Home » Aviation » Top Gun: Maverick Will Likely Feature F-35C Joint Strike Fighters


Top Gun: Maverick Will Likely Feature F-35C Joint Strike Fighters

An F-35C Lightning II assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101 is positioned on the bow catapults of the Nimitz-Class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) March 17, 2018, in the Atlantic Ocean. US Navy photo

Hollywood’s latest take on naval aviation, Top Gun: Maverick, will likely pair the Navy’s new Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters alongside older Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, in the sequel to the 1986 blockbuster.

A film crew from Paramount Pictures was aboard aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) the same time the Navy began launching F-35C jets off the ship interchangeably with F/A-18E-F Super Hornets as an integrated air wing.

With six F-35Cs operating aboard Lincoln since Aug. 20th, USNI News understands, the film crew almost certainly got an up-close look at the Navy’s newest fighters – operating alongside the Super Hornets, the EA-18G Growlers, the E-2 Hawkeye and the C-2 Greyhound.

Asked what role the new jets may play in the movie, Michael Singer, vice president of marketing and publicity for Jerry Bruckheimer Films and Television, told USNI News “we are not providing any details about the production at this time.”

The Navy was limited in what it could reveal about the filming aboard Lincoln or the sea service’s role in the upcoming movie, expected to hit theaters July 12, 2019.

Seaman Lance Gilinksy stands lookout watch on the fantail of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) while an F-35C Lightning II, from the “Rough Raiders” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 125 approaches on Dec. 8, 2017. US Navy Photo

Navy spokesman Lt. Seth Clarke told USNI News that the level of support the Navy will provide is still being worked out, but “I can tell you that U.S. naval aviators will be flying in this movie.”

He added that Lincoln specifically was chosen for filming because “the ship’s schedule was ideal based on the needs of Paramount films at this time. Additionally, the film crew presence incurred no additional costs, logistics or burden to the U.S. Navy.” Lincoln was due to be at sea to conduct carrier qualifications for pilots in Carrier Air Wing 7.

Several other media outlets reported on Aug. 22 that the Paramount camera crew was onboard the Norfolk-based Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, but the details of the F-35C operations aboard the same ship were not released until Monday.

On May 30, Top Gun star Tom Cruise tweeted a photo of him in a flight suit, holding his signature “Maverick” helmet and looking at a Super Hornet in the background, with the text “feel the need” and the hashtag #Day1. The presence of the Super Hornet in that first glimpse of the movie fueled speculation about whether Maverick would come back as a Super Hornet pilot, and whether the new F35Cs would make it into the film at all.

The day after Cruise’s tweet, film crews for Top Gun: Maverick spent two days filming at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, Navy spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Dan Day told USNI News.

“Film crews from Paramount Pictures have filmed scenes aboard Naval Air Station North Island in Coronado, California, in May and aboard USS Abraham Lincoln in August during CVW-7 carrier qualifications. Paramount and the Navy are working together to schedule ongoing production coordination at various additional locations, including several Navy bases,” Day said in a statement.
“The Navy supported the filming at North Island and aboard Abraham Lincoln per provisional Production Assistance Agreements signed by Paramount and the Department of Defense, and all future filming will be supported under the terms of a full, signed Production Assistance Agreement that will govern Navy support of the remainder of the production.”

Day added that “our priority will always be warfighting and training combat-ready naval aviation forces that are prepared to win in combat, as well as training the next generation of naval aviators. That being said, we believe we can support the film and simultaneously achieve training objectives. Paramount Pictures will reimburse the Navy for any costs incurred for flying sequences which do not meet training objectives.”

In both the May shoot and last week aboard Lincoln, no actors were present.

For the Navy, the film represents another opportunity to show off naval aviation to the masses.

“The original film was an iconic production that exposed millions of Americans to the professionalism and lethality of Naval Aviators. It also goes without saying TOPGUN was a powerful recruiting aid – inspiring many to ‘Fly Navy,’ and it also boosted pride in Naval Aviation,” Cmdr. Ron Flanders, spokesman for the commander of Naval Air Forces, told USNI News.
“We have agreed to support the sequel because we believe it will once again give Americans a front-row seat to observe the aerial mastery of naval aviators and also will demonstrate the core values of honor, courage and commitment the U.S. Navy demonstrates every day.”

Though Paramount Pictures is remaining mum about the sequel, some details have emerged. Last week news outlets reported that Tom Cruise will be joined by Jon Hamm, Ed Harris, Jennifer Connelly as a single-mom bar owner and female lead, Miles Teller as Lt. j.g. Nick “Goose” Bradshaw’s son and Top Gun student, Glen Powell, and Monica Barbaro as a female pilot. Val Kilmer will also be returning to reprise his role as Tom “Iceman” Kazansky.

  • This is interesting. The original Top Gun played a large role in the creation of the F-14 legend. Thus, it’s possible that the new Top Gun could be equally influential in the battle between the F/A-18 and the F-35C. So, how will the movie portray the two planes?

    • Curtis Conway

      Unfortunately the Mach 1.6 capable F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter will never equal a Mach 2.25 capable F-14 Tomcat. When interceptors must respond in a given time, particularly in a A2AD Battlespace . . . We ‘FEEL THE NEED FOR SPEED’!!!

      • The problem being, the F-14 was only Mach 2.25 capable if you stripped off all of its weapons and flew it at 50,000 feet. Under real world conditions, such as when armed with 8 air to air missiles at 35,000 feet, the F-14D topped out at Mach 1.82.

        • Curtis Conway

          Still faster than an F-35C. In an A2A mission the fuselage missiles could speed you up a little, but there better be a tanker around. The 2K lbs/min burns the fuel up pretty quick. Besides, my story SINGS . . . yours doesn’t! The Navy won’t build a real F-14 replacement, so we will make some movies.

          Controlled many an PMCF.

          • E1 Kabong

            ” In an A2A mission…”?

            A modern A-A mission or the nostalgic Cold War – Top Gun days?

        • Rocco

          Ever see a tomcat fully loaded go straight up ??? If I only knew how to post it here! But look it up!

          • E1 Kabong

            Define EXACTLY what “loaded up” is.

            For how long? To what altitude?

          • Rocco

            Picture I have has one with 6 Phenix missiles 2 sidewinder’s & aim 120 at high altitude which I don’t know exactly

          • E1 Kabong

            Lame. I’ve seen a fully loaded A-7 do it, too…

          • El Kabong

            Picture….knowing what an F-14 can carry….

            “…with 6 Phenix missiles 2 sidewinder’s & aim 120…”?

            I’ll let you figure out where you went wrong.

            And wait for you to answer the other questions.

          • Val Cyril Estuche Estrada

            It cant, just 4 phoenix under fuselage, and additional two on inner swing wing pylons. Another two sidewinders on each outer swing wing pylons “can” be added but its way too heavy for operational use. It can be made just for photo ops. Aim-120 on F-14 was possible but never operational.

          • Rocco

            Yeah OK dude! I served on 3 Carriers. FYI there is no such thing as a pylon on the swing wings!!

        • dutchnational

          Not only speed counts but also G forces. F16 could build up larger g forces than the f35. Sadly, the human body set a lower threshold than the F16 could mechanically produce. Therefore the lower f35 g forces are not an operational minus.

          • Rocco

            That’s because of its inclined ejection seat

          • E1 Kabong

            Which caused neck damage to pilots…

          • Rocco

            Sissy pilots

          • E1 Kabong

            Keyboard commando.

          • El Kabong

            Say that to a pilot, coward.

      • NavySubNuke

        Top Gun 1: Maverick to Goose: “He’s too close for missiles, switching to guns!”
        Top Gun 2: Maverick on radio to ship: “He’s too close for missiles, I’m going to land – have the maintenance crew ready to load on the gun pod.”

        • Rocco

          God dam – it Maverick!! ….Hey I wonder if his Call sign has any relevance to McCain?

        • E1 Kabong

          Or the other players in the CEC system take it out….

        • Val Cyril Estuche Estrada

          I wonder why AF F-35A has built in gun and the Navy just had a gun pod?

      • Rocco

        Lol

      • E1 Kabong

        Yeah, sure… What current modern fighters are faster than M2.2?

