How would the end mission from Top Gun 2 really be executed?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 06. 2022
- Claim some free rewards and join me: bit.ly/3GbjVFX
Use the code "Binkov" to redeem some exclusive rewards! The bonus ends July 6th 2022
This video takes the lack of realism out of Top Gun's end mission and shows how would the US military really go about performing such a task. Would it really be just 4 Super Hornets? How many other options does the US military have? Watch to find out!
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com
You can also browse for other Binkov T-Shirts or Binkov merch, via the store at our website, binkov.com/
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / binkovsbatt...
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattl...
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Claim some free rewards and join me: bit.ly/3GbjVFX
Use the code "Binkov" to redeem some exclusive rewards! The bonus ends July 6th 2022
id like to see 2 big videos:
1. what would a modern Operation barbarossa look like
2. what would a modern ww2 look like
I wasn't the only one who noticed the similarities to the death star run. XD
@@wickuswoss7257 when I was in the theatre and they said that the vent shaft was about three metres, all I could think of was Luke Skywalker bragging about shooting womp rats! Lol you’re definitely not the only one!
can you do country vs country
That's what you get from Hollywood!
That why they call him TOMahawk CRUISEmissle
This is the smartest thing anyone has ever said about anything.
I may hate puns.
But this one.
Is a different story.
😂
Awesome
You have achieved comedy
To be completely honest Binkov, pretty sure they used the F/A-18 because the pilot can control the plane with the actors in it.
You can’t film The Cruise in a one seater, since the US military refused to let him fly one of their in use a/c. That’s the reason they use the super hornet.
That's what we're calling him?
*The Cruise?*
They also was not allowed to fly the 2 seater. They use a different plane for that. Alone with movie magic to make it look like they are flying the hornet in combat
@@Menaceblue3 that's Super Cruise to you 😆
@@MultiMagnis The US Navy green lit the Super Hornet, and even then just the Fs. It all back seating and CG to create the E shots.
The Cruise?
You know it's funny, George Lucas paid homage to "The Dam Buster's" with the death star attack. They literally flew heavy bomber's through a narrow canyon and skip bomb's off the water to avoid torpedo nets.
That's about as close to a "trench run" as you're likely to see in real life. In fact almost all the dogfight scene's from a new hope pay homage to WW2 movies. Now that Top Gun is paying homage to Star wars. We've come full circle boys.
The director actually said they couldn't use F-35's because they're only one seater planes. Since the actors weren't allowed to fly the planes they could only use the F-18's which come with double seating so that trained naval pilots could do the flying for them. It took them almost 15 months to figure out how to mount camera's in the F-18 as well.
Your analysis is always fun BUT it’s Maverick, Maverick could down the entire PLA with only flares 😂
damn right he could!
The mission in the movie is literally a mission from an Ace Combat video game (multiple really, as nearly every one has a “fly low through a canyon to avoid radar” mission), and I absolutely loved it. There were dozens of “realism” issues, but who cares? Movie was a blast.
i felt the ace combat vibe. mission 9, 13 and 14 in one film (ac7)
I care, dunkirk (for me) is far better than top gun
@@assassinwizardxd3643 I loved Dunkirk and while I think it's cool they filmed "on location" in actual Dunkirk, but because of that the city wasn't nearly destroyed as It should have been and they're wasn't nearly as many people on the beaches as they're should have been.
Seriously Miami Beach on Christmas is more crowded than Dunkirk's Dunkirk. Also Top Gun Maverick is the most beautiful aerial photography ever put to screen, and there's some pretty fancy flying from the aviators who helped make it.
"Sir, if we can cover entire enemy runway with Tomahawk missiles, why can't we just take out the stationary AAs with the same Tomahawk missiles?"
"Nah, we need those AAs alive so they can shoot at the F-18s later to make the movie more dramatic."
The main obvious reason they didn't use F35s is because they wouldn't have been able to get the real flight footage of the actors as the F35s are single-seaters. For me that the most amazing thing about this film, it's not CGI or a background (like the original), real fighter pilots were flying the planes as the actors played their parts.
The main reason is it's classified Intel they wouldn't want civilians in. But your point is true as well
Haven't watched the video yet but I'm going to go ahead and assume B1 lancer dropping a bunker buster
Close lol
Miky, you're thinking of Ace Combat 7 Mission 13 Bunker Buster.
High-level bombers drop the load, while you do terminal guidance.
@@scarecrow108productions7 I had that game pre-ordered then I found out it wasn't VR 😢
@@mikycarney5779 on what platform you pre-ordered?
@@scarecrow108productions7 PS5 it was advertised as VR and then when I actually got it it turned out only one bonus mission was in VR... Same thing happened with resident evil... False advertising if you ask me
The real reason F35's weren't used is that they are single seaters. Short of all the actors becoming legitimate air force pilots, they wouldn't be able to get any in-cockpit shots in the same way they did in the F18's.
I can get behind that decision. Those shots really did make the film great.
Also would the Navy even allow actors to sit inside a brand new spanking fighter jet that contains a crap load of classified components inside?
perhaps this was just rumor, but I thought the military didn't allow them to...not wanting to showcase the tech to closely?
