Top Gun 2 to star F-35 and Tom Cruise

[Splitpin]

QUOTE (Charl @ Mar 5 2012,4:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps the Pentagon has run out of cash.
These days, movie budgets are the only thing big enough to buy an F-35 programme!
Great plot, though! Not
Actually, you don't need a plot, just some Jets and Music (that can be attached to every Youtube clip made about test pilot school, for the next 10 years)
They'll have to be careful about the romantic interest too: the last one turned Tom down, and ran off to marry a girl.
Quentin Tarantino had views on all this, I'll leave you to Google his Youtube take on Top Gun.
Wow, will it sell, a quarter of a century on?? can't wait.

Tarantino ..... Very much like you Charl ..... however , two things i have very little time for , the F-35 and him ..... no stars from me.

[Naki]

QUOTE (Yob @ Jun 11 2013,8:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well i suggest reading most of the stuff they have too say before saying they "don't know what their talking about".

How do you know I haven't? .😒 In fact I have read their stuff over a number of years including that web site ... and the quite frankly silly ideas by Carlo Kopp in Australian Aviation

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Jun 16 2013,1:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trust me .... in the movies you can really extend the range and never run out of ammo as well

Of course with inflight refuelling they can fly as far as the pilot can fly it.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (Yob @ Jun 16 2013,1:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Su-35s is such a good aircraft, it has a range of 3600km compared to the F-35s 600miles range which is less then a P-51 mustang

F35 is not an aircraft designed to match the SU35 and it does not need to its actually supposed to replace the F-16 and aircraft of that size. F22 is a better aircraft for comparison to an SU35 as both are designed as interceptors. The F35As range is 1200nm and it has 18250lbs internal fuel F35B has 900nm range and 13500lbs internal fuel, F35C has 1400nm range with 19750lbs internal fuel. The range and internal fuel is better than their equivalents.

F35A vs F-16 internal fuel 7000lbs
F-16 combat radius 340 mi (295 nmi, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with four 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs

F35C vs F/A-18E internal fuel 14400lbs
range 1275nm clean plus 2 sidewinders
F/A-18E combat radius 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission

F35C vs F/A-18C internal fuel 10859lbs
range 1089nm
Combat radius 400 nmi (460 mi, 740 km) on air-air mission

F35B vs AV8B
range 1200nm
Combat radius
230 mi (200 nmi, 370 km) lo-lo-lo with 4,400 lb (2,000 kg) payload

So it depends on what you are comparing it to and which version as what can be seen here, remember though that the F35 is stealth, can fire missiles at tgts behind it in A/A, has some really awesome gadgets and although on paper an Su35 has better performance it is designed for a different purpose. Also to note is the F-16C and the Superhornet can get fast packs and that increases the range as well. Range of the SU35 is 1940nm flying high or 850nm at low level.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (Naki @ Jun 16 2013,4:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They may like to think they advise the Australian Govt but anybody with an inch of knowledge in defence purchasing decisions dont take any notice of these guys...in short they don't really know what they are talking about

There is a lot more information on their website about a lot of aircraft than what can be found anywhere else on the internet as well as that one of their guys went for a ride in a Superhornet in the US and wrote a very good review on features not normally mentioned anywhere else. So yes they do know what they are talking about. As for Aussie air defence their view is right in that F35 probably is an(as can be seen in their comparison) unsuitable aircraft over there because of the large area that is needed to be defended. Even the Superhornet lacks performance to cover such a large area which is why the F-15 is a better aircraft IMO for something like that.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (Yob @ Jun 16 2013,1:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know i don't watch movie's like topgun because it is a bit to unrealistic for me.

Topguns story had a good advisor helping them as well as the film was actually done using real F-14s, A4s and T38s. Its based on an incident just after the SU27 Flanker first entered service there was a rumour of a pair of SU27s following and harassing a P3 orion which lead to them flying toward a nearby carrier group in the Atlantic. A pair of F-14s were sent up and were on top of the SU27s within seconds(unlike the movie) and both SU27 pilots got a shock from what I heard and rtb. The dogfight scenes were quite well done and if you watch the documentary all of them except Val Kilmer flew in the back of those jets. If they make a sequel hopefully it has a really good story and they go back to using real aircraft and not CGI which as can be seen in skyfighters is the best way to film such movies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p4KuX2fjZU

Topgun dogfight scene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC976fuQm4E

IMO not bad to watch as far as dogfights go.