        In a modern battle, platforms are data-linked and BVR is ruling the roost.

        Has for the last 20 or so years…

        • Old Coasty

          When was the last time a BVR weapon was used BVR to down an aircraft let alone a fighter or missile?

          ROE has always required a visual identification and usually the enemy to have fired first.

          Now in a hot war and an attack on an enemy concentration / base where one would not have to worry about innocent civilian aircraft / ship / vehicle / persons then yes BVR weapons would be used but not during peace or limited war.

          • E1 Kabong

            Desert Storm.
            Yugoslavia….
            Some in Vietnam WERE shot down BVR.

            “ROE has always required a visual identification and usually the enemy to have fired first.”?

            Nope.

            Yeah, there were all those “innocent civilian aircraft / ship / vehicle / persons ” mulling around Iraq and Yugoslavia…../sarc

          • El Kabong

            Answer the questions….

            “When was the last time a BVR weapon was used BVR to down an aircraft let alone a fighter or missile?”

            Yugoslavia….for one.

        • AMERICAN VET

          Modern Fighters able to go beyond Mach 2.2 The F-15 comes to mind Or do you other than US?
          At one time……. during the the Mid 80s…..the F-15 was the only fighter that was able to go into and maintain a straight vertical climb without having to spin to maintain lift……
          These new Fifth Gens are not that fast because the powers that be did not want it in the design…….. the newest generation fighters can go into Super Cruise though…….What about the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and the Growlers?? Can they go beyond Mach 2.2???

          • E1 Kabong

            Typhoon, F-35, Rafale, Gripen….

            “At one time……. during the the Mid 80s…..the F-15 was the only fighter that was able to go into and maintain a straight vertical climb without having to spin to maintain lift……”?

            So what?
            At one time, going supersonic was new and special.

            At one time, having BVR missiles was new and special.

            At one time, having a radar was new and special.

            “These new Fifth Gens are not that fast because the powers that be did not want it in the design….”?

            Could be that ACTUAL COMBAT proved being Mach 2.5+ wasn’t necessary, could it?

            Desert Storm….Vietnam………..Israel……………….

            “What about the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and the Growlers?? Can they go beyond Mach 2.2???”?

            Try this thing called “Google”.
            I hear it might catch on.

            Spoiler alert!

            No.

          • El Kabong

            “Modern Fighters able to go beyond Mach 2.2 The F-15 comes to mind…”?

            Hilarious!!!

            F-35….F/A-18C/D…F/A-18E/F…Rafale…Typhoon….Gripen….

            Try something NOT from the 70’s, sparky……………………….

            “At one time……. during the the Mid 80s…..the F-15 was the only fighter that was able to go into and maintain a straight vertical climb without having to spin to maintain lift……”?

            At one time, the F-80 could go supersonic in a dive….at one time the Spitfire wast he most maneuverable fighter in the sky…..at one time…..

            Do some research, like modern western air forces have done.

            They found having the ability to go M2.0+ was IRRELEVANT in ALL the combat engagements they were in.

      • Rocco

        It’s not always about top speed Curtis! The F- 35’s thrust to weight ration Is optimized at maximum thrust in the speed range of air combat! Mach .85 to Mach 1.2.

        • Curtis Conway

          The key here is the name of the platform of which I discuss . . . ‘Interceptor’. Intercepting and dogfighting is two different things. Interceptors are fast, well armed, and not always a great dogfighter. When war takes place they are VERY much desired because they take the fight to the enemy first, and engage them furthest away. They employ their weapons (usually BVR) and come back. They are not DACT platforms. It’s simply an equation of attrition. Start taking them out as far away as possible, particularly if they are carrying Crowd Pleasers.

          In the Navy the CV deckspace is valuable and limited, so multi-mission is the name of the game (e.g., F-35C). The navy cannot afford to build a pure Interceptor. The USAF should very much employ Interceptors along the ADIZ.

          • E1 Kabong

            ” Interceptors are fast, well armed, and not always a great dogfighter.”?

            F-106…Lightning F3./6…Su-15, F-101B…

          • Curtis Conway

            You got it. Interceptors are always fast. Hit and run, and you hit as far away from your launch point as possible. Once upon a time the US had interceptors that were Mach III and launched nuclear warheads (A-12/YF-12A). Probably not going to do that today, but we do still need Interceptors! With the missile technology we have today we should be able to handle anything endo-atmospheric, and probably exot-atmospheric, at least to lower earth orbit anyway.

          • AMERICAN VET

            The A-12/YF-12A and the YF-24A. The YF versions were prototypes……. the CIA got the A-12 and the USA got the second and it became the SR-711…………

            The A-12 was selected for use by the CIA…….I was not aware the CIA was capable of possessing let alone carrying Nukes…They are not part of the Triad!

            The SR-71 there were Three models……..One model is/was a trainer
            Next model was the one used for Reon
            The SR-71 at one time carried a drone it would launch to overfly and collect data over various places so not to endanger the aircraft…Before they found out/realized it could not be shot down at the time……
            The Third model was being developed to carry weapons and never saw service to the best of my knowledge……..Not sure the weapons were nukes……The USAF phased out the SR-71 years ago and are now using the TR-1/U–2….
            There are slight visual differences between the A-12 and the SR-71…NASA still flies the SR-71……………………Don’t know about the CIA…….

          • Curtis Conway

            The A-12/YF-12A had bomb bays. The birds mission was to fly north and meet the Soviet bombers over the pole and shoot them in the face with nukes. The Nike Hercules was doing pretty much the same thing just right over the target. Of course this was before folks had a full appreciation for EMP, and the world went digital. That’s HiStory folks. Built a model of the YF-12A when I was a kid and the missiles that went into the bomb bays. The mission never really gelled out, but that was the concept. I believe there is a Nike ABM site that a National Park around Los Angeles and you can go walk through the place. The Nuclear Museum in Las Vegas has some good pictures and props too, as does the Museum on the NW corner of Kirtland AFB.

          • AMERICAN VET

            seems I canot find any of the sites I used to use for some reason….sort of like they are rewriting history or so it seems GRRR

            There is a lip that runs around the edge of both aircraft it stops short say just behind the canopy or even with the canopy…..somewhere along those lines.
            Now that same lip /edge runs all the way around the SR-71. There are various other differences

            Yes the weapons had to be internal so yes into a bay……..I know the F-106s The NORAD Air Defense birds/planes carried the “Genie”. It was an Air-To-Air Nuke to wipe out the incoming Russian Bombers. I an article that says the A-12s were carrying or armed with a One Megaton device.
            No matter, I fail to understand how and why the CIA would be carrying Nukes……or be involved in actual combat…… as that is not part of their Role…….
            That would be NORAD’s and the USAFs job.

            SAC Then Strategic Air Command was disbanded and a NEW SAC was created……. SAC had control of all the nukes other than he Navy and for a time the Army….All of the nukes really belong to the DOE and are “on loan” to the military…..

            For the A-12 or the SR-71 to fire or use or drop any weapon/payload would force the plane to slow WAAAAYYYY DOWN……….

            I forget who made the plastic model BUT They had a kit that included all Three versions A B C of the SR-71 and the drone that they carried at one time and launched…… Those drone use to be in the Boneyard at Davis Monthan AFB outside Tucson AZ

            There is an old ABM site in North Dakota It is North of the former Grand Forks AFB Missile Field and between Grand Forks AFB and Minot AFB…It was only active for One day….or maybe not that long so we were told)….There is also another relic from the Cold War called “The PAR Site”….It is a big pyramid looking building and it was a Perimeter Acquisition Radar……..

          • E1 Kabong

            Umm…what’s the range/endurance of the good ol’ English Electric Lightning?

            Remind me.

            “Once upon a time the US had interceptors that were Mach III and launched nuclear warheads (A-12/YF-12A).”?

            Yeah, NO.

            What squadrons used them?

          • Curtis Conway

            Plans of mice and men…

          • E1 Kabong

            So…. that’s a NONE….

          • Curtis Conway

            Are you aware of any nation that developed and tested a Mach III+ interceptor that could employ nuclear tipped missiles?

          • E1 Kabong

            Keep squirming…

            It amuses me to watch you try to weasel out of your incorrect claim.

