The US Navy F-14 Tomcat aircrew that inspired the Top Gun Movie(theaviationgeekclub.com)
theaviationgeekclub.com
The US Navy F-14 Tomcat aircrew that inspired the Top Gun Movie
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-us-navy-f-14-tomcat-aircrew-that-inspired-the-legendary-top-gun-movie/
100 comments
Reading the article you linked, the lawsuit sounds so spurious as not even to be worth mentioning.
I have my doubts about it's merits too, but the fact is the first film cited the article as an inspiration in the end credits, and the studio licensed the article for adaptation. The license was cancelled a few years ago.
Last week's "Bloomberg Law" on radio touched on this -- unfortunately can't find a link that contains it, but it was at the end of the episode broadcast over this past weekend.
In a nutshell, law prof said the article (Top Guns) was a non-fiction work, didn't bear much resemblance to the movie (no competition, no RIO dies, no female manufacturer rep, no MIGs, etc., really just a day-in-the-life of two guys at Top Gun), and Paramount likely didn't need the license for the first movie either.
Also touched on differences re what copyright covers for non-fiction v. works of fiction, a even if it was held up in court what the $$ damages would be (in a lot of cases the courts look to the past to establish a value of such a license, and in this case they have the exact example from the first movie re what the willing seller agreed to with Paramount).
In a nutshell, law prof said the article (Top Guns) was a non-fiction work, didn't bear much resemblance to the movie (no competition, no RIO dies, no female manufacturer rep, no MIGs, etc., really just a day-in-the-life of two guys at Top Gun), and Paramount likely didn't need the license for the first movie either.
Also touched on differences re what copyright covers for non-fiction v. works of fiction, a even if it was held up in court what the $$ damages would be (in a lot of cases the courts look to the past to establish a value of such a license, and in this case they have the exact example from the first movie re what the willing seller agreed to with Paramount).
[deleted]
According to a recent tweet[1]:
> Top Gun made $357 million at the box office.
> But its biggest impact – a 500% boost to Navy recruitment.
It's not that surprising but does show just how powerful movies can be in influencing the public perception.
https://twitter.com/nathanbaugh27/status/1533061609488367616
> Top Gun made $357 million at the box office.
> But its biggest impact – a 500% boost to Navy recruitment.
It's not that surprising but does show just how powerful movies can be in influencing the public perception.
https://twitter.com/nathanbaugh27/status/1533061609488367616
So what country were they attacking in the movie? It was Iran, right? It's the only country I could figure that the US doesn't want enriching uranium and also still flies F-14s. The only thing that doesn't fit is that, as far as I know, Iran has no snow covered mountains within a short distance of any body of water that the US would have a carrier in. Well that and they don't have any Russian 5th gen fighters, but neither does Russia really.
To me the F-14 wasn’t a matter of fact but just a chance to do a cameo flashback and put Maverick back in his trusty F-14 again.
In a movie like this so much is bringing back old cast members. The F-14 being one of them. I also felt the same seeing Penny drive a Porsche, Maverick’s motorcycles etc.
In a movie like this so much is bringing back old cast members. The F-14 being one of them. I also felt the same seeing Penny drive a Porsche, Maverick’s motorcycles etc.
Sailboat scene was decent too.
I haven’t seen the movie, but aren’t the Zagros mountains a short distance from the Persian Gulf?
The enemy fighters were “MIG-28s” (actually T-5s). They were black and had a yellow circle with red star on the tail. I don’t think the enemy country was mentioned.
Edit: according to the Top Gun wiki, the audio commentary says North Korea. https://topgun.fandom.com/wiki/MiG-28
Edit: according to the Top Gun wiki, the audio commentary says North Korea. https://topgun.fandom.com/wiki/MiG-28
The enemy country was clearly purposely not mentioned, and I think intended to be "generic bad guy".
Propaganda need be timeless after all
Incorect. The enemy aircraft were all Su-57, Russia's 5th gen fighter.
Right, the enemy fighters in the first movie were MIG-28s.
I was not aware there was a second movie. The article only references the 1986 one.
Oh right, that makes sense. The new movie just came out, I saw it last night, it's really good. The comment you're replying to was referencing plot elements in the new one but didn't explicitly say so.
It’s just a fictional place for a fictional enemy that has planes from real life.
Can someone explain in the latest movie why the US couldn't use its 5th/6th generation fighter?
In the movie it's hand-waved away with one line about GPS jamming making the F-35 unusable for the mission. It doesn't make any sense, but I was fine with it. It's not like the original was realistic.