@@mtraven23 I think the rumour is more of tom wanting to fly the jets, which made total sense... good on the navy to reject...
The actual issue is that, both B2 and F35s are incredibly expensive, and the navy and AF wouldn't want to use up those flight hours for a fictional movie. Also the fact that they needed a Fighter with two seats to film the real life shots in the movie (The F35 is a one seater) the super hornet was perfect to use not only as a filming device but also to get that same feeling as the first top gun got using the F-14. So I understand the unrealistic parts of the movie were made for legit reasons instead of just being lazy.
I was going to post this but you said it. They used the F/A-18 exactly because it's a 2 seater and they can have the actors flying for real and being filmed in the back. They had no other option if they wanted to record for real.
I think the reason was "the f35 doesn't have a 2 seat version, so we couldn't film our pilots, and a B2 wouldn't let us do an homage to star wars."
I think they did ask to shoot the F 35 ,but the navy didn't agree to it
That is not the reason the F-35 was not used. Tom Cruise has said in interviews that the initial script was written originally for F-35s but the DoD refused to allow any filming inside of the F-35. That necessitated a script rewrite and other production changes delaying the film by years.
He never mentioned anything to do with seats. And you don't need to be in an F-35 to film "real Gs". Just a compareable performance aircraft as background can be comped in via filming in the F-35 with a normal pilot.
"At least it showed SU-57s detectible by radar. That's plausible" 🤣😂 - Binkov
They made the mission way more complicated than it needed to be, which is probably the most realistic part of the movie.
The film used Super Hornets really only because F-35 does not have a second seat where the actors could be filmed in cockpit ( and the cost to the movie production if they could have) ... so they invented the thing that the F-35s could not be used because of GPS issues... just as a funny way to get around using the Hornets. it was a fun film and great action... better film than the original Top Gun IMHO but... yeah, militarily probably not the way it would be done.
The lack of Growlers was quite apparent, but they would rob us of that breathtaking canyon sequence!
The whole movie past the crash of the test plan is Maverick dying and his brain hallucinating before dying. This explains him getting off of all charges, making up to everyone who he felt guilty about, getting one last mission, and that mission being a version of Star Wars.
C'mon. A really good hallucination would have indeed had Goose telling Rooster, "Trust your feelings."😂
I read that the main reason they had to go with the super hornets for the film was because they don’t make 2 seater F-35s. Makes sense because they wanted the real cockpit feel with the actors in the rear. Can’t do that in the new planes. Good call.
That’s the real reason however they probably could’ve made a better excuse for in the movie that was realistic
They didn't choose the f35 for 2 reasons:
1. Is that it wont be exiting to see a plane just flying and bombing without any action
2. There is no 2 seater f35 so they couldn't film in one
Also it doesn't look as cool and I don't think the navy would let them film in one
I’m actually quite surprised the Navy was ok with them vetoing the F35 on a capability issue. It doesn’t present the new wonder plane in an accurate or complimentary way.
also the navy would not have allowed such a classified platform to be filmed in and had closeup shots of. remember that photographing the rearof the raptor was illegal for quite a while after it was inducted
@@tdolan500 The DoD doesn't particularly care what method you use or what tech you show off. All that matters is that you make the military look good.
yeah and as binkov said f-35 bomb payloads won't be enough for that so called underground bunker , which would have been a better excuse in the movie rather than the non functioning gps
See y'all in another 36 years for the next Top Gun.
By that time, it will be possible to make a perfectly convincing live action version of young Tom Cruise for VR films.
A B-2 with a MOP would make for a very dull movie, I suppose,
I think the main reason why this movie did not feature F-35 is because Tom Cruise will want to fly INSIDE a F-35 rather than a mock up. And the F-35 still holds a lot of classified avionics that the US Air Force will probably not want show the world on the big screens
No, rather it's because the F-35 has no double seat variant and Cruise, a civilian, can't solo fly modern fighter jets.
He would if he could.
"Why not just bomb the whole damned valley from high altitude? That's what I would do."
-Cyclops 2 "Count"
One thing I think was really odd about the execution was that they start the mission by launching a bunch of missiles from the ships to destroy the enemy airstrip. But they, for some reason, didnt use any missiles to destroy any of the SAM units.
But then you dont get to do the Ace Combat 7 mission I guess.
Or they tomahawks could've just hit the target
I remembered they mentioned that the enemy state had electronically blocked the guidance system of Tomahawk at their uranium base
@@cococly Tomahawk has an INS. You can't block that
Turns out I’m not alone in loathing the some of the pedantry and nitpicking of combat and realism in Top Gun and other aerial combat movies. I saw an interview with a former top gun instructor who had consulted on the movie, he said he is aware that some parts of whats shown is unrealistic but its done because it looks better on camera and for the sake of entertainment. He also said that because its fiction and he has done and seen the real deal, he’s willing to suspend his disbelief and be entertained.
This is not itself a criticism of this video, just thought it was something interesting to note, especially for the crowd more inclined to sperg out over even the most minor and irrelevant inaccuracy.
