I am the skunk at the garden party. Yes, Tom Cruise’s new “updated” Top Gun: Maverick movie is a real crowd pleaser, especially in the United States, and is racking up the box office numbers that thrill the Hollywood executives keen on retaining their jobs. But the movie is stupid because it is glorifying an outdated technology and is operating as a hallucinogen on the American public’s belief of how future wars will be fought. The movie is very well made but it is a military anachronism.
Here is the military mission:
Maverick is ordered to train an elite group of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aviators assembled by Vice Admiral Beau “Cyclone” Simpson and Rear Admiral Solomon “Warlock” Bates for an urgent mission: to bomb a foreign country’s unsanctioned uranium enrichment plant. The plant sits in a deep depression at the end of a canyon and is defended by surface-to-air missiles and 5th-generation fighters operating from a nearby air base.
Why are U.S. Commanders and politicians putting the lives of “elite” pilots at risk when the mission can be carried out by an air launched, such as the AGM-88 HARM or AGM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile). A pilot does not need to fly into the Valley of Death to deliver a missile on target.
The movie also ignores the fact that modern combat aircraft can perform better without a pilot sitting inside the cockpit. The modern planes being flown remotely can maneuver at speeds and g-forces that surpass anything a pilot can do or survive if inside the cockpit. In fact, one of the major costs in producing the advanced fighters are the systems installed to keep pilots alive and prevent them from being killed by the force of gravity.
Top Gun: Maverick is well equipped horse decked out in all sorts of gizmos being sent to attack a machine gun post. It is because of the machine gun and more precise artillery that the U.S. Army finally stopped fielding horse cavalry units just prior to WW II.
Thanks to some of you, Andrei Martyanov’s book, Losing Military Supremacy, has topped the Amazon charts for books on military strategy. Andrei addresses the technological foolishness of America’s defense spending as well as the strategy guiding those purchases.
Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine has exposed some shortcomings. Counter battery fire, for example, is limited. How do I know? Because Ukrainian artillery units continue to shell Donetsk and the Donetsk Republic. If Russia’s counter battery was fully effective those artillery pieces would cease operating. Russia has not yet eliminated that threat.
Modern weaponry on the battlefield makes it easier for one army to kill the enemy with more precision and less collateral damage. That is the theory. But when Ukrainian military units put their emplacements in the middle of civilian housing, hospitals and churches, collateral damage will occur and can create bad public press.
Russia’s control of the air space in Ukraine gives it a lopsided advantage in fighting the entrenched Ukrainians. Persistent strikes with air to ground missiles, smart and conventional bombs and artillery is destroying Ukraine’s ability to hold territory and defeat the Russians.
One final thought–the continued supply of western weapons to Ukraine is a game changer in the sense that it will compel Russia to carry out devastating attacks on Ukrainian government command centers and on locations in Ukraine filled with representatives of NATO and the United States. When that happens (or if it happens) the ante has been upped and the west will face the choice of responding militarily and risk expanding the war into western Europe or the U.S. and NATO will cash in their chips and walk away to lick their wounds. The only certainty is that Russia is not going to back down and surrender Ukraine to the west.
I kept thinking that the movie was much better done as Iron Eagle 2.
It’s Hollywood, not reality. It might work as a recruiting tool, other than Biden is CIC and Milley thinks, well, that’s documented elsewhere. It will please the boomers to no end though, and maybe entertain some people.
I haven’t seen it and don’t intend to until it comes out on streaming channels. My wife saw it and loved it.
Larry is right about modern weapons – except for one thing. Those things cost millions to manufacture and operate, millions that quickly add up to billions that have to be borrowed through the sale of bonds. .
The only movies I watch are on Turner Classic. It is very obvious that the treasonous governments of the US and Europe don’t give a damn about their own people. The economic blowback from the absurd sanctions alone proves that. I see the weapons to Ukraine as turning into a race between starting WW III for the benefit of the WEF Insane Reset for totalitarian control vs an increasingly impoverished (and soon to be hungry) western public waking up and revolting against the madness of their own governments. Martyanov repeatedly talks about the importance of an economy that really produces in conjunction with real military power, both of which heavily favor Russia to prevail.
It really did seem that if the “top guns” succeeded at delivering their payload and getting out of Dodge, there would be no carrier to land on. It having promptly been sunk by “rogue nation” anti-ship missiles.
i dunno , those “roguenp nations” might have submarines loitering on their waters.. a few torpedoes would be disaster for US navy fleet , even a damaged carrier wont be able to operate their air wing especially when their escorts also damaged or sunk.
now a combinatio of submarine attack and salvoes of HASM would be ideal scenario , and even the use of sea mines might impede USN mobility , worse if the enemy uses CAPTOR type seamines.