            “Once upon a time the US had interceptors that were Mach III and launched nuclear warheads (A-12/YF-12A).”

            What squadrons used them?

            Are you aware you’re digging a deeper hole for yourself?

          • Curtis Conway

            First off, ‘AMERICAN’ Interceptors do exactly what I said, go far fast and ‘intercept’ (perhaps destroy) the target at altitude. I accept no responsibility for RAF interpretation of what an Interceptor is capable of or should be doing. I have personally controlled Harriers off of the Illustrious that intercepted Tu-95 Bear Bombers. As soon as they made the intercept, the VC10 was the next chore before resuming escort. It was quite a formation: 2-Bears, 2-Harriers and a VC10 Tanker.
            The early Electric Lightning was as they say ‘a “fuel-critical” aircraft’ from its inception primarily because of its design, which maximized the two 16,000lb thrust w/afterburner Avon engines that enabled it to break time to altitude records (This would yield a constant climb rate of approximately 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s)) coming out of the box. It ‘performed so poorly’ (tongue in cheek) it was operated by no less than eight nations as their primary interceptor.
            • Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 (1,300 mph, 2,100 km/h) at 36,000 ft. 700 KIAS at lower altitude
            • Range: 850 mi (1,370 km) Supersonic intercept radius: 155 mi (250 km)
            • Ferry range: 920 mi (800 NM, 1,660 km) 1,270 mi (1,100 NM, 2,040 km) with ferry tanks
            • Service ceiling: 54,000 ft (16,000 m) zoom ceiling >70,000 ft
            • Rate of climb: 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s)
            • Wing loading: 76 lb/ft² (370 kg/m²)
            • Thrust/weight: 0.78
            Attirbution: Wiki

          • E1 Kabong

            “…‘AMERICAN’ Interceptors do exactly what I said, go far fast and ‘intercept’ (perhaps destroy) the target at altitude.”?

            What kills were those?

            How’d that AIM-4 work out in combat?

            Keep thinking it through and you might see the different interceptor requirements of the US and the UK.

            Tu-128 Fiddlers were also interceptors.

            Just sayin’…

            ” It ‘performed so poorly’ (tongue in cheek) it was operated by no less than eight nations as their primary interceptor.”?

            Which nations were those?

            Try using a credible source, instead of Wrong-i-pedia.

          • Curtis Conway

            As you put it Wrong-i-pedia may not be the ultimate source. However we do know that the Royal Air Force (RAF) operated them in numbers, and the the Kuwait Air Force (KAF) and the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) used them extensively. The US so admired the design there is one here at the Pima Air Museum in Tuscon, AZ, and another undergoing restoration at Stennis Airport, Mississippi. The swing winged version was an inspiration for other things. South Africa operated two (single and dual seat versions), for a time but they were never operational. Several Allies permitted the RAF Electric Lightnings to operate out of their airfields for a time, and that is where I got the eight countries number. Those Allies did not actually operate the aircraft themselves, so that’s all on me.

          • E1 Kabong

            STILL waiting for answers to my other questions…

          • El Kabong

            You missed it.

            List off their weapon capabilities.
            ALL those kills they got?

            “Once upon a time the US had interceptors that were Mach III and launched nuclear warheads (A-12/YF-12A).”?

            Hilarious!

            The US never “HAD” those capabilities.
            Tested ONLY.

            What’s your next claim?
            The US “had” a M3.0 capable bomber?

            Multi-role fighters are used.
            NOT dedicated “interceptors”….

          • Curtis Conway

            WHAT is an F-15C?

          • El Kabong

            Answer the question.

          • Curtis Conway

            The XB-70 never existed? Tested only?

            The YF-12A actually flew, and then turned into an SR-71.

            As far as the multi-role fighter, from here on in most everything will be multi-function, because we cannot afford to make a single function platform. However, the INTERCEPTOR Mission requires speed far in excess of an F-16 (with its short legs), or an F-35 which is speed limited below Mach II.

            If you are TRYING to get me to say that “The US never “HAD” those capabilities. Tested ONLY.” . . . I’ll give you that, and we DID . . . test it successfully. The engagement sequence was a bear because you cannot launch weapons of that nature at that altitude and speed. You have to descend and slow down for the engagement. However, the point is made.

            Interceptors conduct battle AWAY from your shores, not over them.

          • El Kabong

            Still waiting for answers….

            Were those aircraft IN SERVICE?

            Nope.

            Keep squirming.

            Squeal like a pig, will ya?

            “Interceptors conduct battle AWAY from your shores, not over them.”?

            Remind me where the Battle of Britain took place?

            The Luftwaffe fought the USAAF and RAF bombers WHERE?

            Remind me.

            Where does NORAD operate?

            I seem to recall Bomarc and Nike SAM’s, F-86D’s, F-89’s, F-94’s, F-101’s, F-102’s, F-106’s, etc. being based in Canada and the USA.

            The RAF had Lightnings, Javelins, etc. based in the UK for what?
            To fight over Scandinavia?

            Hilarious!

          • Curtis Conway

            The cherry picking of Interceptor missions over one’s territory limit and negate the capability (speed) that is required to engage away from one’s shores in the modern battlespace. The WWII opponents had a limited involvement with missiles, and their interaction were limited primarily to the V-1s. Everyone else wanted to engage the enemy as far from their shores as possible, regardless of platform. Remind me again where England’s (and everyone else’s) Interceptors are based, and why Canada and the United States cooperate on our Northern Border in the ADIZ.

          • El Kabong

            Keep squirming….

          • Curtis Conway

            The USAF changed direction. That change was driven by many factors, one of which was the futility of using tactical nuclear weapons in the manner described. Should the United States had continued on that path, there is no doubt that Mach III interceptors would have been able to intercept ‘the archers before they launched their arrows’ over the Arctic. having tracked many an SR-71 I can tell you they blazed along at every bit of Mach III and more, at a significant altitude.

            Given increases in technology there is no reason we do not already have single stage to orbit things flying around, and more.

          • El Kabong

            STILL waiting for answers….

        • Curtis Conway

          An F-14 with fuselage mounted missiles and two tanks aft could cook pretty fast. Now the AIM-54s really slowed it down, but the new AIM-120s really opened up the capability a little bit.

  • Gregg Irons

    In the original TOP GUN, only the F-14 was featured as the frontline fighter in the Navy yet the F/A-18 was actually in service also. It never appeared in the movie.
    Now the sequel is in production and the F-35C isn’t even in fleet wide service yet . Why should it be in the movie and portrayed as an active jet?
    Hornet crews were already participating in TOPGUN courses at the time of the original film. Have any F-35C crews done the same yet?

    • Rocco

      No Hornets just came on line at the time!!! But if I were a Hollywood producer I would of wanted the Tomcat as it was the Navy’s true fighter in that role at the time!! The Phantom just left the Navy as well which was my jet. The early Hornets replaced the Phantom & A-7 Corsair. In both roles. The Super Hornet does this now in 3 Versions. I don’t think we’ll see any Skyhawk in the film as Jesters jet lol. Maybe F-5’s as their still flying them.

      • George Hollingsworth

        The Navy could have had a decent replacement for the F-14: the F-15. McDonnell made the first Navy jet fighter to begin with: the FH-1 Phantom I that was followed closely by the FH-2 Banshee. Instead they got the F-18 “Can’t carry much and can’t carry it far”

        • Rocco

          The F-15 would not have made a good choice FYI. Even if it were navalized!!

          • AMERICAN VET

            Why is that? It was designed to be an Air Superiority Fighter and its History proves it is that…………The E-model is also quite capable in its Air Defense Attack and Air To Mud roles…….Its altitude capability allowed to be used for ASAT Testing….AND it would of course have to be “navalized” Folding wings and whatever else requirements

          • Rocco

            It’s not conditioned for Sea duty for one. Its main gear isn’t able to hook up to cat’s. Nor are they strong enough for carrier landings. The main gear needs two wheels. The eagle has one. The wings don’t fold. & It’s too tall for the hangar. Plus support equipment. Carrier jet are air started. The list could go on . It would be millions to convert current jets. & Defense acquisition would never approve as it’s a stupid idea to begin with. The navy has enough going on with the F-35C already. Plus the Supper Hornet with Blk III mods are just as capable.