For real. A bunch of dipshits calling the movie bad because they play War Thunder and think they're military experts now and that suddenly movies need to be extremely realistic to be enjoyed.
I wish they would have Miles Teller and Phoenix dogfight the stormtroopers though. They even set it up earlier in the movie. They kept mentioning teamwork and dogfighting but in the end it's just Tom Cruise fighting everyone.
Killing Tom Cruise off would have been even more epic but I guess would make the ending too dour, but at least have Miles do some dogfights!
My main criticism is how absolutely predictable it became at the ending. Like yeah most movies are a bit predictable for the most part but they usually throw something in there you don’t expect. Realism it’s too fun there’s always gonna be unrealistic shit in these movies unless it’s based off a true story.
I'm sure just several steel wires in the canyon would make any low-level attack impossible
Damn that's pretty clever. Very simple too. You just broke the movie.
A marine aircraft hit a steel cable of a gondola while flying low in Italy damaged the wing
You just ruined the entire movie. Deick.
@@TheBigExclusive Thats basically barrage balloons. They aren't used these days because planes usually engage targets from well beyond their range.
This mission was planned specifically for Maverick. If the US military had someone with Maverick's skill they would do it exactly how they did it in the movie because 40 pound balls.
They didn't use the B-2 for the same reason they didn't use the eagles in Lord of the Rings: the bombs they use would have corrupted the B-2s. Iceman the Gray knew only Maverick (who is hobbit-sized in real life) could bring The One Bomb to Mt Doom.
Most plausible theory
The GPS jamming negating the f-35 is hilarious
Pilot: "Oh no, my GPS is acting up!"
*Flips switch from GPS to Inertial Navigation*
*Designates target from 42,000 feet, while half a dozen JASSMs launched from an over-the-horizon package of F-18s find their target*
*Flies home undetected*
@@Werepie Bingo!!! And not the out of fuel type of Bingo. More like "It's a Bingo!" That's how it's said right?
@@whalehands4779 Air tankers all down, use of conformal fuel tanks prohibited.
They used raspberry. Only one man dares give them the raspberry
I really didn’t care for the realism especially after they stole an F-14.
My life is complete now.
As a retired F18 pilot and instructor CAF obviously to me, its Hollywood not real life. People need to relax and quit being annoyed with inaccuracies though. They got many intricacies of air combat missions correct. Yes no Growlers, no F35s or F22s or any attempt at taking out the enemies radar or SAM sites, no backup aircraft, and many other tactical decisions which are questionable at best... but its still the best aviation movie I have ever seen. Visually stunning and way less CGI used than I had expected.
With.... TOMahawk CRUISE missiles. 😏
Anways, the whole movie is an ACE COMBAT movie in disguise. All it's missing is Daredevil playing in the last mission.
Or Avalon. Or Ace Combat 6's "weapons of mass destruction."
Or Cape Rainy.
Heck in both missions you fly under a bridge in a canyon.
According to the producers F-35 was single manned and they needed a 2 crew plane for the plot
The very unrealistic exclusion of the F-35 (especially when there's Fifth Gen enemy fighters around) has a simple reason: The movie crew didn't get the permission to include the F-35 or F-22. Showing their capabilities or even film the cockpit was a big NOPE, NO WAY! even when Tom Cruise asked. Nothing more than that quick glimpse was allowed.
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter jet. It's price tag alone is not meant to be an air-to-ground precision strikecraft.
After losing one would be unacceptable even just taking Small arms fire would be costly.
It's like saying we need to get the F-22 to drop bombs on the Taliban isis etc just because we can.
Thats not true at all...the F-35 cockpits simulator has been shown and demonstrated right here on CZcams lol.. czcams.com/video/1oyCzT6sB_4/video.html In fact the navy WANTED the film to be in the F-35 but Tom cruise refused to do it because he wanted as much actual air time and as little CGI as possible for the film...and the F-35 is a single seater...
@@ceberskie119 ...correct, staying true to the original movie, they wanted as much real footage in the cockpit as possible, and the dod and navy wouldn’t let the actors fly F35s solo. The F18 still has a 2 seat version, which is what they used in the film. The actors are in the back seat while the jet is being flown by navy pilots. I believe a couple of them are/were blue angels pilots.
@@armyboy0579 Well the F-22 was used to just drop bombs on ISIS in 2014. Pretty pathetic.
@@armyboy0579 Actually, I'm pretty sure F-22s have dropped bombs on the Taliban. But, I get your point.
The reason they didnt use the F35 for the movie isnt because of the story, it's because of the technicalities when filming. Something along the lines of requiring CGI instead of IRL footage if they used any other non 2 seat aircraft.
also the F-18 is a much cooler looking sleak jet than the dumpy looking kind of overweight looking F-35. cool looks are important in a visual Medium like movies
@@professorkatze1123 honestly if you knew the capabilities of the F-35 it'd be a lot more attractive then any super Hornet, looks doesn't equals combat capability.
@@imperialpilot2164 yes of course but the F18 is the cooler looking plane and thats what counts in moviemaking.
