F/A-18A Legacy Hornet museum piece aboard the USS Yorktown for a nose landing gear door hinge because the part was out of production.

[Dynaman]

> As I understand it (and please, anyone with better knowledge correct me here), it's not as though manufacturers keep producing components for a plane after the initial buy.

The weapons procurement system in the US (and I would imagine most other countries) is so screwed up(*) that it is possible this is done somewhere somehow but in general you don't do so - it is a waste of money that could be spent more productively.  

(*) - Buying only X of a vehicle instead of Y even though that jacks up the per unit cost a lot simply to make a budget for a particular year.  On the plus side it often keeps employees trained on a system longer in case more are needed later.

[peter]

On 7/21/2019 at 6:41 AM, TangledThorns said:

LOL!

[sh9000]

[M'Kyuun]

On 7/22/2019 at 2:53 PM, Dynaman said:

> As I understand it (and please, anyone with better knowledge correct me here), it's not as though manufacturers keep producing components for a plane after the initial buy.

The weapons procurement system in the US (and I would imagine most other countries) is so screwed up(*) that it is possible this is done somewhere somehow but in general you don't do so - it is a waste of money that could be spent more productively.  

(*) - Buying only X of a vehicle instead of Y even though that jacks up the per unit cost a lot simply to make a budget for a particular year.  On the plus side it often keeps employees trained on a system longer in case more are needed later.

Your first comment is correct. When the govt makes a contract with the manufacturer, it's for 'x' amount of aircraft and 'x' amount of spare parts, and you're talking about thousands to millions of parts, test equipment for many of the high end parts, special tools, training, technical literature for test/inspection/repair, not to mention money paid to subcontractor higher end maintenance for those things that can't be rebuilt or repaired at the field level. The rabbit hole for a new piece of equipment is deep and labyrinthine. Add to that politics, and then you see the agreed upon number of acquisitions fluctuate, usually lower, to much lower, than initially agreed upon, which serves only to raise the cost of each unit. Additionally, if the aircraft in question is intended to be a multi-Service aircraft, then each branch contributes it's own requisites to a growing list, and the manufacturer has to somehow try to meet all those demands. I'm currently reading about the development of the Osprey, so while I have tangential knowledge from working on military aircraft, the book delves much deeper into the process than my meager experience offers, and these are some of the issues which accompany the process. Once an aircraft contract is met, and all spare parts have been produced, that's usually it for inventory. In many cases, all tooling is destroyed, and the only recourse for introducing spare parts into the supply system is to retire a number of aircraft and cannibalize as much useful stuff off of them as is feasible. However, sometimes something like a fuel or hydraulic line will burst, one that's incredibly difficult to make, and Logistics will order one removed from a plane in the boneyard to either use outright or to use as a sample for the sheet metal folks. Same goes for skin panels, and other structures of a nature that make them difficult or impractical to remove for preservation.

Concerning the sky-genitals, I believe it was our Navy folks here in WA that did that bit of artistry. Naturally, I think somebody complained b/c people love to be offended even when they're not. It's harmless and funny- have a laugh and carry on.

[Bolt]

Lol. Great insight behind the curtain @M'Kyuun.  I would assume that the newest fighter aircraft are still being supported with spare parts and inventory. And software as well..

[M'Kyuun]

Our 'newest' fighters, the F-22, and her baby sister, the F-35, are over twenty, and 14 years old, respectively. As tech progresses, the time period for development seems to expand, and it's especially visible when looking at military hardware. It's crazy when you consider during WWII aircraft companies could pump out a new aircraft, from concept to full production and flying missions in a matter of months. Now the same process takes decades.

Concerning software, that's one area of improvement that's continuous throughout a military, and I'd assume commercial, aircraft's operational life. I worked on KC-135s with 50 years of service, and they still would receive the odd upgrade here and there. Likewise Vietnam era MC-130Es at Hurlburt Fld, which I'm sure have been retired to the Guard at this point. So yeah, black boxes, and other add-on electronic tech continue to find their way into aging aircraft.

Back on topic, Tom Cruise seems to be a rather accomplished pilot; he was already multi-engine certed, and learned to fly a helicopter, which he did solo, for his last MI film. So, I tip my hat to the man, as he has demonstrated, in my mind, the competency to take a fighter for a spin.  I very strenuously doubt they'd allow him to fly an F-18 solo- quite an expensive and sensitive war machine to put in the hands of a novice (compared to highly trained Naval aviators, who rank in my book as the best in the world) just to make a film. So, I'm thinking they used twin seaters for the shots of Tom in the plane flying. That's not to say they didn't give him stick time; I've known AF folks who got to take incentive rides in fighters, and they were allowed to fly the plane for a bit, and these are non-pilot maintenance folks, so an experienced pilot like Tom would have little trouble conducting himself professionally in that situation, methinks. I'm kinda curious what kind of story they're going to cook up; I guess they could always go after some fictional Middle Eastern group , but given the eponymous title, and Tom's hubris, I'm thinking it's all about Tom.

Edited December 16, 2019 by M'Kyuun

[sh9000]

Looks good!

[Dobber]

[Dynaman]

A P51?  You got my Iron Eagle 3 in your Top Gun 2.

[Shadow]

So Maverick's exploits were so great, the Navy mounted his F-14A.

I'm definitely checking this film out now. Looking at the cockpit footage of the Super Hornet, I'm curious if they filmed in an older Block I.

[Roy Focker]

In the original movie he was a Maverick because of his daddy issues.  Through the course of the movie he grew as a person and was still became the hero.   Top Gun was more of a character driven story than a look at these cool jet fighters.  We watched and remember it for the cool jet fighters.   This trailer looks more like what you expect from a Tom Cruise movie - look how great and cool his character is!   Why after 30 years does he appear to be an even more daring and dangerous maverick?   Maybe that's just the trailer. It just doesn't seem like they considered how this character might have grown and changed during the last 30 years.