          • AMERICAN VET

            I admitted it would have to have folding wings among other things……I am sure The eggheads could come up something similar type air superiority for the Navy even if they had to start from Scratch……… In Ballistic mode the F-14 and and F-15 have similar lines as far as aerodynamic shape…….

            Another way to look at is they can land a Herky-Bird C-130 on a carrier…..They can come up with something……Maybe not the F-15 but who knows……..
            Yeah the F-35 has issues and has had issues. Let us start with the Latest Greatest GEE-WHIZ-BANG DO Everything GADGET Greatest invention since the wheel…….. The Helmet!
            Now where to start with it?? Wearing it? or what it is suppose to actually do? It feels “Clunky” according to some among other things…..said about it……It is suppose to do AT LEAST Five things. IT MIGHT actually do 1 MAYBE 2 out of those 5 OR More……one of those things that does not work as promised is the “See through the aircraft”….or is that the One that works?
            Then there are the same issues with the Onboard O2 generator that has been effecting numerous aircraft……
            As for its actual weapons inventory load ……The USAF wants to use it to replace the HAWG! The A-10 I dont thin there is any omparison and that the A-10 has the better and BEST weaponry The 30mm ROCKS! What does the F-35 have to compare?

            As for aerial combat……it will have to be actually tested and no matter HAT it goes up against the pilot with the most experience……..Something Chuck Yeager did and said comes to mind “The first time I saw a jet, I shot it down.” Time will tell. I have not actually seen the F-35 fly….I have actually seen the F-22 put through her paces …..the thrust vectoring is OMG I would have loved to been a JAFO on board…….Definitely A REAL E-Ticket Ride….. But Disney ain’t got nothing even close!!!

            I know each branch is getting a different version…..who is getting the VTOL The Marines? MAYBE the USAF???

          • George Hollingsworth

            The F-35 helmet actually does SIX things. It is so heavy it can snap the pilot’s spine in the cervical region upon ejection. Not to mention in the famous dogfight with the F-16 the F-35 pilot complained he could not turn his head to look to behind him at all.

          • George Hollingsworth

            The F-14 main gear is a single wheel. The F-15 has a relatively slow landing speed and is not much bigger than the F-14, if at all, and is a much superior aircraft. I am just saying you could have had a jet much superior to the F/A-18, the initial version of which was pretty much a total failure, else why did they have to scale it up? Or actually build another aircraft and pretend it was a follow-on model?

          • Rocco

            OK George you really don’t get it The front strut landing gear or Main gear in Naval terms because it has a drop bar that connects to the shuttle has two wheels ( tires)!!!! As all Naval aircraft have !! Including the F-35C!! The landing struts are tricycle design. The F-15 doesn’t. I don’t agree that the Legacy Hornets were a total failure. Pretty much I don’t agree with anything you say!! I’m a Navy aviation guy !! The F-15 is a great aircraft & have seen plenty of them! But I must digress it not or could ever been a naval aircraft because you think it is superior!!

          • Rocco

            By the way the F-15 deploys it’s speed brake when it lands as well as a drag chute .

  • Kypros

    Where is “Goose” going to sit?

    • publius_maximus_III

      Umm, recall that Goose didn’t make it last time.

      Q. What’s the difference between a jet engine and a Radar Interception Officer?
      A. The engine stops whining after you land.

      • Leatherstocking

        Yeah, and if either of them stops whining in flight you have a situation…..

        • Rocco

          The that would whine his the idiot that you just replied to…….pubic max!!

          • Jack D Ripper

            easy old timer

          • Rocco

            Lol

        • E1 Kabong

          You can fly without a GIB………..

          • Leatherstocking

            No, my GIBs saved my bacon and were my closest friends. I can joke about them but being strapped in behind a lunatic like me made them the bravest men I know.

    • Rocco

      In a Hornets rear seat!!

    • Ed L

      Goose son is a nugget

      • Rocco

        Yeah 35 yrs old nugget

    • E1 Kabong

      Anywhere you can put his cremated remains, since he died in the first movie….

  • eddie046

    The whole premise seems odd. How can a guy who was a Lt. in 1986 still even be on active duty let alone having flight status?

    • 2bnfl

      Do not blow it for the rest of us! They had like five Rockys.

      • Jack D Ripper

        Yo ,,gram Adrian,,what she dead??

    • Rocco

      Good question!! If Cruise was a CAG or admiral in the movie or even a Skipper of a carrier they still have to be flight status quo off ship especially. Holds true today! Hollywood is another story lol.

    • Leatherstocking

      Maverick was RIF’d after the first Gulf War. He taught primary GA students in a Cessna 152 for 25 years and then rejoined Naval Aviation to reduce his monthly flight hours and because he couldn’t afford medical insurance and Medicare was still a few years away….

      • Rocco

        Huh??

      • SN

        Plausible.

      • Vinny Herman

        The story is he’s going for 70 y.o. to get 100% Social Security- but USN needs him to train Gooses’ son..
        to do battle with jihadis/PRK….after Obama care flopped he had to tend bar to make ends meet… Jennifer Connelly is his boss even wears the nylons…
        How wrong am I Paramount?

    • Stephen Davies

      It’s Hollywood. You must suspend belief.

      • ChrisLongski

        Too much of a stretch when Pretty Boy Cruise is on screen.

        • Rocco

          Nice avitar lol!!

          • ChrisLongski

            Got banned at NewsBusters for it…

    • Leroy

      Well, ever see Kirk Douglas and Martin Sheen in “Final Countdown”?

      BTW, those aerial shots of the F-14s vs Zeros was some of the best footage I’ve ever see! : )

      • Rocco

        Agreed

        • Leroy

          Hollywood should hire you as a technical advisor! : )

          • Rocco

            Lol

          • Leroy

            No, make that a co-star! Star? After all, they do call you the Italian Stallion – and not fer nothin’! : )

      • E1 Kabong

        Fun fact, during that F-14 vs Zero dogfight, the scene where the F-14 pulls out screamingly low over the ocean, wasn’t planned.

        It was as near to a crash as you can get.

      • Curtis Conway

        I like the Tanking Scene…”CONTACT”.

        • Leroy

          I liked the “Splash the Zeros” scene, and when they did a high-speed flyover of that yacht with the politician on it. Forget the actor. That was cool!

          • EdMan

            Charles Durning. He’s dead now.

          • Curtis Conway

            US Senator Samuel Chapman (Charles Durning)

  • Hugh

    Any comparison in dogfight capability between F-14, F/A-18 and F-35C?

    • publius_maximus_III

      I read somewhere that the F-35C is better at a distance, the other two better for closer in.

      • Rocco

        There is no other 2!! The Tomcat hasn’t flown since 07!

      • SN

        I dated a girl like that once.

        Seriously though, this will be great PR for the Navy no matter how cheesy the script is.

        Most of the original cast is coming back and Cruise is a big Hollywood draw.

    • Rocco

      It would be the Super Hornet today, the early Hornets still fly with Marines in limited numbers. In a dog fight I pick the Tomcat!

      • E1 Kabong

        You’d die.

        • Rocco

          I don’t think so

          • AMERICAN VET

            IT boils own to who is the better and experienced pilot……..Tomcat COULD shoot OTH but never did as far as my limited knowledge goes….I was told the ROE never allowed such to happpen

          • Rocco

            ROE is??

          • Old Coasty

            Rules of engagement.

            Example: We may not engage the enemy (fire weapons) until after the enemy fires their weapons first.

          • AMERICAN VET

            ROE= Rules Of Engagement

          • E1 Kabong

            The AIM-54 was a dud.

          • E1 Kabong

            You thought wrong.

          • El Kabong

            You don’t think, in that case.

      • Hugh

        I heard that in wargames between the RAAF’s early Hornets and Malasia’s MIG29s, the Malasian planes and missiles were significantly better.

        • Rocco

          Malsia flys F-5’s!!! ….you have a source to this claim!!??? Better in what way??

          • Hugh

            Many years ago at a Defence meeting there were informal discussions over drinks, and some of the RAAF comments were that the Malasian kit would have given more wins in dogfights.

        • E1 Kabong

          Nope.

