The Annual "Top Gun" Thread

leah was in love with this movie. i guess she still is but we watched it together once, early on. she quoted all the lines and i fell asleep when i wasn't gagging.
 
I was just about to graduate from high school when it came out, to enter the Navy two months later, so to me, seeing Top Gun in the theater was awesome. I knew nothing about the military (yet), much less aviation, so it was incredible. I still love the movie.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Maybe not. but it sure as hell isn't "Astrophysics" either, which was her supposed PhD credit.
Click to expand...

probably some writer or producer tought that it sounded really really smart.
 
Bob Noel said:
a really smart person in her late twenties couldn't possibly understand ACM? Really? Is ACM rocket science?
Click to expand...

I would say that with few exceptions, one wouldn't have an authoritative knowledge level without having done it themselves. First of all, "ACM" is kind of a misnomer for what they do in the movie.....all they do is "BFM", and even that is a stretch. In reality they were flying tactform off the F-5's, with a Lear nearby snapping footage. Regardless, air-to-air stuff, BVR or WVR, is quite complex, and something that is only truly learned from experience and tons of "reps" in training. I'm sure that someone without an aircrew background could speak at a rudimentary level about big picture tactics with some formal edumacation, but there are just so many other considerations that you wouldn't be aware of if you hadn't done it yourself, that being of any value as a SME would be non-existent. Put simply, you wouldn't be teaching anyone anything.
 
35 AoA said:
I would say that with few exceptions, one wouldn't have an authoritative knowledge level without having done it themselves. First of all, "ACM" is kind of a misnomer for what they do in the movie.....all they do is "BFM", and even that is a stretch. In reality they were flying tactform off the F-5's, with a Lear nearby snapping footage. Regardless, air-to-air stuff, BVR or WVR, is quite complex, and something that is only truly learned from experience and tons of "reps" in training. I'm sure that someone without an aircrew background could speak at a rudimentary level about big picture tactics with some formal edumacation, but there are just so many other considerations that you wouldn't be aware of if you hadn't done it yourself, that being of any value as a SME would be non-existent. Put simply, you wouldn't be teaching anyone anything.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about being able to teach others aspects of ACM. The only reason that there could be "so many other considerations...." would be that people haven't written it down. I'm wondering how in 100+ years of air-to-air combat that there would so much that is unknown and only learned if it is experienced.
 
Bob Noel said:
I'm talking about being able to teach others aspects of ACM. The only reason that there could be "so many other considerations...." would be that people haven't written it down. I'm wondering how in 100+ years of air-to-air combat that there would so much that is unknown and only learned if it is experienced.
Click to expand...

If the character was 30, and if the character had a Doctorate in Astrophysics, she had essentially spent her entire life in the classroom. I don't think they teach ACM in the classroom, even in the best "Astrophysics" school, so where would she have gained 99.9+ percentile expertise on the topic? Honestly, does anyone really believe someone who has never participated in ACM would be instructing and evaluating others on that subject at the Top Gun school? Does anyone believe a bunch of 20-something hot-shot fighter pilots would pay much attention to some book smart person teaching ACM? It defies belief.

But that's OK. It is a movie, not a documentary.
 
Bob Noel said:
I'm talking about being able to teach others aspects of ACM. The only reason that there could be "so many other considerations...." would be that people haven't written it down. I'm wondering how in 100+ years of air-to-air combat that there would so much that is unknown and only learned if it is experienced.
Click to expand...

There are two parts to it. BFM, what most folks consider to be "ACM", ie turning visual fights between 2 or more aircraft. The fundamentals are pretty straight-forward, but the challenging part is knowing how to fight your particular aircraft against a dissimilar adversary, how to employ weapons properly, and the biggest thing is just having a lot of experience doing it. When I say fundamentals, I mean the basic principles involved with maneuvering your aircraft to get to an offensive position in the fight. Even that is much easier said than done, with a neutral merge against similarly capable aircraft. The basics haven't changed much since the old days, but the way you apply them is very different today than it was even 30 years ago.