@@professorkatze1123 true, I just wish Hollywood and the media would give the F-35 a better rep it's a very scary fighter
I was hoping to see the F-22. As it is our stealth interceptor. I was impressed that they did create a premise where you would have to use 4th gen aircraft instead of 5th gen. I also like to note that Russia lost all three of its active su-57's. Lol. Salty! 🤘😀🤘🇺🇲
When the Israelis took out Osirak in Iraq in the 90s, they used something like 16 F16 fighters
Only needed like 4 bombs to destroy the place, but they’d sent 32, just in case
The strike package had 8 f16 each armed with two mk 84 bombs and 6 f15 for air support. In total more than 60 different aircraft took a part in the mission (backup, awacs, sar helicopters, comms relay, jammer aircraft, and more).
This shows the magnitude of such mission in real life and the amount of aircraft actually needed
Operation Opera was in 1981
Ad ends at 2:00.
wise you are,
They wanted as little cgi as possible so the actors were back seaters in super hornet 2 seaters, they filmed themselves as if in single seaters. Credit for the effort
So the refining facility was only 2 and a half minutes flight from the coast? Shouldn't there have been AA missiles along the shore? A safe facility should have been a lot further inland.
As I heard one person say, “just have the Air Force call in a B-2 and level the place”
Somehow the navy got put in charge, and the B-2s are USAF, not USN
but muh navy
@@str2010 I know which is why they should have put the Air Force in charge
B-2 is not an option becouse that means the USAF is getting involved and we can't have that in Top Gun
yeah but the hundred-ish tomahawks! Who else could have launched that many lmao
Why did they use the Super hornet? Because that's what the film makers were given access to.
Yeah something about the GPS jamming affecting the F35. I was more curious as to why they were able to Tomahawk an entire airbase, but they couldn't send a couple of them towards the Nuclear plant? Or a high altitude drone strike. Even if SAMs pick up on it you don't have to worry about it getting blown up, once the bomb is dropped, it's done
I'm seeing a lot of comments about why they didn't use F-22s, and the reason is, this was a Navy mission. F-22s are only owned by the Air Force. They are not capable of operating on carriers, and because we don't know where this enrichment plant is, it might not be practical to fly F-22s all the way there with aerial refueling because the pilots may be exhausted. F-22s only carry one pilot, and say if this plant was a 19 hour long flight from the base the F-22 was stationed in, I doubt the US would want to risk the life of a pilot and an expensive fighter in a limited quantity that is no longer being produced because the pilot is simply too tired to think.
But the F-35 are Navy owned, so they could use them
They also said a reason why they couldn’t use f 35 do you know why they couldn’t use them
@@cn2673 BVR
Just the last mission? More like from beginning of the movie. Tell me how on earth Tom survived at 10.3 M speed from an airplane shattered in the sky. Dr, Strange took him to another universe?
Maverick would have been Court Martialed (FINALLY) and dishonorably discharged if not rotting in Leavenworth
Plot armor aka homage to Chuck Yeager who survived a similar thing
Yes. And that universe is the Ace Combat universr aka Strangereal
The real reason because they did not use the F35 was because had no double seater version. Cruise wanted less CGI as possibile and all the scenes took from real planes. No they needed a 2 seaters jet.
It makes me wish they just made a fake F-35 for the movie.
Most forums say: if the mission in Top Gun Maverick use F35s, the entire film would've finished in 15 minutes.
Basically felt like it was a bunch of Ace Combat Missions thrown together in a movie. And that’s not a bad thing.
Flying through a cannon under a time limit and you can’t get detected is literally an ace combat mission
Nevermind that they didn't hear anyone flying through the canyon.
Ace Combat told me it would happen exactly like it did in the movie
Lol Try the Ace Combat 7 Enhanced Combat mod. The original AI is severely underpowered.
Don't forget that hornets are more expendable than f35s. If an f35 is shot down and recovered by the enemy, it would further compromise the technology used in the aircraft, but hornets are old technology that aren't as valuable.
The f35 was a no go, because The movie needed 2 seater fighters because most of the scenes were shot in a real jet
So what was it shot in?
@@Madmax93898 F-18 hornet
Not only that, but the movie started filming back when F-35s werent even in service, so they couldnt get F-35's on without CGI.
They could easily use a F-35 though. Cockpit shots can easily be CGI'ed in with absolutely zero difference to resultant image. Not to mention how small cameras have gotten
@@honkhonk8009 And Tom Cruise also wanted minimum CGI in the movie. The F-14 is CGI according to many.
The clear and simple reason why F/A-18's were used is because the US Navy wouldnt allow them to use the F-35s,, obviously. They also wouldnt allow them to fly the F/A-18's solo, so they had to use the twin seater F/A-18's so they could pull the camera trickery to make itt look like the actors flew the planes.
Actually, Tom Cruise and Miles Teller did actually fly F/A-18 single seaters, and the actors did all the flying themselves after extreme fighter pilot training, having to manage the cameras and everything
@@Braidosss no they didn't
@@Braidosss they dont. If you see the movie, at every moment you would be able to see the front seat in their viewfinders.
@@Braidosss At $70M a plane, the US Navy refused to even permit Tom Cruise, who has a lot of flight experience, to fly one.
@@Braidosss there is no way any military would allow non military pilots to fly active duty aircraft.