          The Luftwaffe brought Fulcrums to Red Flags and Maple Flags.

          There is no mystery to it, and it’s short legged.

        • Rocco

          I’m happy for you

    • waveshaper1

      Here’s a few stats on this stuff from 2015 (Air-to-Air Kills, Air-to-Air Losses, Losses to Ground Fire);

      – F/A-18 Hornet 2-1-1
      Gulf of Sidra 1986 (USA) 0-0-0
      Gulf War (USA) 2-1-1
      Gulf War (Canada) 0-0-0
      Kosovo (USA) 0-0-0
      Kosovo (Spain) 0-0-0
      Kosovo (Canada) 0-0-0
      Afghanistan (USA, Australia) 0-0-0
      Iraq (USA, Australia) 0-0-0

      – F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornet 0-0-0
      NFZs (USA) 0-0-0
      Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
      Iraq (USA) 0-0-0

      – F-15A/C/I/S Eagle 102-0-0
      Gulf War (USA) 32-0-0
      Gulf War (Saudi Arabia) 2-0-0
      Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Desert Fox (USA) 2-0-0
      Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0
      Kosovo (USA) 4-0-0
      Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
      Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
      Syrian border clashes 1979-1981 (Israel) 19-0-0
      Operation Opera (Israel) 0-0-0
      Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 38-0-0
      Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 4-0-0
      Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 0-0-0
      Iran Gulf Clash 1984 (Saudi Arabia) 1-0-0

      – F-15E Strike Eagle 1-0-3
      Gulf War (USA) 1-0-2
      Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Desert Fox (USA) 0-0-0
      Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0
      Kosovo (USA) 0-0-0
      Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
      Iraq War (USA) 0-0-1
      Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 0-0-0
      Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 0-0-0
      Yemen Border Clashes (Saudi Arabia) 0-0-0

      – F-16 Falcon 76-1-5
      Gulf War (USA) 0-0-3
      No-Fly Zones (USA) 2-0-0
      Bosnia (USA) 4-0-1
      Kosovo (USA) 1-0-1
      Kosovo (Netherlands) 1-0-0
      Kosovo (Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Turkey) 0-0-0
      Afghanistan (USA, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) 0-0-0
      Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
      Syrian border clashes 1979-1986 (Israel) 6-0-0
      Operation Opera (Israel) 0-0-0
      Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 44-0-0
      Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 3-0-0
      Intifada (2000-present) (Israel) 0-0-0
      Soviet-Afghan War (Pakistan) 10-0-0
      Border clashes (Pakistan) 1-0-0
      Kargil War (Pakistan) 0-0-0
      Northwest border wars (Pakistan) 0-0-0
      Aegean Sea clashes (Turkey) 1-1-0
      Venezuelan Coup 1992 (Venezuela) 3-0-0

      – F-4 Phantom 306-106-545
      Vietnam War (US Navy) 40-7-66
      Vietnam War (USMC) 3-1-74
      Vietnam War (USAF) 108-33-337
      Desert Storm (USAF) 0-0-1
      NFZs (Turkey) 0-0-0
      Soviet border clash 1976 (Iran) 1-0-0
      Dhofar War (Iran) 0-0-1
      Kurdish rebellion (Iran) 0-0-1
      Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 68-29-33
      Iran Gulf Clash 1984 (Iran) 0-1-0
      Kurdish Civil War (Iran) 0-0-1
      War of Attrition (Israel) 26-3-5
      Yom Kippur War (Israel) 55-28-22
      Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Israel) 4-3-1
      Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 1-1-1
      Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 0-0-2

      – etc, etc.

      • Rocco

        Where did you find this source please?

        • publius_maximus_III

          Try searching on the string “combat statistics for all the aircraft currently in use” and pick the migflug one– cannot post hypertext links here. — Pubes

          • Rocco

            Thanks

      • Ed L

        Don’t forget the unbeaten aircraft that have engaged in significant air combat but never been shot down in air to air combat): F-15 Eagle, Sea Harrier, Su-27.

      • E1 Kabong

        A Super Hornet bagged a Fitter over Syria…

      • Rocco

        You failed to mention that alot of the aircraft numbers in the loss column are just that! Meaning not just by dog fighting alone! Sam’s took most of the Phantoms out of the sky as well as the Israeli Airforce.

        • waveshaper1

          See above; Air-to-Air Kills, Air-to-Air Losses, Losses to Ground Fire. The third digit/number is “Losses to Ground Fire”.

          • Rocco

            the 82 gulf of sidra was my last deployment . Thanks dude

      • James Bowen

        This is very interesting, thanks for posting. Do you have any stats for the F-14?

        • waveshaper1

          F-14 Tomcat 135-4-4 (note; take the Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 130-4-4 stats with a grain of salt).

          Vietnam (1975) (USA) 0-0-0
          Gulf of Sidra (USA) (1980) 2-0-0
          Lebanon 1983 (USA) 0-0-0
          Gulf of Sidra (1986) 0-0-0
          Gulf of Sidra (1989) 2-0-0
          Gulf War (USA) 1-0-1
          Iraq NFZs (USA) 0-0-0
          Bosnia (USA) 0-0-0
          Kosovo (USA) 0-0-0
          Afghanistan (USA) 0-0-0
          Iraq (USA) 0-0-0
          Iran-Iraq War (Iran) 130-4-4

          • James Bowen

            Thanks! It looks like in U.S. Navy hands the F-14 fought well in the limited combat experience it had.

          • AMERICAN VET

            Ask the Libyans….LOL

      • AMERICAN VET

        Where are the numbers for the Israelis? F-15s F-16s…Didn’t they have the F-4 as well….?

        • waveshaper1

          It’s all in my post above/I hope this helps:

          – Israelis F-15 numbers;
          “Syrian border clashes 1979-1981 (Israel) 19-0-0”
          “Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 38-0-0”
          “Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 4-0-0”

          – Israelis F-16 numbers;
          “Syrian border clashes 1979-1986 (Israel) 6-0-0”
          “Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 44-0-0”
          “Lebanon War (2006) (Israel) 3-0-0”

          – Israelis F-4 numbers;
          “War of Attrition (Israel) 26-3-5”
          “Yom Kippur War (Israel) 55-28-22”
          “Syrian border clashes 1974-1981 (Israel) 4-3-1”
          “Lebanon War (1982) (Israel) 1-1-1”
          “Lebanon War 1982-2000 (Israel) 0-0-2”

          • AMERICAN VET

            Thank you and very much appreciated!
            I must have missed seeing it above. 🙂

    • It may be heresy, but from what I’ve heard the F-35 should actually be the best dogfighter of the three. It’s supposed to be almost as maneuverable as the F/A-18, but have much better acceleration. While the F-14 was the fastest, it was also large, underpowered, and never really intended as a dogfighter.

      However, with today’s high off boresight missiles and helmet mounted cueing, getting into a dogfight is virtually suicide.

      • muzzleloader

        The TF-30 engine which was in the F-14 A model was underpowered. The D model had the F-100, and was able to mix it up with the F-15. It is a pity the D’s came so late, and in such limited numbers.

  • Hugh

    That will make a change from the traditional movies.

    • Rocco

      FYI there is no more topgun

  • NavySubNuke

    Interesting, so we should just replace all of our jet fights with radar and AAM equipped propeller drive planes then? Since speed doesn’t matter we might as well save on the cost and maintenance of a jet.

    • Rocco

      Yes bring back the Skyraider!! Lol

      • muzzleloader

        And the F4U Corsair.

        • Rocco

          My favorite plane besides my Phantom

      • It was a bute! The SAR guys always liked it when one was flying cover for them. It could hang out for a long time.

        • Rocco

          Yup. Shot down MiGs & dropped the throne in Nam!!

    • Curtis Conway

      NSN, you really do understand the out air battle . . . for a submariner! This is what we used to practice against the Soviet Navy. You want to start the attrition of the adversary as far away as possible. Laz and Duane like to ‘Lure Them In’. That doesn’t work when the enemy is using Crowd Pleasers that you can see for hundreds of miles.

    • E1 Kabong

      Who needs SAM’s, like the RIM-116, SM-2 or SM-6?

      Just abandon them for fighters, right?

  • Rocco

    Ahhh not true Duane!!