All it takes are a few holes punched in the flight deck, and the carrier is out of action. Escorts or no escorts.
The worst scene is when ancient F14 beat SU57.. i mean come on this is worse than will smith’s F18A beating alien fighter in independence day movie..
the vibe of this movie is not bad , the first scenes of flight test is hilarious , the it goes downhill fast.. modern F18E/F are more lumbersome than smaller F18A/B , they are not dogfighter as their focus is BVR combat. Age of eye level WVR are not common sight although the top gun pilots also trained on WVR.
Then there’s drone tech where armed drones should fly tandem with the F18 as wingmen of sort..
none of those in the movie .. this is Red Baron on F18
Yes I understand the only option for an American pilot faced with battle against an SU-57 is the ejection seat.
Replacing the pilot with remote control deprives the audience of identification with the pilot and the powerful feelings that follow: fear and fascination with death and hero worship. Movies and novels are fantasy, no matter how realistic, whose main purpose is to entertain.
On the other hand perhaps the mind set of warmongers, at least in the West, is similarly motivated when it comes to real wars. SHOCK and AWE on CNN
complete agreement. I had seen the film and feared beforehand that it would be gender- and racially-fair. Thank God it was largely spared. During the description of the military mission, I also had the question in my mind: why not with cruise missiles? why risk too much qualified pilots and fortune? But wait: it’s just a movie and entertainment, as well as advertising for the military. because of me.
oh, as a Russian I would send hype sound missiles.
An officer and a gentleman ha ha ha american shite
The news from the Military Summary Channel is that longer range artillery has reached the front in the Donbass, and the Ukranian Army is using it to shell civilians in Donetsk. The Russians are fighting in a way to minimize casualties; NATO and the great freedom fighters are busy killing innocent civilians in their war for money money money. Zelensky is a Jewish Nazi, puppet actor comic for Natostan, Lloyd Austin Black Lives Matter But Kill Russians Instead for Raytheon Money devil deeds ….What a joke these people are; no respect for anyone or anything…
I thought about this overnight and came to the conclusion that Larry’s comments about G-forces are way off base. As a matter of fact, an Air Force pilot named John Stapp pulled FORTY-SIX Gs during tests in a sled way back in 1951. For pilots, the main problem from Gs is blacking out. Consquently, G-suits, which enclose the legs and put pressure on them to keep blood from rushing out of the head, were developed and are worn today in high-performance fighters. The main consideration of G-forces in airplane construction is to build them strong enough that they won’t come apart during high-G maneuvers. I wasn’t a fighter pilot but I use to do aerobatics and my experience was the most Gs are pulled when the nose is pulled up. G forces also increase when the airplane is banked. Aerobatic airplanes must be able to exceed 6 Gs for certification. I’m not certain, but I believe fighters are built to about 12 Gs. I seriously doubt that there are any drones capable of even coming close – they’re not designed to fight other drones or fighters. By the way, drones are flown by pilots; they just may be thousands of miles away.
By the way, I’ve been reading Andrei’s blog. I was shocked to learn that he was a naval officer and was in the Soviet Coast Guard.
On another note, there’s no telling what kind of airplanes (everything with wings is an airPLANE) the US or the Russians might have. Years ago I was flying over Nebraska on the way to Aspen when the air traffic controller came on and said he’d just tracked a radar object that was faster and higher than anything he’d ever seen. There was talk of a hypersonic airplane back then – early 90s.
Sam,
Sorry dude. You’re dead ass wrong. Even with the proper exercises, it takes time for the body to get accustomed to the g-forces exerted on it. Pilots normally can withstand up to 5gs. They can also tolerate up to 7gs with a special g-suit that restricts blood from leaving the upper body and brain. John Paul Staap’s record was 25gs, but that came after extensive prior preparation.
