I couldn't believe YLTLF isn't on the soundtrack.

And I still have the original 1986 vintage cassette of that bad boy at home someplace.

Top Gun was an unbelievably bad movie. The dialogue is some of the most comical drivel I have ever sat through.

Top Gun 2 will be even more incredible, I predict.

Yes, the Naval Aviators hated the movie, because it was Laurel & Hardy comedy. It was fun to heckle them.

Hey Nav said:

---

Top Gun was an unbelievably bad movie. The dialogue is some of the most comical drivel I have ever sat through.

Top Gun 2 will be even more incredible, I predict.

---

I feel the need

PatAg said:

---

Hey Nav said:

---

Top Gun was an unbelievably bad movie. The dialogue is some of the most comical drivel I have ever sat through.

Top Gun 2 will be even more incredible, I predict.

---

I feel the need

---

Right after that, they show an F-14 hauling ass. I could never put my finger on what about that shot make it look like it's going so fast. It's not going supersonic and the video is not particularly shaky or anything (the typical technique). I can find plenty of videos of planes going faster, but something about that shot makes it appear that is the fastest plane ever.

So we're getting the synthwave or bro country version.

Ha, that's EXACTLY who I was thinking. Though, since Kosinski has such a good ear (Daft Punk/Tron Legacy and M83/Oblivion), I'm hoping he'll at least steer it to a decent, non-terrible collaboration.

I served in the Navy (Sea Bees) and NCOs like the film just fine I thought.

Amongst officers it was mixed. Aviators and Flight Officers definitely don't care fore it. Either because they're not fighter pilots and secretly feel slighted or because they ARE fighter pilots and don't care for the inaccuracies.


But the Department of the Navy gave full access to the film to use it as a recruiting tool. It was great PR.


It will be interesting to see what they do with the script as fighter pilots are no longer pure fighter pilots, they're more bomber pilots, or "Fighter/Attack" designated (hence F/A-18).


Dropping laser guided bombs on truck depots doesn't quite get the nipples hard like shooting down Russians will.


I would also be interested to see if they use the Super Hornet or our new F-35 squadrons. The DoD took a huge beating getting the F-35 made and now it's here it could use the positive press.

Also the F-14 Tomcat was phased out a long way back. The RIO or Radar Intercept Officer is obsolete.
That means no Goose, no Slider, no Merlin. The relationship and banter between pilot and RIO was a major part of that movie.

I've always wondered something about the end of the first movie...

How accurate is it that a bunch of guys who JUST graduated from Top Gun are called into action like that? Yes, it's ridiculous that it happens at their graduation, but I can forgive that as a movie contrivance/necessity. I'm wondering more about the overall pecking order. Like, why aren't pilots who are more experienced and graduated from Top Gun, say, three years ago, tending to the crisis at the end? Why do they ask a group of Top Gun rookies instead? I'm assuming that's just another movie contrivance, but I was wondering if there was any truth/accuracy to that, like fresh graduates are considered better because they've more recently been through intense training or something.

On that same note, can someone explain what "level" of pilot Maverick & co are in the opening sequence, at the beginning of the movie? Like, do those guys actually engage enemies as well or is that just a Top Gun thing? Also, is it accurate that Stinger would be in command of them at the beginning, and then also again at the end, after they've made it through Top Gun? Or is that yet another movie contrivance?

I know next to nothing about the Navy or fighter pilots or how any of that works and TexAgs seems fairly knowledgeable in these matters. I've always been somewhat curious, so I thought I'd ask.

The F/A-18F has a pilot and a weapon systems officer. The -18E is single seat.

Gotcha. And yeah, I have a copy of the script and it's insanely detailed and reads as incredibly knowledgeable.

It might be a skewed sample, but I work with pilots (including one who flew SR-71s) and they are not at all like the cocky dudes in Top Gun. They are also engineers though, so they are more like Neil Armstrong and less like Chuck Yeagar.


I worry that I will not like this movie because I work for defense contractor on the F-35. I know a whole lot more about this stuff then I did back then. I'm afraid I will not be able to suspend disbelief enough and might nit-pick this movie to death.

