'Top Gun 2′ to feature Maverick, drone warfare

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 30 Jul 2015, 02:09

huggy wrote:Folks,
If anyone believes there is even an outside, remote chance that a Hollywood actor is going to "get checked out" in the F-35... an aircraft chock-full of highly sensitive technologies, and with a 9-figure cost per airframe... then you have unrealistic expectations.

It doesn't matter if he is/was a test pilot; whether he has 10,000 hours of jet time; or whether he is/was a military pilot in the past. There is no compelling reason to fly him in the jet that overrides the legal issues, security issues, safety issues, political issues, and cost issues.

It cannot happen. It will not happen.

I think the linked story mixes up "Fly" and "F-35" and "no CGI". It might be vaguely possible the Navy allows these actors to ride back seat during filming, but zero chance of these guys being allowed to fly any single seat jet.

There is more to this story than is publicly known, and I suspect the truth is a lot less interesting.

outlaw162 · by **outlaw162** » 19 Sep 2017, 21:39

"you've lost that lovin' feeling"....

35_aoa · by **35_aoa** » 20 Sep 2017, 02:30

neurotech wrote: It might be vaguely possible the Navy allows these actors to ride back seat during filming

I'd say probably a pretty good chance of this. God knows we flew all kinds of people (primarily politicians) out in Fallon. If this movie will be half the PR boon the first one was in 1986, I imagine the admirals will all eat it up and direct it to happen. Not necessarily a bad thing.

outlaw162 · by **outlaw162** » 20 Sep 2017, 23:52

God knows we flew all kinds of people....

Took a female newspaper reporter for an F-4 ride for a Sunday edition article she was writing.

PE folks got her strapped in the back and showed her how to raise the seat (she was about 5'2", eyes of blue) before having her close the canopy.

Got to the flight control check after engine start and told her the usual 'watch your knees'....stick full left, stick full right, stick full forward....stick full back...."giggle"

Stick full back again....another "giggle"....

Thought to myself, this might be promising.

35_aoa · by **35_aoa** » 21 Sep 2017, 04:29

outlaw162 wrote:
God knows we flew all kinds of people....

Took a female newspaper reporter for an F-4 ride for a Sunday edition article she was writing.

PE folks got her strapped in the back and showed her how to raise the seat (she was about 5'2", eyes of blue) before having her close the canopy.

Got to the flight control check after engine start and told her the usual 'watch your knees'....stick full left, stick full right, stick full forward....stick full back...."giggle"

Stick full back again....another "giggle"....

Thought to myself, this might be promising.

haha heard on ICS "If you are good, I'll show you more than that after the flight"

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 15 Nov 2017, 04:00

The film's director says Top Gun 2 won't be about drone warfare.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/171879 ... e-director

white_lightning35 · by **white_lightning35** » 15 Nov 2017, 04:59

The question is: what will be the major conflict in the story? If it features f-35's (please do), what will happen with them? Are they going to portray bvr combat or just some cliche dogfighting? Will they have to make a plane go bye-bye, and if so, how? Whatever it is would probably give the basement dwellers something to munch on, which is pretty sad. So many questions....

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 15 Nov 2017, 05:47

white_lightning35 wrote:The question is: what will be the major conflict in the story? If it features f-35's (please do), what will happen with them? Are they going to portray bvr combat or just some cliche dogfighting? Will they have to make a plane go bye-bye, and if so, how? Whatever it is would probably give the basement dwellers something to munch on, which is pretty sad. So many questions....

Well, the story could be Maverick is having a hard time adapting to the New Technology of the F-35. While, being shown up by the new much younger Top Guns. (i.e. feeling old) Then in the climax of the movie. That technology fails and Mavericks old piloting skills (dogfighting) wins the day..... :wink:

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 15 Nov 2017, 06:11

Why not cast Ryan Gosling as Goose's son? Gosling = Baby Goose. :devil:

outlaw162 · by **outlaw162** » 15 Nov 2017, 19:20

How 'bout Maverick has gender reassignment and goes to the Fallon O'club to sing, "You've lost that lovin' feeling".....

....."at the hospital."

rheonomic · by **rheonomic** » 16 Nov 2017, 04:59

Actually Maverick left the Navy after Tailhook '91 and now posts angry comments about bringing the F-14 back into service on aviation news sites while in a state of near permanent inebriation.

madrat · by **madrat** » 17 Nov 2017, 02:11

Corsair1963 s on to something. Drones are the sixth generation secret sauce until they lose control of them and suddenly the perfect force requires a backup plan. Only with the drones came a pilot shortage. And there you have the excuse he's there to save the day. Somehow you have to have stealth neutralized where his human skills are the ace in the hole.

And if somehow the boogieman flies F-14A's where F-35C becomes the new savior platform, that would rock. Maverick turning into the merge and immediately taking the fight vertical with his F-35C against the F-14A would be classic. And if you could somehow fit J-20, PAKFA, or Su-37 (because Su-35S and Su-30SM are boring) into the picture as an exclamation point, double the joy. Because super-maneuvers do not trump energy wars, Maverick kicks the a$$ of the antagonist.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 17 Nov 2017, 02:36

If the producers want the Navy's cooperation then no bashing of the new tech.