Do you wonder if maybe Maverick went into a coma during the Mach 10 ejection and this is all in his head?
They didn't use the F-35 because they couldn't have access to it. It's also a single seater so that would have been an issue when filming. The strike is definitely a homage to Star Wars. But it's still cool.
High level B-52 with glide bombs because they can't be jammed. The plane has 50 thousand ceiling and you do saturation if nessary. Other options kamaske drones saturation over flight at 15,000 ft if possible. None of the options I would chose makes for great cinema.
Did you mean B-2? B-52 would get detected and with the mountains there would be SAMs capable of a hit
That SU-57 shade in the end is gold😂
In the movie's defense: it was originally supposed to come out before the Navy's F-35C was combat ready. But the challenges in filming and the Coronavirus delayed the movies release until far after the F-35C would be ready for a mission like this.
That explain it so much, I can't understand why they didn't use F-35C for that mission.
Actually it was that the navy couldn't give a civilian film crew f35 fighters due to security. And it would have been bloody expensive.
@@casualsuede well yea and there's no two seat F-35 but what I meant was that was originally supposed to be the in-universe explanation for using the F-18s. The F-35 wasn't supposed to be ready yet
They also needed to have a two-seat plane Bc they needed to film the actors actually flying in the rear seat. There is no twin seat F35. also would have been cost prohibitive to do F35 even if they wanted to
Nice burn on the Su-57 there at the end. They did do a pretty sweet depiction of its super-manoeuvrability tho.
If you don’t have 12 minutes I’ll answer the question with two words.
Cruise missiles.
Well whoever this youtuber is, he knows more than Mr Cruise, Mr Bruckheimer, and Mr Kosinski combined. Sounds like possibly military background. And Mr Hochstetler I'd use your approach as well before entertaining the movie's plan. I would also make some very common sense modifications to the movie's plan if they said we MUST do it their way.
I could do it in 3 words though not 2, so you got me beat on that lol.
Finger Of God
aka
Kinetic energy weapons
aka titanium telephone pole thing-a-ma-bobbers dropped from orbit
Yes, they lose "some" velocity descending through the atmosphere, but still doing about mach 15 when they reach the surface. No, the US will not admit that we have them up there. No, technically it's not a weapon so it kinda circumvents the international treaty against placing weapons in space. Carries a precision guidance package. No explosives needed. Minimal steering apparatus because when you get all your math right, you don't need much. Travels vertically in terminal approach and at such high velocity that any radar (operator) that may happen to detect it wouldn't know what it was and would have such a short time to figure it out that they'd be basically irrelevant. Untraceable because all is turned to plasma during the energy transfer...
aka - that weight and velocity drilling into an underground facility = total erasure of facility and weapon.
Remember the mysterious catastrophe that happened in North Korea a couple of years ago? Some facility in a mountain? Got kind of erased? The cover story ain't true kiddos. That be the Finger of God.
@@elizabethclymer7895 so Jewish space lasers are real then?
Meanwhile the real reason there wasn’t the 35 because then we couldn’t get those cool camera shots
FA 18s look better as-well, closer to the F14. F35s look like a space ship.
@@dedge8060 yeah they look almost exactly like an f-22 which is better than the 35
@@commanderstorm8874 I would say the look somewhat similar unsurprisingly both being a 5th gen Lockheed aircraft. The Raptor is probably one of the most beautiful and also menacing machine anyone ever managed to build. I can't tell what is it about it but its just eye-watering when I look at it. I feel nothing looking at the 35. That being said, its an exceptional plane for what it is being used but its just not as sexy as the Raptor.
@@neutchain7838 yeah that’s the major downside of an all purpose aircraft like the 35 it’s not good at anything it’s just ok and will be easily outmatched by any specilized plane
I don’t think the US would allow a movie production use F-35s for a film. That’s what I think is why they didn’t have them
it would've way too easy for an f 35 to do that job...it's literally invisible in the sky so it would've dropped the bomb without being caught on radar from relatively higher altitude.
The main reason they didn't use them is because they don't have a 2 seat version making it impossible to film the actors with real cockpit footage.
if it was 2 seats they definitely would've used it.
It's also repeatedly stated that even if they had access, there are no 2-seater F35's to allow for the actors to be in the shots. The only way to use REAL FLIGHT footage is to have the actors in the planes, which requires a 2 seater jet, which requires an F18
@@d1vin1ty Also, the Navy doesn't have F-35s. That would be an Air Force mission.
why F-18 instead F-35 ? well because F-35 are left for the future Top Gun 3 movie
The F-18 has a double cockpit that allows the actors to be filmed inside it while a pilot flies the jet.
Using F-35s (single seat cockpit) would require green screen and/or fully CGI for scenes showing the actors inside the plane. I don’t think Tom Cruise is willing to give up shooting the movie (mostly) practically.
TG 3, after another 20 odd years, I am sure F35 would be obsoleted by then. May be TG love deploying antique fighters.
Binkov: *At least it shown Su57 can be detected by radar*
Incoming Russian trolls to tell everybody that Su57 is best because it's russian.