Larry,
Agree with what you’ve observed about the cost of manned fighters but the cost goes way beyond expenses paid to protect pilots from G forces. Manned fighters require cockpits that will fit the identified crew population, which since the early 1990s when females were allowed to fly fighter jets now entails the small 5’4” 140 lb female up to the 6’2”, 211 lb males. The layout of controls and displays and ejection seat adjustability has to work for the entire crew population and has to fit within the allocated space envelope for the cockpit. You need an ejection seat with the survival kit, parachute, and oxygen, and the ejection seat qualification program is extensive. You’ve got to ensure a canopy with appropriate optical properties, and the canopy needs to be jettisoned as part of the ejection sequence unless you decide to use pyrotechnics to cut it just before the ejection seat comes off the rails. Life support…you need to provide heating and cooling for the pilot as well as breathing oxygen, an oxygen mask, and a helmet. The helmet needs to integrate with NVGs. The more recent F-35 uses a helmet mounted display. In addition to a G-suit, there is other life support and personal equipment that must be integrated…cold weather gear, chem-bio gear, laser eye protection. Hazards that could result in loss of life drive redundancy and higher levels of reliability. The development costs to develop the aircraft and integrate all this stuff are immense, but just a drop in the bucket compared to the sustainment costs over the lifecycle. You also need search and rescue aircraft and personnel to recover downed pilots. All the extra weight of the pilot and all the stuff in the aircraft to support the pilot means more fuel, less payload, or less range. By contrast, the control station design for an unmanned aircraft, at least from a human engineering perspective, are far less complex.
you are naive and wrong at the same time , basing your very limited experience and viewpoint while conflating a sled test which run on straight line with real world G force effect on human body and mind. And beside human body , No plane can survive high g loads on the wings unless it is specially strengthened in certain areas. Acrobatic planes are specifically stengthened in the frame and wings , try doing acrobat using cessna 172 commercial grade aircraft and see how long you can retain your wing.
the so called G load on any aircraft , or the so called no exceed speed , or your “designed to take on this much G” is not constant factor , there also time and fatigue facfor where one can push one’s plane to be near G limit but with that come the shortening of the life of airframe.
Drones can use maneuver with no restriction of Human pilot G tolerance but drone airframe still need to face the reality and unless it is designed to , the G load factor / stress will be limiter for every flying thing outthere , unless someone got the tictac ufo technology..
Agree. The direction and duration of the force vector matters in addition to its magnitude. Stapp’s test was on a horizontal sled track. So the force was acting on him opposite of the vector along which he was moving. I read the story about 20 years ago, but I recall that while he “survived,” he was pretty f’ed up. I want to say he was bleeding from the eyes or had a detached retina or two. Fighter pilots are not going to be flying after they have a retina detach, so you can be sure they aren’t going to pull a 46G maneuver. The G forces cause a pilot to pass out because the force vector acting on their body cause the blood to drain out of their head. Pilots can tighten their muscles to restrict blood from draining out of their head (this is part of G training), but there is only so much they can do. And you’re right, while the airplane can pull higher G’s for longer time periods than a pilot can withstand, this puts stress on the airframe, which will affect service life. Service life extension programs can be executed to justify extending service life, but eventually too much stress will cause structural failure and affect the airworthiness of the design.
Thanks to you and Sam for raising the issue. You guys help make the community smarter by this kind of debate/exchange. Bless you both.
« 46 Gs «
Yeah, right…. XD
There is no fighter airframe produced today that’ll hold against 46 Gs in actual combat flight. So, go back to the drawing board…
The trope of flying inside canyons was started by Star Wars, a moving made in the 1970’s
Another side of this is how the Pentagon was able to guide the production of the movie. You want to use a real aircraft carrier, some real fighters … sure, here is a list of rules you have to follow. Now I have nothing against movies that stir national pride, I just found it right that Rightwing media makes that sound demonic when China did it. The shrieking over how China was using Hollywood to build their image was impressive.
China and russia as demonic villanious nations , how simpllistic and childish the level of Western propaganda , but it showd how stupid and ignorant western citizens who love and enjoy feeling “we are best of the world” and “we are good guys” while their govt wreak havoc all over the world.
and the icing of the cake , american still believe God is with them , which is highly laughble since God never side with nations especially brutal nations like US empire. God’s promis is to side with His sheeps..
Americans are delusional people and their shallow understanding of God made them easier to deceive. It is common to see this kind of people who never did God’s commandment but always wave “God bless america” which is a form of insult to God..
“God is with them”
This drives me batty because Protestants are supposed to know better with their belief that human nature is sinful and is at war against the Spirit (ie. believers are still influenced by it).
But somehow there is one exception. For some reason, anyone in the United States has more wisdom to know how to run Tikrit than someone who was born in Iraq.