    • AMERICAN VET

      It DEFINITELY is not ttue!
      Was it McNamara that said We have Missiles and do not need guns?…..How many Men were lost?? How much in Tax Payer Dollars per aircraft were wasted because he F-4 had no gun?
      Eventually it did get a 20mm Vulcan Gun Pod……
      Missiles are useless inside Fur-Balls ……
      Just an FYI on The F-4 Phantom……It set and held 64 World records until the F-15 was brought into being….In testing and dog fighting the F-4 lost 4 out of 5…… The F-4 smoked the F-15 once……..Main problem with the F-4 was it’s dirt burning engines You can see the exhaust long before you see the plane……

      • Rocco

        First of all arm chair fake Vet!! If you were observant you would see my Avatar is a naval phantom!! I was a plane Capt !!! So I don’t need any FYI about The F-4’s!! OK . FYI to you I know Macnamara was behind this – more stupid desision’s .

        • AMERICAN VET

          I am the arm chair vet?? You are the one that did not know when the F-16 entered USAF service, nor did you know what ROE are…………..BTW my DD-214 says otherwise!

          • Rocco

            So big deal I forgot!! Your arrogance behoves you!

  • Rocco

    Not the point Duane!!! Would if it was all guns no missiles?? Lol let’s see how you answer this question!

  • Ed L

    In a dog fight maoueverability is king. Years ago dogfights were setup using Visual Flight Rules only, No radar, No Missiles. An environment were jamming, interference, etc was use to degrade all onboard systems. The AV-8B took on all and won against all. The Articles were in Aviation weekly, Janes, etc. Makes me wonder if the need for an inexpensive Single seat attack/Fighter should also be factor into war fighting. Keep It Simple. They still have a gun on fighters. In a hostile electronic environment all those fancy systems might not function they way they should or not function at all. Then a simple joe chinaman Iranian or Russike can sneak in with that simple fighter and that big wrist watch and sucker punch the hi tech fighter

    • Rocco

      Agreed! I tell people this & they don’t believe me! The AV-8B has the best thrust to weight ratio of any jet in the subsonic range. Only thing close is the F-16. Not sure of the F-35B though

      • E1 Kabong

        And the Harriers were whacked in Desert Storm by MANPADS thanks to that LITTLE designed-in survivability defect of having that nice, hot exhaust right in the centre section of the jet…

        • Rocco

          Has nothing to do with my comment.

          • E1 Kabong

            Has everything to do with refuting your comment.

            Guess where those IR seeking AAM’s would head for on a Harrier?

            Ever seen a Harrier survive an IR missile hit like an F/A-18, Tornado, F-105, Su-25, A-10 can?

          • El Kabong

            Yes, it does.

    • You do realize that people have been making that argument since WWII and it has never once happened in the real world? It’s sort of like saying we should arm all our infantry with swords because guns might jam or run out of ammo.

      • Ed L

        Vietnam. The F-4 pilots said we need a gun and they got one. And they still are putting guns on fighters

        • E1 Kabong

          40 years ago.

          The last dogfight was….when?

          • Ed L

            Then why is air Combat Maneuvers still practice Using the Gun in an air to air mode.

          • Why did many WWII armies begin the war with horse mounted cavalry? Why do the Russians still put heavy weight torpedoes on their destroyers? It’s mostly institutional inertia.

          • E1 Kabong

            Answer the question.

          • El Kabong

            Answer the question.

        • I wondered how long it would take.

          In Vietnam the vast majority of kills on both sides were scored with missiles – 85% of American kills in the last four years of the war (when the guns-only planes were gone) were by missiles. Even supposed “gunfighters” like the F-8 got most of their kills with missiles.

          While a gun was added to the USAF F-4’s (because they didn’t bother teaching their pilots how to use missiles effectively), the Navy never added a gun to its F-4’s and it hasn’t put a gun on the F-35C either. In fact, the last Navy gun kill was in 1967 – over half a century ago.

      • E1 Kabong

        The last two decades or so have involved how many “knife-fight-in-a-phone-booth” engagements?

    • E1 Kabong

      Meanwhile, how many kills in the last, oh, 25 years have involved furball dogfights?

  • Curtis Conway

    Response time in Interceptors is the issue, not the capability of the weapons. That is what the ADIZ is all about, moving around the ship, or fixed on the coast.

  • Jack D Ripper

    Sure the navy is full of 60 year old pilots who should be retired,,lets guess old Tom is the admiral who jumps into his F35 and ,,,,,

    • Well at least he didn’t sell out his constituency to get a ride on the Space Shuttle.

  • Curtis Conway

    We used to call these folks untrainable. I persist and hold the candle of hope that one day, the shell will break, and understanding will come forth. I guess I should give up.

  • Lazarus

    Let’s hope the CNO asked for the theme of “Great Power Competition” to be included in the film with the Chinese and Russians as enemies regardless of Paramount’s desire for international sales.

    • Leroy

      LOL! Paramount will never do that. Movies make too much of their gross in China. My guess is Russia will be the bad guys because, well, Russia is a low-end market. Or perhaps the enemy will be a fake nation. Who knows, but I’m guessing it will cost about $125 – $150M to make the movie (Tom Cruise will probably be paid ~$40M) so Paramount has got to make money wherever they can. Nowadays a major part of that’s in the PRC.

      • Rocco

        More than that bro!

      • muzzleloader

        In the the reboot of “Red Dawn, the invaders were supposed to be the Chinese, but when the chicoms objected, the invaders became the North Koreans, lol.
        Nah, Hollywood is not going to piss off the chicoms by blowing their Russian clone SU-27’s out of the sky, because Hollywood wants Chinese money.
        My money says the enemy will probably be Iran.

        • Leroy

          A number of Chinese companies now finance Hollywood films (though admittedly this has slowed). Tencent, Alibaba, Dalian Wanda Group Co. come to mind. As a matter of fact popular American films like Paramount’s “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” had Alibaba as an investor in the production. There are many others. So, don’t expect studios like Paramount to make anything that might offend Chinese sensibilities (or incur Beijing’s censorship wrath)!

        • Rocco

          You might be right. As they fly tomcats.

          • muzzleloader

            You know now that you mention Iranian tomcats: perhaps in the film Maverick gets downed over Iran. He escapes captivity and steals an Iranian Tomcat and flies to freedom, blasting other Iranian bogies on the way. He then lands on a CVN, where Iceman is waiting to give him a hug!

    • Ed L

      Iranians? Aka could be called the National Islamic Republic

  • JohnB

    Just like the first movie of Top Gun, the Navy will bend over backwards, to assist in the production of a new movie because of the free advertising for Navy Pilots. It will be a win win, for them regardless if an F-18, F-14 ( retired) or the new F-35 is used.

    • Rocco

      And your point is? Retention is a problem as of late especially Airforce

      • JohnB

        I was talking about a Naval Career not Boeing

        • Rocco

          Who said anything about Boeing?? I was taking about the same thing!

  • Leroy

    People are paying to watch dogfighting, not Maverick being downed in his F/A-18 by an F-35’s missiles that hit his 4th Gen SH without him even knowing he was in a fight!

    • Mali King

      Lol!

  • Rocco

    If the propulsion systems failed might not be a bad idea

  • Rocco

    I get that but not the response I’m looking for here!! If in a situation where an F-35C or A ran out of missiles & had to defend itself has no back up gun to defend itself!! Not in agreement that guns are useless!

    • E1 Kabong

      Lots of “IFs”…..

      • AMERICAN VET

        Look at the F-4…..That same Mistake was proven in Vietnam. How many Men lost their lives because of that? How many very expensive aircraft were lost for that very reason?
        Can those missiles turn as abruptly as the targeted aircraft? Missiles are never going to replace guns and vice versa!

        The USAF wants to use the F-35 to replace the A-10……It does not have the weaponry NOR does it have the loiter time……. not to mention it does not protect it’s pilot……..