SU 57 is more detectable than F 22 from what I can recall, so its possible, the SU 57 is more manuvrable though.
The SU-57 Felon it's more aerodynamic than stealth compromise
hey now, this isn't Warthunder...
*Contains spoilers*
Real reason the movie can't use the B2 - they're USAF not NAVY. After they'd destroyed the facility I was kind of expecting them to sweep in with a dozen F-35s to take care of the enemy Su-35s but nope. They just decided to leave those F-18 pilots to fend against 5th gen opponents on their lonesome.
But b2 have a very long range
Just enjoy the movie. Don't think, just do!
They didn't want to show how bad the f35 was.
The main point of the video is to use stealth. Stealth fails against long wave radars, and the planes would die of rifle anyway.
@@markingraham4892 your joking right?
@@markingraham4892 idk how high u are but i think u might need to stop with whatever ur on lol
The F-35 wasn't used due to the physical limitations if the f-35. The needed a plane that could two seat so the actors could be filmed in the plane flying (while the real f-18 pilot flies). Hence the EXTREMELY practical effects of the movie.
TL;DR: F-18 had two seater options while f-35 does not. They couldn't film actors in f-35.
Why not again? They have 8K GoPros now.
@@jimflagg4009 actors don’t fly jets my man
I also assume that there are things on the f-35 they don’t want people to see.
@Your Typical CZcams Viewer Perhaps someone else was flying those planes? Food for thought.
@Your Typical CZcams Viewer That's false. The US Navy never gave clearance to anyone. Tom Cruise has even said himself he didn't fly one (though he wanted to and did ask). We're talking $70M planes here. The US Navy isn't going to risk $70M on an actor (Miles and Glen) who've received 3 months training from nothing ONLY to handle the G forces, not actually fly the plane. They aren't even going to risk it on someone like Tom Cruise who's an actual pilot. Because it's $70M. They make it look really good, but ultimately, every actor is in the rear of the jet. The producer has stated Tom Cruise requested and was denied the opportunity.
For example - At a budget of $150M even one accident would increase the movie's budget 50%.
Can real peace no longer bring us all together?!
Another option is just to send the Avengers.
"At least it showed Su-57 being detectable by radar,that's plausible"😂
Every aircraft is detectable, at what range is the question
If u take into account using f 35 or b2, they would be detected as well, maybe not at 50 kms but at 20 yes
Oh sure, because stealth aircraft are totally invisible in radar! That's definitely how stealth works!!
Of course it's detectable,I just liked Binko's humor by ending with a sarcasm of Russian stealth jets not being that stealth😂
Su57 is the stealthiest jet ever. You can't find it anywhere except in magazines.
Its in serial production. Reading wrong magazines dude
Like Pravda?
@@Skorpio555 'serial production' as in totally 6units assembled as of today. Technically, Su57 has been in production for 13yrs since 2009 when the bird was still known as PAK FA / T50. 10 prototypes were built along with 6 serial production examples(1st one crashed b4 delivery after serial production began in July 2019). Effectively, Su57 serial production rate has been 2 per yr. For comparison, the famously delayed F35 program has been in production for 16yrs with 800+ units delivered so far meaning an average annual production rate of 50 units.
Realistically, I don't expect this ultra-low rate of Su57 production to be improved anytime soon as long as the Ukraine war-related tough trade sanctions, especially re high-end microchips(e.g. those made by TSMC), are not lifted.
No. It is big on the radar.
If it's all fake please, pretty please, tell american government to stop investing millions of dollars in repelling Russia, NATO bases all over it's borders, all that stuff. Just chill out, and how fine gentleman above said, let us slowly choke ourselves with our weak economy.
The reason I've found why they use F/A-18F over F-35 is so that they have 2 seats making them able to film in air like they did.
well... that's a practical reason for a real problem...
plus it's not likely they would have allowed filming in a F35... even if it did had 2 seats...
The truth is that the navy would never lend a film team f 35's or b2's and the team did not want to rely on CGI and sfx, so f18's it was. And having a total strike team would have made the movie unmakeable cost wise.
Not to mention they were real world in F-18s for many of their shots to get realistic visuals like the Gs stretching their faces out. Need a 2 seater for that cause the Navy isn't just going to let an actor try to fly a single seat fighter. lol For those that don't know, the F-35 is single seat only.
@@grumpychocobo Heck, not even an actor. They won't allow anyone but one of their armed forces. They didn't even allow Tom Cruise who's actually an experienced pilot to fly one.
It is both absurd to me and speaks to the movie's quality, both of them, that they never actually say or even imply who the "enemy" is and yet I never once remember that fact until the movie's over until I'm thinking about it in passing.
Movies with 0 identifiable "enemy" and yet they both still rock. That's talent.
In theory, it can only be Iran because if not, it is Russia and so nuclear war will happen! (since it is about striking nuclear facilities)
(but Iran (and every country on earth too) wouldn't have such facility close to the sea! Given US carrier and US need for a war with Iran)
Weird : to me, it was the thing who kept me wondering the whole movie : is it a training exercise for those topgun pilots or a real mission against a fictive enemy ? Since they never named the enemy country... (plus the fact that it is going to war after such strike, not just a skirmish, as the enemy will try to sink the carrier after such an attack)
They definitely say that it’s some form of nuclear facility in Iran showing that the enemy is Iran.
