Exec: Top Gun 2 Is Real and Stars a Plane That Doesn’t Fly
40 replies, posted
[quote=Gizmodo]A Lockheed engineer is probably the last person you'd expect to break the news of a Hollywood mega-blockbuster sequel, but here we go! Flightglobal is reporting Top Gun 2 is not only happening, but starring Tom Cruise (!) as an F-35 pilot. Ha!
The bizarre news, centered around a movie that doesn't even have an IMDB page and a broken airplane, is taking a little bit to process here. The first question: what will Tom Cruise do? Stand on a runway, staring at his grounded F-35? Will the F-35 be a metaphor for some kind of personal growth? Is the Tom Cruise Lockheed is talking about the same Tom Cruise? Will he fix all of the plane's electrical problems to get the girl?
The film, if it does hit production next month as Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin F-35 program manager claims, the writers will have an even greater challenge than the plane's engineers—you can only make a defective, trillion-dollar paperweight so exciting. I can see it now: Maverick is sitting, Four Loko lodged into his beer gut, watching the air war of Libya thunder away, as his F-35 sits outside under a tarp. Fade to black. Begin volleyball scene. Val Kilmer looks better than ever. Chests glistening like so many unused guided bombs. OFFRAMP TO THE SAFETY ZONE. [Flightglobal][/quote]
[url]http://gizmodo.com/5889737/top-gun-2-is-real-and-stars-a-plane-that-doesnt-fly/[/url]
[img]http://forums.watchuseek.com/attachments/f7/273973d1270639542-what-watch-does-tom-cruise-have-top-gun-1.jpg[/img]
I love the theme song at the end of this movie.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCTJmXrgsFg[/media]
The F-35 flies fine, it's the F-35B they're having problems with.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;34949713]Enemy MiGs inbound!
[img]http://aviones.herobo.com/f5e.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
That's an F-5E Tiger if you don't get the joke.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34949867]The F-35 flies fine, it's the F-35B they're having problems with.[/QUOTE]
What about the F-35C? As this is Top Gun they'll likely be using the naval version.
I'm seriously not understanding what the article is talking about.
It's a movie, what does it matter what kind of plane is being used?
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;34950033]I'm seriously not understanding what the article is talking about.
It's a movie, what does it matter what kind of plane is being used?[/QUOTE]
authenticity is important and adds to the movie.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;34950033]I'm seriously not understanding what the article is talking about.
It's a movie, what does it matter what kind of plane is being used?[/QUOTE]
cause the airplane is a pile of shit
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;34949731]that's some weird camouflage[/QUOTE]
It's camo used by aggressor squadrons, which the US flyboys use to train in air to air combat. It's representative of the flamboyant camos used by the Soviets.
[img]http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/15.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;34950033]I'm seriously not understanding what the article is talking about.
It's a movie, what does it matter what kind of plane is being used?[/QUOTE]
The plane they are going to use doesn't currently work very well.
One of the variants has been all but abandoned completely.
Currently only the "A" model works and that one is for the USAF. And I use the term "works" in the most general of senses.
An F-18 would fly circles around it and then insult it for being ugly.
EDIT:
Note that this is important because the original's entertainment value stemmed entirely from the fact that the Navy said "Fine, whatever, you can use a few Tomcats".
When a pitiful number of barely functioning prototypes of the aircraft in question even exist, do you think the Navy is going to let them be used in a movie?
[editline]1st March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;34949867]The F-35 flies fine, it's the F-35B they're having problems with.[/QUOTE]
The F-35 is barely able to keep up with the F-16. The F-16 was a solid BUDGET multirole aircraft, but I expect a hell of a lot more out of something as expensive as the F-35.
And it will NEVER fly well enough to outperform the A-10, which it is still slated to replace. Who the fuck lets anyone even consider any option other than upgrading current A-10's, is beyond me.
[QUOTE=Apache249;34951596]It's camo used by aggressor squadrons, which the US flyboys use to train in air to air combat. It's representative of the flamboyant camos used by the Soviets. [/QUOTE]
I actually had a different picture of the F5 up earlier with some funky brown camo but i had to change it
im pretty sure he is referring to that one
Top Gun was a great movie with some great flight scenes, but the French already made a new one, and I dare say it's better...
[video=youtube;w9p7KdkOP4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9p7KdkOP4s[/video]
[QUOTE=MajorMattem;34949758]Thread music.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8rZWw9HE7o[/media][/QUOTE]
Am I right that the footage at 0:16 is wrong? They're not supposed to use afterburner while on the ship because it melts the pavement.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34951627]The plane they are going to use doesn't currently work very well.
One of the variants has been all but abandoned completely.
Currently only the "A" model works and that one is for the USAF. And I use the term "works" in the most general of senses.
An F-18 would fly circles around it and then insult it for being ugly.
EDIT:
Note that this is important because the original's entertainment value stemmed entirely from the fact that the Navy said "Fine, whatever, you can use a few Tomcats".
When a pitiful number of barely functioning prototypes of the aircraft in question even exist, do you think the Navy is going to let them be used in a movie?
[editline]1st March 2012[/editline]
The F-35 is barely able to keep up with the F-16. The F-16 was a solid BUDGET multirole aircraft, but I expect a hell of a lot more out of something as expensive as the F-35.