A few films that I think are more realistic (although still "Hollywood") are :

Flight of the Intruders



and The Great Santini



Heck, Hank Hill rented Santini 18 times

Then, if you want to watch an incredible film dealing with military leadership, it's 12 O'Clock High.

TCTTS said:

---

I've always wondered something about the end of the first movie...

How accurate is it that a bunch of guys who JUST graduated from Top Gun are called into action like that? Yes, it's ridiculous that it happens at their graduation, but I can forgive that as a movie contrivance/necessity. I'm wondering more about the overall pecking order. Like, why aren't pilots who are more experienced and graduated from Top Gun, say, three years ago, tending to the crisis at the end? Why do they ask a group of Top Gun rookies instead? I'm assuming that's just another movie contrivance, but I was wondering if there was any truth/accuracy to that, like fresh graduates are considered better because they've more recently been through intense training or something.

On that same note, can someone explain what "level" of pilot Maverick & co are in the opening sequence, at the beginning of the movie? Like, do those guys actually engage enemies as well or is that just a Top Gun thing? Also, is it accurate that Stinger would be in command of them at the beginning, and then also again at the end, after they've made it through Top Gun? Or is that yet another movie contrivance?

I know next to nothing about the Navy or fighter pilots or how any of that works and TexAgs seems fairly knowledgeable in these matters. I've always been somewhat curious, so I thought I'd ask.

---

From what I understand amongst those guys I know who were in the aviation community (an important distinction they make because "The Air Force has pilots; they land on runways. Naval Aviators land on carriers") there was a lot of little things they'd never do and a few big things.

Top Gun first of all has no trophy. Advanced training is tough enough. While flyers are very competitive amongst each other you just want to graduate.

Also once a guy gets back to his squadron they're responsible for teaching what he/she learned to everyone else. I can't imagine Mavrick being pulled mid deployment to go to advanced training.

Yes, the scene where they get their orders at graduation was just sexy writing. You would go with whoever was deployed closet.

For example NavDevGru or "Seal Team 6" had a squadron already rotated back to Little Creek from Iraq so they were chosen for Bin Laden. Could have just as easily been CAG (Combat Applications Group or "Delta Force" if you will).

What else? Stinger was (my guess) the CO of the CAG or Carrier Air Group. There's the ship's Captain and then there's the CAG who commands all the ship's aircraft squadons. If he was still deployed on Enterprise he could be CAG CO in the beginning and end.

Oh, and buzzing the tower once gets you court martial so that irks the tailhookers, too.

Truth is the Navy wanted this as a recruiting film. You show me an honest recruiter I'll show yow a guy not meeting his quota and being reassigned.

You are correct, Sir.

I hear you. Who knows how it'll come across in the movie, but the director and writer have been granted full access by the military or Navy or whoever and have been working hand-in-hand with them to develop the script and get things as accurate as possible.

aTmAg said:

---

I worry that I will not like this movie because I work for defense contractor on the F-35. I know a whole lot more about this stuff then I did back then. I'm afraid I will not be able to suspend disbelief enough and might nit-pick this movie to death.

---

That must suck. I work in medicine and most of the **** they put on tv/film is wrong

AlphaCharlieUniformAggie said:

---

Oh, and buzzing the tower once gets you court martial so that irks the tailhookers, too.

---

I hear that barrel-roll immediately after launch would most likely get you shot down by your own guys as well.

Rapier108 said:

---

The F/A-18F has a pilot and a weapon systems officer. The -18E is single seat.

---

You're right, I think. I believe the Marines used back seaters in there hornets, too. But aren t those specifically attack designation? Marines do go to Top Gun but they're primary role is air support.


It wasn't my community honestly. But I heard some things and wanted to contribute to the thread.


Edit: Checked and it's the Australians who use the 2 seaters.

wangus12 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I worry that I will not like this movie because I work for defense contractor on the F-35. I know a whole lot more about this stuff then I did back then. I'm afraid I will not be able to suspend disbelief enough and might nit-pick this movie to death.

---

That must suck. I work in medicine and most of the **** they put on tv/film is wrong

---

Except for Scrubs