@@trevorhochard2522 oh I have missed that part then! 🤣
@@DarkSnake49542 well they do only mention it the one time so if you miss it you’re not hearing it again😂
I wish the movie just explained that instead. "Sorry Mav, we can't send you in an F35 because it can't carry a big enough boom-boom."
Eyh. They wanted the f35 but us airforce said no no
now f35 can carry a tactical nuclear missile inside it, keeping the stealth design. when Finland gets 64 of them, they can execute an impactful deep strike with nato nuclear weapons for the first time, if they choose to. now that would be a hell of a maverick mission. I don't think they will ever have the political or army brass for it, though, lol.
@@Redmanticore why finland specifically? couldn't anyone with f35s do this, japan israel whoever?
Another funny thing is , enemy country can afford 5th gen fighters but can't afford to replace SA-3s . S400 would be believable
The fixed SAM sites could have been targeted with cruise missiles just like the runways.
Definitely agree, it does add to the drama and reduce the resources commited to said mission...
yes but there was quite a lot of em and the 5th gen fighters would've been there twice as fast
f18 is a two seater meaning you can have an actor in the back that is the only reason they use those as for realism they could have use cruise missles if they wanted or used a helicopter to drop the bombs there a lot of option but non make for a great movie. as for the star wars style if it anit broke dont fix it.
Why use a helicopter it’s an easy target
Also a helicopter couldn’t get past the sams also it is slow and loud
Might as well use the f35
@@f22raptorcool helicopters are used to get passed SAMs that is a big reason they are used.
The director wanted to use F35’s but that was nixed by the USN, so they settled for F/A-18’s
The Us Navy is practicing for Death Star trench bombing run, in case The Empire decide to attack earth.
I can't wait to see "Top Gun 3: Maverick and Han Solo Team Up!"
@@fredwerza3478 Leak from Disney Maverick will be in the next star wars movie.
@@Someone-ic5no Tahm Cruzze
@@Someone-ic5no Tom Cruise in a Disney movie would be too awesome for words
I am deeply disappointed that it's tomahawk not tomcruise
Lmaoo
What about an F-14 Tom Cruise?
Goddamn it.
Take my like.
But it’s still a Cruise Missile!
@@miamijules2149 Tomcruise missile x)
I loved the movie but while watching it i wondered why they didn't just use the B-2 to bomb the target but eventually i read an interview about why the movie chose the planes they chose.
They wanted to highlight the canyon run but were well aware there were other options.
I didn't mind because the movie was telling a story. Not highlighting what the military would actually do. I still would highly recommend the movie. Just remember you're watching a Hollywood movie.
Also Top Gun is US Navy, not USAF. They can't use B2 or F22 there. Still a great movie and I reccomend it to everyone.
They needed a reason for the f-35 to not be in the movie in actuality the government said no on those flights along with the f-22
They can't let Cruise fly the plane himself after all.
If they did it in the real thing,
- EA growlers (Electronic jammers)
- AWACS (Advance radar)
- 767 tanker (Midflight refuel to be used by f-22 / MQ-9)
- F-22 (Fighter escort)
- B2 spirit (Stealth bomber)
- F-35 (Fighter/bomber)
- MQ-9 reaper (ISR)
- 6th Fleet (Because America)
- and god knows what else will pop out like the stealth helicopters on UBL raid.
The movie will be over in 30 mins and tom cruise wouldn't even be on it he will be replaced by tom a hawk
or if you need some action for a movie, use a sneaky bunch of dudes and make them walk through the canyon
Thats a full blown invasion. Assuming the scenario is like Operation Opera (which the movie is based on) that was not really an option. Instead they'd have used a dozen or so F35s and F22s. Or just bomb it with B2s. Navy wouldn't really work either with how far in land and covered in SAMs the base was. Not to mention in the movie it's also deep underground.
The problem for not using f35 is because f35 only has single seater variants while filming needs two seats in a plane.
A good point but the excuse in the movie was shit 😂
That mission is so easy for Iron man, even War machine can do that alone.
Any plotline containing a small package of (not yet combat tested) strike aircraft, just a few weeks for the elite pilots to prepare for the strategic raid in (hot) peace time, an unlikely low level route of ingress to bypass defenses, perfectly performing the precision strike despite several minor technical malfunctions, and all returning home safely is basically reinventing what the IDF's Operation Opera actually accomplished in reality.
Which in turn was obviously inspired by Star Wars.
Edit. The Army would have proposed to have sent in some Delta A-teams, with Air Force and Navy merely providing support. It would have been a different film, but perhaps at least as awesome: Ospreys doing the canyon run, guns blazing..
Oh wait, Tom Cruise already did that scene in Edge of Tomorrow (Live Die Repeat). That was an awesome film indeed.
I think it should be mentioned that the trench attack in Star Wars was, itself, a homage to the attack on the rocket fuel plant in the WW 2 drama, 633 Squadron and to some extent The Dam Busters.