The second part is BVR stuff, what we generally refer to as "ACM". These tactics are influenced by real-world threats as well as blue air capabilities, and are changing all the time. I think someone who had gotten the opportunity to get really smart on this kind of stuff could speak to the theoretical aspects, but again, there is just no substitute for experience. I think the closest comparison I could make would be coaching a football team, developing strategies, putting them in a playbook, and teaching the players to execute them. They don't hire football fans with no experience in the game to coach pro ball........same goes for the NFL of fighter aviation.....which ironically has it's spiritual home @ KNFL :)
 
Last edited:
35 AoA said:
but again, there is just no substitute for experience. I think the closest comparison I could make would be coaching a football team, developing strategies, putting them in a playbook, and teaching the players to execute them. They don't hire football fans with no experience in the game to coach pro ball........same goes for the NFL of fighter aviation.....which ironically has it's spiritual home @ KNFL :)
Click to expand...

Interesting. Among the best football coaches in the NFL are those that studied the game extensively without having actually having played professionally.

There is a difference between being able to teach someone how to hit a baseball and being able to do it yourself.

So, when it comes to teaching someone, the substitute for experience is knowledge and the ability to teach.
 
Despite all your vitriol, I saw on the History Channel that Top Gun boosted Naval recruitments more than anything save possibly 911. Certainly boosted it more than the cheesoidal movies you curmudgeons like.
 
Bob Noel said:
Interesting. Among the best football coaches in the NFL are those that studied the game extensively without having actually having played professionally.

There is a difference between being able to teach someone how to hit a baseball and being able to do it yourself.

So, when it comes to teaching someone, the substitute for experience is knowledge and the ability to teach.
Click to expand...

But keep in mind that the head coach is a strategist, and it's the line coaches (who often have played professionally) who do the one-on-one work with the players.

I will gladly grant that someone who's been coaching and observing for a while picks up experience even though he hasn't put on the pads and helmet himself.
 
Bob Noel said:
Interesting. Among the best football coaches in the NFL are those that studied the game extensively without having actually having played professionally.

There is a difference between being able to teach someone how to hit a baseball and being able to do it yourself.

So, when it comes to teaching someone, the substitute for experience is knowledge and the ability to teach.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that was a slightly poor example, but my poor example making doesn't make the reality any different. The concepts ARE formally *taught* in SFARP ground school, and during the TOPGUN course, and to a lesser extent during initial training at the FRS/FTU (USN/USMC or USAF respectively). Bottom line is that they are, and have always been, taught by guys with the patch on their shoulder and wings on their chest. I'm sure it seems like something that could be learned by reading a book, or getting formal classroom training, but I assure you that it is not. Nothing written can ever duplicate the dynamic environment of the real thing, and the decision making that is required. That part only comes through lots of experience in the jet, and having the ability to know what is going on around you. And that is the main issue.......nobody needs anyone to teach us the academic basics. The learning happens in the jet, and later in the debrief, not in a classroom.
 
35 AoA said:
Perhaps that was a slightly poor example, but my poor example making doesn't make the reality any different. The concepts ARE formally *taught* in SFARP ground school, and during the TOPGUN course, and to a lesser extent during initial training at the FRS/FTU (USN/USMC or USAF respectively). Bottom line is that they are, and have always been, taught by guys with the patch on their shoulder and wings on their chest. I'm sure it seems like something that could be learned by reading a book, or getting formal classroom training, but I assure you that it is not. Nothing written can ever duplicate the dynamic environment of the real thing, and the decision making that is required. That part only comes through lots of experience in the jet, and having the ability to know what is going on around you. And that is the main issue.......nobody needs anyone to teach us the academic basics. The learning happens in the jet, and later in the debrief, not in a classroom.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
35 AoA said:
Perhaps that was a slightly poor example, but my poor example making doesn't make the reality any different. The concepts ARE formally *taught* in SFARP ground school, and during the TOPGUN course, and to a lesser extent during initial training at the FRS/FTU (USN/USMC or USAF respectively). Bottom line is that they are, and have always been, taught by guys with the patch on their shoulder and wings on their chest. I'm sure it seems like something that could be learned by reading a book, or getting formal classroom training, but I assure you that it is not. Nothing written can ever duplicate the dynamic environment of the real thing, and the decision making that is required. That part only comes through lots of experience in the jet, and having the ability to know what is going on around you. And that is the main issue.......nobody needs anyone to teach us the academic basics. The learning happens in the jet, and later in the debrief, not in a classroom.
Click to expand...

and because that's the way it has always been, then that is of course the only way it can ever be!

Perhaps it has more to do with who the pilots will listen to and as long as instructors with flying experience are available...

btw, I'm not in any way suggesting that a pilot can learn everything without doing.
 