        Oh yeah.. The F-35 is having issues doing ALL of those wonderful things along with the issues with the Helmet not performing as promised….I know the bugs are being worked on and some of those things but not all have been working as promised….Not to mention the cost overruns and all of the delays…..
        Speaking of the helmet with all the latest greatest New Gee-Whiz Bang does not perform as promised then e have the way it feels and its comfort….I think they did away with that particular helmet but do not know for sure……

        Speed is not important… to a point I do agree..But Maneuver ability also counts and definitely counts in a dogfight! .
        about Speed does not matter……..Tell that to the grunts on the ground waiting for CAS/CGS??……… What about getting into an area of “contested airspace” in time to deal with all of the OPFOR?
        What about keeping the area around the carrier group free of all OPFOR aircraft??
        Getting there First is what counts……No points for Second Place..

        Speed does have it’s Blessings and it also has it’s Curses.
        Thrust to weight ratio does matter. There is a reason the F-15 was selected to be used in the ASAT Program………. The F-4 set and held 64 World Records until the F-15 came along………. just saying .

        Just had major damage recently to a Navy F-35. It has to have a new engine now………that will cost roughly $12.7 million to repair. ..FOR ONE ENGINE???? Sheesh!!! What else could have been bought for that amount of money?

        • E1 Kabong

          Look at the TIME PERIOD.

          Even the experts thought missiles were the future for everything.

          Now, on to your schooling………………….

          “Can those missiles turn as abruptly as the targeted aircraft?”

          MX’s can sustain FAR more G-forces.

          “The USAF wants to use the F-35 to replace the A-10……”?

          The F-35 IS replacing the A-10.
          Can an A-10 survive a modern IADS environment?
          Care to chat about the proliferation of MANPADS?
          What about GPS/laser guided munitions?

          Those weren’t around in numbers, in the 70’s-80’s, were they?

          Geeze, a modern, state-of-the-art fighter has issues to work out?

          Who knew……………………

          Is the Super Hornet’s AESA radar at 100% yet?

          “But Maneuver ability also counts and definitely counts in a dogfight! . “?

          Yeah, about that………………………when was the last time fighters got into a furball dogfight?

          Spoiler alert!
          The majority of kills have been BVR for the last 25 years or so……….

          Oh, here’s some of your hypocrisy you can sort out…………….

          “…about Speed does not matter……..Tell that to the grunts on the ground waiting for CAS/CGS??.”

          “The USAF wants to use the F-35 to replace the A-10……It does not have the weaponry NOR does it have the loiter time……. not to mention it does not protect it’s pilot……..”

          So which is it?
          Supersonic fighters or subsonic A-10’s?

          “What about keeping the area around the carrier group free of all OPFOR aircraft??”?????????

          Go read up on the USN CEC and BMD systems.

          Killing your opponent before they know you’re there, is the best defence………………………
          If you’re in a fair fight, you’ve screwed up.
          Zero points for you!

          “There is a reason the F-15 was selected to be used in the ASAT Program………. The F-4 set and held 64 World Records until the F-15 came along………. just saying .”?

          The F-4 was developed when?
          The F-15 was developed when?

          Was ASAT deployed?

          Just sayin’………………..

          “Just had major damage recently to a Navy F-35. It has to have a new engine now………that will cost roughly $12.7 million to repair. ..FOR ONE ENGINE???? “??????????????????

          Using your seriously flawed logic, they should use J75’s and J79’s, right?

          What do you think (?!) an engine like an F414, F404, F110, EJ200 or F100 costs?

          These aren’t J47’s powering F-86’s…………………………………..

  • Curtis Conway

    Watch the Big Head with the Stealth Platforms. Like anything else, it must be used intelligently, utilizing skill with superior situational awareness. Even Stealth can be had by the right platform. There is an EA-18G Growler with an F-22 painted on the side to prove it.

    • E1 Kabong

      There are plenty of claims by F-22’s…

    • Rocco

      Where did you see this?

  • Sir Bateman

    I wonder if the sequel will be as hokey as the original?

  • George Hollingsworth

    Not even close to correct. the 1970s vintage F-16 was G-limited by carrying external fuel tanks and still waxed the F-35. It was no contest.

    • Rocco

      Your wrong!! FYI the F-16 isn’t a 70’s aircraft

      • George Hollingsworth

        The F-16 first flew in 1974, entered service with the USAF in 1978.

        • Rocco

          Ah no it didn’t. I’ve been aroun a long time so don’t insult my intelligence! Btw all early blk 10 20 F-16’s are not in front line service
          Sent from my iPad

          • George Hollingsworth

            If you are saying the F-16 did not first enter USAF service in the 1970s then there is no more to discuss.

          • E1 Kabong

            Get out your crying towel.

            When were the European air force’s F-16’s delivered?

          • dutchnational

            To the Netherlands tthe first two were delivered in 2016. Very impressive assembly line btw. One mile long.

          • E1 Kabong

            The Dutch received their first F-16 in 2016, did they?

          • muzzleloader

            He’s right Rocco.

          • Rocco

            So he is ….Dott’ I hate it when I’m wrong lol

        • Rocco

          Yeah OK you got me I was confused with the light weight fly off which was late 70’s . But I’m my opinion since it was so late in that decade the F-16 really didn’t mature until the middle 80’s .

    • You can thank John Boyd for getting the Air Force’s head out of the cockpit. It’s the only way to dog fight.

  • B2

    I laughed at the 1st one being filmed on my CVN and airwing when it happened back in 1980’s. The movie itself? Good sound track.. LOL. Did you know that Tom Cruise is about 5’6″ at best? Like most F-14 jocks! I checked him out in the dirty shirt chow line for midrats (double slider/egg) at around 2200, after a night CQ period in SOCAL with no moon to assist…. I wasn’t impressed. He needed a haircut. 😉

    Yeah I am sure the updated movie with bust the laws of physics…as usual.

    • Ed L

      Kelly McGinnis is 5’11” Cruise must have been standing on lifts or a box in some of these scenes Or McGinnis was standing in a hole

      • Rocco

        I wonder if she’s gonna be like Tom’s wife?

        • Ed L

          Kelly McGinnis is a nice comfortable plump lady now.

          • Rocco

            Lol plump is good! Something to sink into!!! 😂 lol

          • muzzleloader

            She’s gay.

          • E1 Kabong

            Vagitarian?

          • muzzleloader

            lol

          • Rocco

            So!! …..She turned Gay after Tom Cruise

          • muzzleloader

            It would seem so

          • Rocco

            Lol that doesn’t say much for Tom…..Then there was Kate!! Lol

          • Why does that kind of Charlie-Romeo-Alpha-Papa always have to come up? It’s more than getting old, and it is about time you nimrods get some push back.

          • muzzleloader

            I brought it up cause ol
            Rocco thinks she’s hot, lol

          • Don’t feel as if I chastised you – but things are changing in our nation and we are not as unified as we once were. Last century we could laugh this sort of thing off, but sexual proclivity (which actually doesn’t matter), is now being used to hammer in a wedge whenever and wherever the enemies that are in our midst see an opportunity to foment descent.

            I see your stuff on this blog all of the time and I know from past experience that descent was not your intent. I hope that you will understand that I’m using this as an opportunity to advocate for a counteractive strategy to what the radical left and the MSM foist upon us 24/7 as they implement their destructive agenda.

            Push back is one way in which those of us who believe in a united nation (that would be singular) can stand up against the pernicious attitudes that are attempting to take over the zeitgeist.

          • Rocco

            So

          • Curtis Conway

            Kelly McGillis call sign ‘Charlie’. Her character is based upon a real person . . . who does not act anything like that, and I met the real one at Luke AFB during an exercise. I was more impressed with the real thing.

          • EdMan

            Christine Fox is impressive. I think she’d make a good SecDef.

          • Curtis Conway

            Other than being more than technically competent, she struck me as a Lioness defending the country.

          • Rocco

            McGillis

        • EdMan

          If you read the article, it says Jennifer Connelly plays the female lead, suggesting she may be Cruise’s love interest.

          • Rocco

            I’m just thinking this. On the internet today ….. Movie is now delayed till 2020

    • Rocco

      I met the pilot that made him puke

      • AMERICAN VET

        Yeah I knew Tom Crews was short……
        Anyone read the Jack Reacher books??? NOW how many of the readers have seen the Two (So far) movies??
        Reacher is suppose to be BIG Guy with a plain or ugly face…………

        • Rocco

          Can’t say I have. Never heard of him.

          • AMERICAN VET

            IF you like to read….they are a great books.