[SUBS17]

QUOTE (Charl @ Jun 16 2013,2:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At this moment in history... they still have an airworthy MiG 15-bis which would do the job very nicely!
The US might do itself a favour, and keep the F-15 Mudhen line open.
Still the only decent warplane they have.

F-15SE is an upgraded version of the F-15E that is still being made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DiIHG9hKMA

BTW for Topgun at the time that the movie was made there was still a cold war going and SU27 Flankers/Mig29As were unavailable which is why they probably used F5s.(not the first film either to feature a Mig28 bad guy lol)

[Naki]

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Jun 12 2013,11:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a lot more information on their website about a lot of aircraft than what can be found anywhere else on the internet as well as that one of their guys went for a ride in a Superhornet in the US and wrote a very good review on features not normally mentioned anywhere else. So yes they do know what they are talking about. As for Aussie air defence their view is right in that F35 probably is an(as can be seen in their comparison) unsuitable aircraft over there because of the large area that is needed to be defended. Even the Superhornet lacks performance to cover such a large area which is why the F-15 is a better aircraft IMO for something like that.

How can these guys know what they are talking about (in regards to the F-35) if they don't have access to all classified information that the US DOD holds on the F-35?????...so the decision makers in military procurement in the UK, Australia, Italy, Japan, Israel, Norway, Turkey etc are all wrong and they have bought a dud?

I do agree the F-15E would be the ideal platform for the RAAF in the 80s/90/00's but its an aging platform and it dosent have the sensor fit of a F-35. F-15SE might be a different story but thats only a paper aircraft for now

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Jun 12 2013,12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a lot more information on their website about a lot of aircraft than what can be found anywhere else on the internet

Anything on the latest or actual information is only ready available is really only general or speculation - if you really want facts or literature on latest developments - to have the full facts and details you have to be there on the spot .. even then you are tied not to mention anything till a release and even then its watered down .

Even then old aircraft and details get changed .. and there is no way i'm going to scan a 400/600 page document .. if you want the facts you source and buy it .. trouble today is most people take for granted and believe what you get on the WWW (internet) is fact .. Four every one book of truth there is another that swash's words .

Even today some data is available and many part still deemed "NOT for printing" or to be past on .

You can't change printed paper .

[Charl]

QUOTE (Naki @ Jun 12 2013,12:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do agree the F-15E would be the ideal platform for the RAAF in the 80s/90/00's but its an aging platform and it dosent have the sensor fit of a F-35. F-15SE might be a different story but thats only a paper aircraft for now

Well the prototype has flown, so could go into production easily enough.
Be interesting to see who takes this one:
"Boeing has offered the aircraft for the F-X III competition launched by South Korea's Defense Acquisition and Procurement Agency to procure 60 new fighter aircraft for the Republic of Korea Air Force. The F-15SE is competing for the $7.3bn order with the Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin's F-35."

Stealth has just become a heavily outdated concept - the new Sukhoi's will find you despite all that RAM.
Also maintenance cost is very high for stealthy aircraft.
So this gives the 2 less-stealthy offerings a real chance in the marketplace.

[SUBS17]

F-15SE is coated in radar absorbant material and can carry weapons inside fast packs.

[Ian Warren]

Very much all aircraft even dated back to the 1964s release of YF-12/SR-71s was covered in some sort of radar absorbant material , gold coated canopy's of today - grills and other bits and piece's .. it aint going to stop Tom Cruz and his historical one .. maybe two-liners .... JUST WHO DID KILL GOOSE !

[Naki]

QUOTE (Charl @ Jun 12 2013,2:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the prototype has flown, so could go into production easily enough.
Be interesting to see who takes this one:
"Boeing has offered the aircraft for the F-X III competition launched by South Korea's Defense Acquisition and Procurement Agency to procure 60 new fighter aircraft for the Republic of Korea Air Force. The F-15SE is competing for the $7.3bn order with the Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin's F-35."

I'm picking the F-35 will win this now that Japan is also getting F-35s.

Putting aside the F-35, perhaps the Rafale would of been an ideal aircraft for the RAAF but I guess the incompatibilty in weapons etc with the US would be an issue.