Bob Noel said:
Perhaps it has more to do with who the pilots will listen to and as long as instructors with flying experience are available...
Click to expand...

It isn't just pilots.

Believe me, when a bunch of ship drivers have a civilian with no military background telling us how to suck an egg. I could care less where they got their education - You better believe they get tuned out real quick.
 
35 AoA said:
There are two parts to it. BFM, what most folks consider to be "ACM", ie turning visual fights between 2 or more aircraft. The fundamentals are pretty straight-forward, but the challenging part is knowing how to fight your particular aircraft against a dissimilar adversary, how to employ weapons properly, and the biggest thing is just having a lot of experience doing it. When I say fundamentals, I mean the basic principles involved with maneuvering your aircraft to get to an offensive position in the fight. Even that is much easier said than done, with a neutral merge against similarly capable aircraft. The basics haven't changed much since the old days, but the way you apply them is very different today than it was even 30 years ago.

The second part is BVR stuff, what we generally refer to as "ACM". These tactics are influenced by real-world threats as well as blue air capabilities, and are changing all the time. I think someone who had gotten the opportunity to get really smart on this kind of stuff could speak to the theoretical aspects, but again, there is just no substitute for experience. I think the closest comparison I could make would be coaching a football team, developing strategies, putting them in a playbook, and teaching the players to execute them. They don't hire football fans with no experience in the game to coach pro ball........same goes for the NFL of fighter aviation.....which ironically has it's spiritual home @ KNFL :)
Click to expand...

BFM 1v1, ACM 2v1, ACT 2v2 or greater same aircraft, DACT 2v2 or more different aircraft. BVR has nothing to do with ACM (Most BVR kills happened in ACT or DACT since BFM and ACM are generally visual merges)...only killing Beyond Visual Range. I'm a retired F-16 Instructor Pilot and you could get to close for misslies...inside 1000' the gun was your only option. Kelly was hot but not now and I don't expect great things with Top Gun II and the JSF...but who knows? I just watched the Avengers with my daughter....very entertaining and that's what these movies are...just a money maker, nothing more...I prefer the Great Waldo Pepper for fun.
 
Red Air Rambo said:
BFM 1v1, ACM 2v1, ACT 2v2 or greater same aircraft, DACT 2v2 or more different aircraft. BVR has nothing to do with ACM (Most BVR kills happened in ACT or DACT since BFM and ACM are generally visual merges)...only killing Beyond Visual Range. I'm a retired F-16 Instructor Pilot and you could get to close for misslies...inside 1000' the gun was your only option. Kelly was hot but not now and I don't expect great things with Top Gun II and the JSF...but who knows? I just watched the Avengers with my daughter....very entertaining and that's what these movies are...just a money maker, nothing more...I prefer the Great Waldo Pepper for fun.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you never flew with us, but we have a slightly different language. I defined ACM vs BFM in USN/USMC terms because that is what the movie represents. I know you guys speak funny though........I remember flying DACT (to not create confusion, I am referring to our definition here, of being 2 unlike aircraft fighting :) 1v1 in this case though not by definition) with an F-15C lead, and getting set up for the next set, he started calling "hook left"......no response from me as I'm trying to figure out WTF he is talking about...."hook left".....nothing...."hook left" (with more inflection)....I finally just started turning left and assumed it was a tac turn or in place or something. Also, your training rules are nearly the exact same, but said in about the exact opposite way that ours are.....aside from the 1000' bubble part when fighting Raptors....that's just weird. I do like the fights on call on turn in.....we normally save that for 3-9 line passage, but there can be a lot more game to it when you start where you guys do. Only time we do that is an abeam set, from 1.5 NM, so there isn't much you can do other that try to stack the merge, though training rules again normally prevent that.
 
Bob Noel said:
and because that's the way it has always been, then that is of course the only way it can ever be!

Perhaps it has more to do with who the pilots will listen to and as long as instructors with flying experience are available...

btw, I'm not in any way suggesting that a pilot can learn everything without doing.
Click to expand...

There just isn't a need for non-pilots to be teaching the stuff. The guys who instruct at Fallon and the East/West coast weapons schools get paychecks to do this, so we aren't needing for more. Better to have the guys who actually developed the tactics teach, than some other 3rd party who doesn't have any personal experience with it. And I am not suggesting that you can't learn anything without doing, but I am suggesting that you can't learn very much without doing.
 
rottydaddy said:
Wanna see a stirring fighter-pilot action/steamy love story/strained friendship movie with incredible, accurate flying scenes (with minimal CG animation, mostly to show aircraft no longer available, instead of painting totally inappropriate aircraft to look like the ones needed for the story)? Check out Dark Blue World. Especially if you love Spitfires. :wink2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKjR1V-Dg14
Click to expand...