My view? We are consumed by the need to maintain our power. Power is a drug more powerful than meth or any Opioid. We will destroy ourselves trying to cling to it and lie to justify our increasingly aggressive actions. Everyone who opposes us is Hitler and we must utterly destroy them. Iran, Russia, and China are always good for a Hitler but on a really slow day …. Maduro will pinch hit and fill that role. Venezuela never attacked us yet we went psycho against their economy. I see this as addictive behavior.
View #2, the Bible talks about how abusing power makes you increasingly blind to those abuses. We are too far gone. I am just watching in disgust until our fate catches up to us.
Reference “final thought”
OK, enough’s enough. With the AFU now using their M777s in massive bombardments of Donbass civilians, our intention to ship M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), and UK intending to send M270 multiple-launch rocket systems, it’s time for Russia to modify its interdiction decision matrix, as I suggested in my 23 May post.
Now I would suggest a straightforward Russian International Announcement: As of [date to be set] any carrier of arms for Ukraine, by ground, air, or sea, shall be destroyed as it crosses the border into Ukraine.
Yes, the proxy participants would scream and shout. Let them. We are acting with dishonor, participating by proxy to destroy a nation, Russia, without having declared war nor has that nation threatened our national security.
It is not just the long range weapons, nor is it just Russian troops and Donbass civilians being killed by these weapons. All of these weapons are responsible for prolonging the war thereby increasing Ukrainian civilian deaths without changing the outcome.
Lavrov just stated the long range weapons from the west will necessitate russian effort to expand their line of control to suppress the long range weapon’s effectiveness.. basically showing the west “dont blame us for taking over whole ukrop”
While I was a Navy LT and Chief Engineer of a new Spruance class DD, COMCRUDESGRU Two, RADM H. Mustin (our group commander) did a presentation on his Strike Cruiser concept. Basically build a surface combatant with a bloody great load out of cruise missiles. Idea was to hit hard with unmanned weapons. This partly came to fruition with the battleship reactivations; later I rode IOWA for several months in the Med. That ship could have done serious damage in MED or PG without flyers going in harms way. But as my aviator boss said BBs don’t buy airplanes and flat decks. They were disposed of after Gulf War 1, and the spare gun barrels sold off.
Mustin’s strike cruiser ended up being built by the Russians. They seem to be much more willing to try things that may work for them.
ancient BB are totally useless in modern warfare , it might be ok to use it to scare natives then again theres cheaper way to bomb natives using ground based artilery like the russians. And when facing peer enemy a gigantic target like Iowa will be sunk or incapacitated in the first HASM salvo.
only the delusional mind of US naval officer still mired in past glories of BB would think it is still a useful weapon system nowadays , especially with historical records stating the numerous BB sank by aircraft bombs / torpedoes
I left the Navy in 1992. I was never keen on the CV concept; Mustin had the right idea. Assignment to an air oriented afloat staff didn’t change that. I saw how much of the air wing was consumed by the need to defend the ship, ASW and Anti Surface patrols by S3 (sadly gone; an outstanding aircraft) and close in ASW helos (SH3s). Light attack guys flying SSC patrols, F14s flying CAP with attendent refueling aircraft. That left the A6 and some A7 to attack.
My aviator buddies gaffed off Russian diesel subs, an egregious error in my door. The tail end Charlie SSGN didn’t always get full attention either.
That giant flat deck now, even with family members, breeds a false sense of security. Nothing is too big to sink.
Book not door. Bloody auto complete spell check!
Those stuck in the CV and Nava! Air rut need to watch the very dated but equally relevant late 1960’s Navy training film ” Trial by Fire”. Its the story of how bad things can get when a CV lights up by accident or enemy action. I watched last with a family member coming in the Navy. It’s a sobering film.
Its on YouTube.
Lavrov just stated the long range weapons from the west will necessitate russian effort to expand their line of control to suppress the long range weapon’s effectiveness.. basically showing the west “dont blame us for taking over whole ukrop”
“THE NEW TOP GUN MOVIE HIGHLIGHTS AMERICA’S INCONGUROUS MILITARY STRATEGY”
Pls update the typo in the world incongruous, yours is: incongurous.
I offer you this so you look more professional, not for any other reason.
The plot of this film reminds me of an early 60’s UK war film called ‘633 Squadron’ – against the odds flying Mosquito’s up a heavily defended fjord (valley) to bomb an industrial facility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su5JWj8Wlec
This movie is more propaganda that has thrilled the masses for years. The number of people willing to shell out their hard earned dollars to see this film testifies to the engrained desire for an enemy and also their fear that someone is out to kill them. Every Country in the World that is building up their military is not looking to invade the US. They are building up their military to keep the US from invading them.