[Yob]

Anyway we will find out what is the best aircraft in the next 5-10 years by seeing them all in combat conditions and not just simulations.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (Yob @ Jun 12 2013,4:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyway we will find out what is the best aircraft in the next 5-10 years by seeing them all in combat conditions and not just simulations.

Its the training and testing first ... 5-10 years is nothing before and if the type enters the real world .

[Charl]

QUOTE (SUBS17 @ Jun 12 2013,2:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

F-15SE is coated in radar absorbant material and can carry weapons inside fast packs.

Sales talk only... it's stealthy head-on but not any other aspect.
Fast packs are for Day 1 war, the real job is done with Conformal Fuel Packs and stores under the wings.

QUOTE

Putting aside the F-35, perhaps the Rafale would of been an ideal aircraft for the RAAF but I guess the incompatibilty in weapons etc with the US would be an issue.[/quote]Yes I rather fancy that aircraft, just reading the blurb in June AIR International.*
They can quite easily adapt the guidance kits to MK 82/84 bodies, and job done.
India appears to have signed up.

* Paul have you subscribed on your iPad yet?
Way cheaper than print, and almost real-time news!

Last edited by Charl on Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Naki]

QUOTE (Charl @ Jun 12 2013,3:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sales talk only... it's stealthy head-on but not any other aspect.
Fast packs are for Day 1 war, the real job is done with Conformal Fuel Packs and stores under the wings.
Yes I rather fancy that aircraft, just reading the blurb in June AIR International.*
They can quite easily adapt the guidance kits to MK 82/84 bodies, and job done.
India appears to have signed up.

* Paul have you subscribed on your iPad yet?
Way cheaper than print, and almost real-time news!

No....I really should ....but I prefer paper for some reason (Ive bought some digital Autocars mags though)....and the kids are always hogging the I pad --- maybe I need 4 Ipads but the priority ATM is to get a decent FS PC. In meantime you are 3 or 4 months ahead of me!

[Charl]

QUOTE (Charl @ Jun 17 2013,3:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sales talk only... it's stealthy head-on but not any other aspect.
Fast packs are for Day 1 war, the real job is done with Conformal Fuel Packs and stores under the wings.
Yes I rather fancy that aircraft, just reading the blurb in June AIR International.*
They can quite easily adapt the guidance kits to MK 82/84 bodies, and job done.
India appears to have signed up.

Every little bit helps, the pop out Aim120s are quite cool. The other good modification is the new superhornet stealth pod which can carry weapons inside.

QUOTE

The F-15SE will use fifth generation fighter technologies to reduce its radar cross-section (RCS). Distinguishing features of this version are the conformal weapons bays (CWB) that replace the conformal fuel tanks (CFT) to hold weapons internally and the twin vertical tails canted outward 15 degrees to reduce radar cross section. Weapons storage takes the place of most of each CWB fuel capacity. This variant will also have radar absorbing material where needed.[/quote]

This is more than just a coating its full on radar absorbant material the F-16 from Japan has a radar absorbant paint coating it but the F-15SE actually is built with radar absorbant material and canted outward vertical tails. It must have a lot smaller RCS compared to a F-15C. I like the new Superhornet conformal fuel tanks as that will increase range quite a lot but mean more fuel to dump if you have full tanks and need to make an emergency landing all of a sudden.

QUOTE (Naki @ Jun 17 2013,3:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm picking the F-35 will win this now that Japan is also getting F-35s.

Putting aside the F-35, perhaps the Rafale would of been an ideal aircraft for the RAAF but I guess the incompatibilty in weapons etc with the US would be an issue.

I agree Rafale is the better aircraft it has a lot more capability than an F35.

QUOTE

For compatibility with armaments of varing types and origins, the Rafale's onboard store management system is Mil-Std-1760 compliant, enabling customers to choose to readily incorporate many of their existing weapons and equipment.[/quote]

SUBS17

Senior Member

 

Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:16 am

Posts: 1745

Top

[HamiltonWest]

Tom Cruise to reprise role in upcoming Top Gun 2 film
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/fi ... gun-2-film

[Charl]

Haha here we are: 3 years and 3 months down the road, Tom's still in there, and the F-35 is still in its test programme...