          • Rocco

            I’ll look thanks

  • ChrisLongski

    The first installment was boring enough…

  • Ed L

    I been looking at low cost fighters and I think the Saab JAS 39 Gripen is the best airplane so far the UK, Thailand, Hungarian, Czech Republic, South Africa and Sweden so far operate it

    • E1 Kabong

      Nope.

      • Ed L

        Then what is the best free world low cost fighter/attack aircraft?

        • The F-16 – which is why some 30 nations fly it.

          The Gripen is one of the most overhyped fighters in history. First, it’s not cheap – an older JAS 39C runs around $70m. Second, it is has remarkably poor performance. Compared to the F-16, the Gripen has significantly less payload, less range, fewer weapon options, a smaller radar, and a lower power to weight ratio. Finally, the sum total of its combat history is flying some recon missions over Libya.

          • Rocco

            Agreed block 70

          • Ed L

            Really? or did 30 nations buy them over political pressure. that’s the F-16 killed a lot of pilots at first. Powers to be said it was pilot error until GD said there was an issue with the fly by wire in certain situations. It took decade for USAF to admit to wire chafing problems which caused more F-16 pilot deaths in catastrophic crashes then to enemy action to THIS DAY. The F-5 was Prime contender was the excellent, no-nonsense, reliable, easily maintained twin engine F-k5, which was specifically aimed to replace the troublesome single engine F-104, but as it usually happens in Pentagon it was side swiped by Washington lobbies in favor of gee-whiz hi-tech fly-by-wire single engine computer wonder kid that we know as the Falcon.

          • E1 Kabong

            Speaking of dodgy Gripen FCS software causing at least two crashes…

        • E1 Kabong

          Let’s see those national requirements for a “low cost fighter/attack aircraft”.

          I’d love to see that formal RAF specification they released.

        • El Kabong

          What’s the story about?

          F-35C’s.

          You brought up Gripens, WHY?

          What is the RAF/FAA buying?

          Remind me.

  • E1 Kabong

    The Sub-Par Hornet has ZERO charisma compared to the F-14.

    Not to mention, BVR combat and long range data-linked targeting is the norm nowadays.

  • Ed L

    Actually the way to defeat your enemy is with a boot on their chest and a bayonet at their throat. Fighters and bombers can’t do that.

    • E1 Kabong

      Guess you missed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      • Ed L

        My Dad and my 5 Uncles were slated for the invasion of Japan. 3 of them has recently arrived in the pacific from the ETO. The other three had been in the pacific since 1942. None of them had been home since the spring of 42. Oh That quote was on a wall at a MCAS Cherry Point

        • E1 Kabong

          Thank God for the USAAF then!

  • James Bowen

    I like that Jennifer Connelly is going to be in it!

    • Rocco

      Copy that! Haven’t seen much of her in anything lately!

    • Matt Conley

      Shared a cab with Jennifer Connelly in DC about 6 years ago. We got stuck in traffic (shocking). She was in town for a wedding and her Uber (they had just launched in DC) failed to show up. Down to earth, very nice and totally still smoking hot. She got a kick out of the fact that I told her I would be happy to add an n and l to my last name.

      • James Bowen

        Very cool story. That’s really neat that you got to meet her. Thanks for sharing!

      • muzzleloader

        Now that is one story that I don’t think anyone else here will top! 👍

  • Rocco

    Dude were talking my situation here not yours ! One on one no wing man!! You always deflect the conversation your way just to make you right & evade the question.

  • omegatalon

    The F-35C Lightning II scored a 15:1 kill ratio over GEN 4 fighters like the F/A-18 Super Hornet in the latest Red Flag competition which means if Maverick is DEAD if he’s flying in a F/A-18 and gets within missile range of a F-35C.

  • Rocco

    Negetive

  • Al L.

    I’ve heard that in the movie plot the fighter pilots are assigned to the just commissioned CVN -78 Gerald R Ford right after flight school as young eager men. Then there is a jump in time and in 2028, just before retirement, the pilots take the ship on its first deployment.

    • Rocco

      Where did you here this?

      • Al L.

        Its a farce, drawn from real life. Its only a 6 year delay from the planned 1st deployment.

  • Ian

    That sucks

  • RobM1981

    Unlike the F-14, the F-35 won’t have to apply air brakes (or whatever those were supposed to be) to have a MiG blow right past it…

    • E1 Kabong

      No MiG would get that close….

  • Sir Bateman

    Lighten up Francis.

  • Curtis Conway

    You can trust them as far as you can throw them.

    • NavySubNuke

      It is always dangerous when people are more interested in being right then they are in what is best. The few remaining LCS advocates are so desperate for any scrap of good news they could care less about the future of the Navy. That is why they infest any thread about FFG(x) especially.

  • E1 Kabong

    Bring in Topper Harley (Charlie Sheen) and Jim “Wash Out” Pfaffenbach (Jon Cryer)!

  • Bill

    Maverick is still in the Navy because they’ve been deducting $250 from each of his paychecks to get back the cost of the F-14 he crashed. He’s only got another 970 years to pay it off.

  • ChrisLongski

    I can guess the predictability of the ‘plot’, such as it will be. This time Maverick is dealing with Young Turks. Get it ? He used to be one — now he is dealing with them and it’s a complete turnaround. Get it ? And of course the dumb love-interest subplot will be retained.

  • Grumpy_98

    My wife swore never to go to another movie with me after I kept calling BS under my breath during the original. Expect more of same throughout the next one.

    • muzzleloader

      I know what you mean. I went to the theater to see it with several friends who were civilians. They were oohing and aahing and I’m sitting there muttering to myself through most of the movie “Oh please”, lol.

  • E1 Kabong

    Lead by example, muppet.

    Sucks getting publicly SCHOOLED, doesn’t it?

    All you have is childish spew and ZERO mature, factual replies to my questions.

    Sad.

  • E1 Kabong

    I see irony is utterly LOST on you.

    Hypocrisy, also.

    Since your grasp of English is tenuous at best, I won’t take you seriously.

  • E1 Kabong

    Ignorance is bliss, wasn’t meant to be a lifestyle choice.

    Take an ESL class……………………………………………..

    Seems you don’t comprehend mockery, either.

  • E1 Kabong

    LMAO!

    Are you drunk or stoned?

  • E1 Kabong

    Take the hint.

  • E1 Kabong

    Clearly, you are jealous.

    “When is the last time America went to war with a country using Aircraft?”

    Sober up.

    Let’s see….Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya…..

    What are you? A failed recruit, keyboard commando, or a wannabe too cowardly to sign the line?

    “Go join the grunts on the ground and see and experience for yourself in person an A-10 in action.”?

    Yeah, go ask the Canadians at Tarnak Farm in the ‘Stan and Brit Warrior crews in Iraq about that.

    Obviously, you’re a keyboard commando.
    The closest you’ve been to combat is playing World of Tanks.

    “CAS/CSG are separate from Air Superiority your comment is a joke!”?

    Jokes on YOU.

    Guess you missed those MULTI-ROLE fighters carrying BOTH PGM’s and AAM’s…
    Clearly, you’re ignorant of the USN Hornets during Desert Storm that were on a BOMBING MISSION that whacked MiG-21’s.

    News flash, sparky!
    Fighters can DO BOTH, simultaneously.

    “Missiles pulling more Gs has nothing to do with making sharp turns Are you really that DENSE?”?

    You really are dumber than me.

    An AIM-9/AIM-120 can pull between 45-60 G, boy.

    “The ASAT program was CANCELLED in a Treaty with Russia If I remember correctly……we know China has such weapons and have used hem at least once.”?

    Hilarious!!!!

    Prove it. Back up your claims with credible facts.

    “Those who fail to learn from History are destined and doomed to repeat it.
    It definitely won’t be the first time the US had to relearn hard earned lessons and sacrificed pilot’s and troops lives and blood and the total loss of an aircraft…..”?

    I’d bet you on that, but you’re not allowed to gamble your welfare cheque.
    I’m not wrong, but you are.
    Consistently.

    As for the rest of your spew, well….Keep up the juvenile ranting, it just proves my point.

  • El Kabong

    Your squirming is tedious, AT BEST.