Some lines like “How many guns do you count..” are direct quotes from The Dam Busters.
The F-35s were not used because they are single seaters and the director was unable to film the actors. Plus the F-35 cockpit cannot be filmed.
Why not ?
@@cmj0929 Classified avionics.
@@JFDA5458 You can get around that problem with CGI, you could overlay fake images onto the screens to cover anything classified up.
They can't fly properly, they are for Hollywood...
@@LeoH3L1 Still requires access to the cockpit.
The idea for the scenario came from Operation Opera 1981, when the Israelis used 8 F-16 to knock out Iraq's nuclear power plant. And some Star Wars, some Top Gun memories, and a bit of Mission Impossible, a bit of Lady Gaga and hey, presto!
I too noticed the Opera parallels
The reason why they used the superhornet was to be able to film inside the cockpit due to the additional seat, the gps was used as an excuse to discard the F-35s because they have a single seat and couldn’t be used in the film
Modern warfare (and warfare in general) doesn't rely on a few heroes wining the battle. That's why Hollywood always takes a creative license.
Usually it does not. Sometimes though it can. Of course you still stack the odds with for instance many planes
Also couldn’t the Navy target the SA-3 systems with all those cruise missiles clearing the way for the strike planes to get in and get out more safely? They definitely weren’t camo’ed and I’m sure they were spotted on satellite imaging
Basically. SA3 would be cake walk for a basic SEAD package
Yeah thats my only real gripe. Either that or having another team conducting SEAD would have been a worth compromise in the name of entertainment.
Yes but then, you show the whole carrier aircrafts acting (sead, jamming, etc) so Tom Cruise and the other topgun aren't shown at all (since it takes dozen of pilots and not just the small amount we see in the movie)
But the movie is supposed to revolve around Tom Cruise so it had to be done that way!...
@@DarkSnake49542 Agreed. I think it would be a cool alternative. Show a legit operation and still have the nail biting, sweet action during the bomb dropping and ensuing dog fights. SEAD and TARCAP could do their thing and directors could make the final approach to the target even more difficult that requires the extra skilled pilots to do their thing.
Why would a country with multiple Su-57s still be relying on SA-3s? They should have shown some imaginary SAM with imaging guidance that can defeat stealth. Call it S-1000, in the spirit of the MiG-28 in the 80s.
That’s a good idea actually!
Su 57 could be on loan or by Russia or they could be doing a foreign deployment like in Syria. For an example we could say the nuclear tech was sold to a country like Iran and as insurance they sent in 4 or 5 Su 57 crewed by Russian pilots.
@@dhanu_4539 they surely won’t be sending those important stuff to this one nuclear plant and cover it with less than 10 sa-3 . If it was that important there would literally be 20-30 sa-3 ,5 su57 and like 10-20 mig21s or whatever they got.
Genius, someone hire this man!
@@hemendraravi4787 You mean like Russia would never send Su-57's to fight insurgents in Syria?
Oh and when this movie was being made, in fact when it was scheduled for release, the Russians had zero operational Su-57's, just 10 prototypes, some did not even have any weapons.
Excellent overview, I'm pretty sure the real reason they didn't use F-35s is that they're single-seaters so they couldn't give the illusion that the actors were piloting them like with the F-18 lol.
General : We need a squad of F18s to do the mission
General B : What don't we send B2 to do it
Top Gun 2 ends in 5 mins
General C: why don’t we send a predator drone to do the mission
@@hellboundchaoscommand7567 General C : Maverick, you’re fired
@@hellboundchaoscommand7567 would the jamming they mentioned mess with the drone controls?
I’m not that familiar with the drones but none have autonomous mission capability yet right
@@aewon2085 I am pretty sure they have some autonomous mission capacity even if it is only fire here once you are here then turn around
Su-57 was dope doing dead leaf maneuver to dodge the AIM-9 Sidewinder firing from the F-14B by Maverick.
Maverick said the F35 wasn't suitable because GPS-guided bombs wouldn't work due to the jamming when that makes no sense as they could carry laser guided bombs too.
In reality the tomahawks could have been used to take out the immobile SAM sites in advance but I guess we wouldn't have a movie.
Yeah, plus the Navy isn’t going to let Hollywood use real F-35s
Well then there'd be 5th gen fighters everywhere
@@thelordofcringe
5 th generation fighters from the enemy forces being shot down by Tom cruise in an antiquated F14?
No.... just.... no....
@@Menaceblue3 My dude, a biplane could shoot down a su57 stupid enough to come into gun range. 20mm cannons don't discriminate based on generations lmao.
There's always been a jamming aircraft with fighters. The first time there wasn't was when that F117 Nighthawk was shot down.
It wasnt becuase of jamming,its because neva is immune to jamming,it was thirty years old by the time we shot down in 99,and its primitive technology.U cannot decieve already stupid missile.Also most of helicopters ukraine shot down in war were from igla not startstreak or stinger.Igla is primitive so electronic system cannot detect it
Yes, in 1991, USAF EF-111As focused jamming to support the F-117s over Baghdad.
How dare you question the mission. Maverick knows what he's doing and if he says that's the best way to attack then I believe him.