I saw the movie Top Gun Maverick today. My review

Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
21,268
Location
Silicon Valley
Agreed. The first one had much more talent and more memorable because of it. TG2 is good because of the 1st
Never watched any prior ones (too young back then) and by the time I can pick my own movies to watch it was too "boomer" and outdated for me. I hated the music as well because it was way overplayed when I was a kid. I have the same problem with the Star War franchise, maybe except the first one in the 90s, that one was "ok" to me, I'd give it about 80 as well.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
11
The tactics were a plot construct.

The deep valley/mountain bowl in which the target was located precluded a lot of weapon types, and a lot of delivery types, so that it had to be a manned aircraft delivery using low level ingress and a high G, high risk egress.

The Punch Bowl, a similar bowl in the Chocolate Mountains North of Yuma and the Salton Sea, has tanks and other armor for targets. Dropping live bombs in the Punch Bowl required a low level ingress, followed by a high pop (AB climb to mid altitude, roll over, pull into 45 degree dive) delivery. So, I've done the same type of attack, though it lacked the pretty scenery of valley streams and snow-capped peaks.

A heavy SAM threat, as part of a good IADS (Integrated Air Defense System - Including early warning radars, GCI radars, ELINT systems, Sam acquisition and targeting radars, SAMs themselves, and of course, fighter bases and fighters), precludes a lot of delivery tactics and a lot of weapon types.

You can take down an IADS, as part of a serious campaign, but it's a process, involves both kinetic and other methods, and is going to be viewed by the target nation as starting a full-scale war.

Taking out one target, on one strike, and leaving, as the Israelis did with Iraq's nuclear facilities at Osirak, is far more preferable to starting a full-scale war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

The tactics of low level ingress in a canyon were believable...and also convenient for showing off low level flying by Super Hornets.

The movie wasn't made to be totally realistic, it was made for general audiences, but the tactics, and the flying, were realistic enough. They were far better than the first movie. When you see dust kicked up on the desert floor (filmed near Fallon, from the looks of it) by a high-G pull up of an F/A-18 that was very low - that was a camera on a real F/A-18 flying very low.

Very low.

The enemy order of battle was also a plot construct. The "5th Generation fighters" looked a lot like the SU-57, which Russia hasn't yet exported because they've only built a few of them so far. They had to get an F-14 in there, so, yeah, a fictional adversary nation.

You bet I loved it when they decided to steal the F-14. The engines don't start that quick, and there isn't a round counter for the gun, but again, keeping the story/plot moving was a driver above technical accuracy. The sequences in the F-14 were filmed in the cockpit. Those switches, emergency wingsweep handle, and multitude of circuit breakers, were all authentic, even if their use wasn't exactly correct. You would use auto for the wingsweep, not the emergency handle, and full flaps, not flaps up, would've been a better choice for short field takeoff.

I talked about "splitting the throttles" to rapidly maneuver the airplane at low speed in my thread on the F-14. I smiled at that detail - they clearly talked to a Tomcat driver when they wrote this movie, even if not every detail was technically accurate.

Penny Benjamin was a really well done character - a link back to the original move, believable (yeah, I know, yacht, Porsche, beach house, but it's Hollywood, and the P-51 is out of reach of a Navy Captain, too) and beautifully portrayed by Jennifer Connelly, who was the right age for Maverick while still looking fabulous in her 50s.

I thought the inclusion of Val Kilmer, in his present condition, was a poignant and powerful link back to the first movie. The text exchanges were great. The missing man formation was as well done as I've seen them and the Veteran's Cemetery at Point Loma was a fitting site for his funeral. Wings pounded into a coffin was also a great plot point, done for many years as a tradition in the Navy, particularly among SEALs.

Many of the characters, while well done, made no sense from a billet/job perspective. "Hondo" the project director made no sense as the guy doling out pushups, or rigging the barricade. He wouldn't be immediately put in charge of the flight deck like that. The admirals were similarly multi-role in a way that made no sense - but having different characters in each of those roles - Strike Group Commander, Air Boss, Top Gun/NSAWC CO would've been too confusing for the audience and would've diluted the Maverick/Top Brass conflict that was key to the story.

In all, I loved it. Sure, it had some technical inaccuracies, but it was fun, it was believable, it was engaging and it had great flying.

A worthy and well-done sequel to the original.

Go see it.
Jocko Willink had the Marine aviator, former "Top Gun" instructor, who served as an adviser, on one of his podcasts recently.
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,721
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Yeah the only country that has F14's is Iran and they never sold the ones they had to any other country. And countries that have 5th gen fighters already have nukes so it doesn't matter if they have an enrichment facility. So yeah, lots of fiction in there but some of is accurate I guess. When the US sold F14's to Iran, they didn't have tailhooks so Tom had to crash on the carrier. Astro14, how was the landing? He also said one of the engines was out too which makes it even harder.

No - they all have tailhooks. They simply don't take them off. Foreign sales of F/A-18s include everything including the carrier gear since it's all balanced. Tailhooks are still useful for emergency landings where most military airfields have emergency cables. I'm not sure how much of this is a re-creation, but some of the footage is supposed to be real.



The reason for the emergency landing in Top Gun: Maverick was the front landing gear was damaged, and the ejection mechanism didn't work. Usually when something like know damaged landing gear happens, they're supposed to eject.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
7,894
Location
Atlanta,GA
Saw it last night. It was a trip down memory lane with all the reshoots and parallel storyline.

I was happy to see Cruise allowed the story to include Val Kilmer. I think that was a last minute decision but I'm probably wrong

Loved the F14 and some of the maneuvers they put it through. Loved how they showcased how old the plane actually is (gauges vs MFD's).

I grew up wanting to fly the F14 prior to the first movie (I was 14 when TG came out). It's just an awesome looking aircraft.

One thing I liked is that they didn't call out the enemy as Iran as it would detract from the story.. Yes they bought some F14's when the Shah ran the show).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
13,471
Location
MA
One thing I liked is that they didn't call out the enemy as Iran as it would detract from the story.. Yes they bought some F14's when the Shah ran the show).
It's always good to have them nameless. Who knows when Iran might be a major movie market. That's kinda what happened to Red Dawn, originally in the remake it was supposed to be China but that would really kill the movie's potential in that market so they made it North Korea which made no sense at all. Just like it has to be Iran because no one else has F14s. But Iran has no 5th gen fighters and probably no one will sell them any for a long time so lots of liberties were taken.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2021
Messages
258
Location
East TN
By the way...just in case you think that some of the aircraft maneuvering is far fetched in the movie (and some may be...)...I suggest you watch the Dog Fight series on the History/Military channel...

Like this one...



Go to time stamp 30:25 and you'll see what I mean...

Remember what Maverick said...it's the pilot, not the plane (or something to that effect)
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
13,471
Location
MA
It's not the plane.. it's the pilot. *hard bank left*
Speaking of which, I remember in a single engine propeller plane it was supposed to be easier banking one way than the other because of the prop spinning one way, what about a jet engine? You still have the turbine spinning although I suppose they could spin the other way for two engines vs one?
 
Top