Agree, Dark Blue World is excellent.
 
Gerhardt said:
I love The History Channel for their documentaries, but when I relax and put in a goofy flick like Top Gun, Pearl Harbor, Flyboys, Always, etc... I'm not looking for factual accuracy...I'm looking to unwind and enjoy some fiction.

Shoot, even though I'm not a fan of poorly done graphics in movies I'm still looking forward to Red Tails coming out on Redbox tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Just bought Red Tails for the hotel's collection...and watched it again last night.

It's not very good, sadly. I can't even put my finger on why.
 
Fearless Tower said:
IIRC, Ron Levy mentioned that the job/position of her character was actually based on a dude with a fair amount of professional experience in ACM.

Most of the 'civilian' folks who do jobs like that are retired or former military, so seeing her in that job was a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Kelly McGillis/love interest part was originally written to be a fellow officer in the Navy.

When the adviser for Top Gun said "absolutely no way is that possible", they re-wrote the part to be a civilian adviser, which was deemed not only possible, but normal.
 
Jay Honeck said:
When the adviser for Top Gun said "absolutely no way is that possible", they re-wrote the part to be a civilian adviser, which was deemed not only possible, but normal.
Click to expand...

FWIW I didn't mean to suggest that a civilian contractor was unusual, as we contact out to the civilian side for a lot of stuff......be it ATAC, CAS, OMEGA, L3, etc etc.....granted most of those folks are prior military with mil experience in their line of work, but they are civilians none-the-less. What I did mean was that it is a little un-realistic to think that a person without military flying experience would serve in Charlie's capacity as a civilian or otherwise.

BTW, I have good memories of Port A. Passed my very first safe for solo checkride in the trusty T-34C in and around the pattern there. Also had some good weekend times out there :)
 
Alexb2000 said:
Oh, please Paramount don't ruin yet another classic with a cheap CGI redo......

Can't they just make Red Tails 2 or Transformers 5 instead?
Click to expand...

They could just do the cheap route like everybody else and just re-release the original in 3D.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Ok I haven't been around in a while, but Top Gun is the best aviation movie??? Puhleeze... Airport, Airplane, and even SAC is better than Top Gun.

Although for a good laugh check out "Les Chevaliers du Ciel" the French Top Gun. Just as ludicrous, but much better aerial shots.

 
Alexb2000 said:
Take my breath away.....
Click to expand...

HOLY CRAP ... does this make anyone else feel REALLY old. I was just graduating from high school when Top Gun came out. Thought it was a bit goofy but absolutely love it. I also thought Kelly M was good looking, but not smoking hot. Before I throw any stones at her now, I'll take a peek in the mirror. I guess 1986 was a LONG time ago even though it seems like just yesterday.
 
BTW: For those who think that Tom Cruise can't sing (based on the bar scene where he and Goose sing "You've Lost That Loving Feeling") -- go see "Rock of Ages".

The boy can sing.

If you are between the ages of 40 and 55, this movie is a gas. You will know every song, guaranteed.
 
Jay Honeck said:
BTW: For those who think that Tom Cruise can't sing (based on the bar scene where he and Goose sing "You've Lost That Loving Feeling") -- go see "Rock of Ages".

The boy can sing.

If you are between the ages of 40 and 55, this movie is a gas. You will know every song, guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Looked like barely worthy of a rental to me.

It's modern movies... the "boy" (plastic surgery is amazing these days, isn't it?) can probably just lip sync.
 
iflyforfun said:
HOLY CRAP ... does this make anyone else feel REALLY old. I was just graduating from high school when Top Gun came out. Thought it was a bit goofy but absolutely love it. I also thought Kelly M was good looking, but not smoking hot. Before I throw any stones at her now, I'll take a peek in the mirror. I guess 1986 was a LONG time ago even though it seems like just yesterday.
Click to expand...

I feel like the grumpy old neighbor when I talk to the kids. One of them told me they were studying what happened on 9/11. Studying? What? Don't you remember? Oh, you were only 5.

Getting old isn't for sissies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top