And it will NEVER fly well enough to outperform the A-10, which it is still slated to replace. Who the fuck lets anyone even consider any option other than upgrading current A-10's, is beyond me.[/QUOTE]
Don't quote me on this, but I talked to an airforce potential pilot/recruit guy a while back who said that they'd cancelled plans to replace the A-10 with the F-35, mostly because the F-35 really can't do the A-10s job anywhere near as well.
[QUOTE=Shogoll;34953553]Don't quote me on this, but I talked to an airforce potential pilot/recruit guy a while back who said that they'd cancelled plans to replace the A-10 with the F-35, mostly because the F-35 really can't do the A-10s job anywhere near as well.[/QUOTE]
Last I heard the military basically laughed at the idea, but politics still had the F-35 slated to replace it because the A-10 isn't "versatile" enough.
Nevermind the fact that the job the A-10 does is likely the overwhelming majority of modern sorties and the things have been running forever with remarkably few upgrades. The Russian Frogfoot is the only plane even in the same class, and it is a far cry from the awesomeness that is the A-10. The Frogfoot was the product of conventional wisdom at the time. The plane that was SUPPOSED to be the aircraft filling the A-10's slot (YA-9) was made roughly the same time as the frogfoot and looks veryyyy similar.
Frogfoot
[img]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/342/su25ub.jpg[/img]
YA-9
[img]http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3530/northropya9prototype.jpg[/img]
The fuckers are damn close in design. Single vertical stabilizer, two large engines close to the fuselage, two narrow slightly swept wings.
Then this badass shows up looking like a fighter jet raped a civilian aircraft:
[img]http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/6332/800pxa10thunderboltiiin.jpg[/img]
And not only beats the YA-9, which was the favored child, it fucking ANNIHILATED it.
FOUR DECADES have passed and the A-10 is still king of close air support. Other aircraft can make similar claims, but none that I know of can make these claims having had only one upgrade package applied (In 2005.)
And yet people want to replace this with the F-35 flying money hole. Who the fuck even considers this shit.
[QUOTE=Ridge;34952569]Top Gun was a great movie with some great flight scenes, but the French already made a new one, and I dare say it's better...
[video=youtube;w9p7KdkOP4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9p7KdkOP4s[/video][/QUOTE]
That trailer sucks. The movie is decent. If you like this sort of stuff, it is worth the watch.
They better remake this scene.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdAVH-ZeUHc[/media]
I want to see every drop of sweat in HD.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;34950005]What about the F-35C? As this is Top Gun they'll likely be using the naval version.[/QUOTE]
Works fine. The problems that people hear about the F-35 stem from the B variant, the one which is to be used as a replacement for harriers. The main issue its having is with its powerplant and the lift fan it uses to hover and what not.
I actually like the look of the F-35
Shame it's so expensive
[editline]2nd March 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chinook249;34953387]Am I right that the footage at 0:16 is wrong? They're not supposed to use afterburner while on the ship because it melts the pavement.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure it's safe to use the afterburner, but with CATOBAR carriers it's probably just to look cool
USAF bought the shitty version of the F-35. F-22s are an upgrade from F-15C models. F-15E models (which I work on) are sticking around due to upgrades to their systems (F-22 radar package with F-18 array) and things like that.
A-10 is sticking around, but as the war cools off and aircraft are being created that are fighter/bombers (F-15E, F-22, F-35) they're slowly backing away with the A-10. However, this is also because the military is cutting back funding and that's a big way to do it. The A-10 just lost like 3 planes and a squadron I think.. not a big cut at all but just a slight one in that direction.
Also, U-2 is sticking around because the Global Hawk was a failure.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34953731]
Then this badass shows up looking like a fighter jet raped a civilian aircraft:
[img]http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/6332/800pxa10thunderboltiiin.jpg[/img]
And not only beats the YA-9, which was the favored child, it fucking ANNIHILATED it.
FOUR DECADES have passed and the A-10 is still king of close air support. Other aircraft can make similar claims, but none that I know of can make these claims having had only one upgrade package applied (In 2005.)
And yet people want to replace this with the F-35 flying money hole. Who the fuck even considers this shit.[/QUOTE]
Oh man I love the A-10. Such a beautifully ugly airplane.
People complaining about the A-10 not being multi-role enough obviously haven't played Ace Combat 6. It's one of the best fighters in that fucking game.
[QUOTE=Nikota;34957333]People complaining about the A-10 not being multi-role enough obviously haven't played Ace Combat 6. It's one of the best fighters in that fucking game.[/QUOTE]
I used the F-14D on my full playthrough.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34953731]
Then this badass shows up looking like a fighter jet raped a civilian aircraft:
[img]http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/6332/800pxa10thunderboltiiin.jpg[/img]
And not only beats the YA-9, which was the favored child, it fucking ANNIHILATED it.
FOUR DECADES have passed and the A-10 is still king of close air support. Other aircraft can make similar claims, but none that I know of can make these claims having had only one upgrade package applied (In 2005.)
And yet people want to replace this with the F-35 flying money hole. Who the fuck even considers this shit.[/QUOTE]
GAU-8
all my love. The A-10 is definitely my favorite aircraft currently in service. (behind the b2 that is)
Why is Gizmondo trying to be smart arses, there's F-35s in BF2 and 3 should we hit up DICE and sit around going ahururrhrurhu these planes don't actually fly or did they forget that we have CGI these days , hell if they wanted to go a step further they could even make some real models.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