As for why they didn't film with F-35s: others have already mentioned that the F-35's single seat makes it impossible to put actors in the cockpit. Other issues are that the F-35 has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-18, so maneuvers wouldn't look quite as cool. Also the F-35 costs much more to run per hour of flight time, and I'm guessing there are issues with having so many civilians and cameras around the latest generation fighter plane. The chance of some classified information leaking is high.
When the one pilot asked, "Why not use F-35s for the mission?", I would have been fine with Jon Hamm looking directly at the camera and saying, "Because this movie is better with F-18s." The choice of fighter plane doesn't really affect the plot. If anything, using older planes improved the movie by raising the stakes when they went up against the Su-57s.
As for why they didn't film with F-35s: others have already mentioned that the F-35's single seat makes it impossible to put actors in the cockpit. Other issues are that the F-35 has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-18, so maneuvers wouldn't look quite as cool. Also the F-35 costs much more to run per hour of flight time, and I'm guessing there are issues with having so many civilians and cameras around the latest generation fighter plane. The chance of some classified information leaking is high.
When the one pilot asked, "Why not use F-35s for the mission?", I would have been fine with Jon Hamm looking directly at the camera and saying, "Because this movie is better with F-18s." The choice of fighter plane doesn't really affect the plot. If anything, using older planes improved the movie by raising the stakes when they went up against the Su-57s.
> Other issues are that the F-35 has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-18, so maneuvers wouldn't look quite as cool.
The scenario setup in the movie at least made this detail seem important. It's plausible to me that the F-18's higher thrust-to-weight ratio could've been critical in the canyon scene while navigating tight turns.
Of course, that could be ballocks and the main limitation would be pilot response times, etc. Still it feels plausible.
The scenario setup in the movie at least made this detail seem important. It's plausible to me that the F-18's higher thrust-to-weight ratio could've been critical in the canyon scene while navigating tight turns.
Of course, that could be ballocks and the main limitation would be pilot response times, etc. Still it feels plausible.
> If anything, using older planes improved the movie by raising the stakes when they went up against the Su-57s.
Though it made that scene where the characters are in an outdated and badly maintained F-14 slightly less believable. Like in the briefings, going up against the Su-57 with F-18 was seen as a dubious proposition, so with the F-14, the only way they'd survive was with their super-power of being main characters in a modern movie.
Though it made that scene where the characters are in an outdated and badly maintained F-14 slightly less believable. Like in the briefings, going up against the Su-57 with F-18 was seen as a dubious proposition, so with the F-14, the only way they'd survive was with their super-power of being main characters in a modern movie.
Not sure if you mean why in the movie or why they couldn’t in real-life
in the movie, they bring up the mission requirements at low altitude render a certain tech of the new gen planes useless under the scenario because of its dependence on radar iirc
in real life the decision behind avoiding 5th is because most of the information about the planes are still highly classified, ie there is no full feature spec of 5th gen planes available, so no way united states military would let them film a plane
in the movie, they bring up the mission requirements at low altitude render a certain tech of the new gen planes useless under the scenario because of its dependence on radar iirc
in real life the decision behind avoiding 5th is because most of the information about the planes are still highly classified, ie there is no full feature spec of 5th gen planes available, so no way united states military would let them film a plane
The reason cited in the movie is 5th gen being incapable in GPS-denied environments. Which is fiction.
Does F35 have a laser designator?
Yes [0] including a laser rangefinder
0: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35-lightning...
0: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35-lightning...
It's because the majority of the movie is a death dream after Maverick screws the pooch with the SR-72.
I'm no plane mechanic, but I'd wager it's because the producers probably didn't want their actors to die [1-5].
The fancy nextgen fighter programs, like most US "defense" spending, are noteworthy mainly for the staggering amounts of money we taxpayers shovel into arms dealers' pockets. Actually on second thought the enthusiasm with which we do that pocket-lining is also pretty impressive.
[1] https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2022/02/07/leaked-v...
[2] https://eurasiantimes.com/f-35c-stealth-fighter-jet-crashes-...
[3] https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-35/mishaps-and-acci...
[4] https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/01/20...
[5] https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-22/mishaps-and-acci...
The fancy nextgen fighter programs, like most US "defense" spending, are noteworthy mainly for the staggering amounts of money we taxpayers shovel into arms dealers' pockets. Actually on second thought the enthusiasm with which we do that pocket-lining is also pretty impressive.
[1] https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2022/02/07/leaked-v...
[2] https://eurasiantimes.com/f-35c-stealth-fighter-jet-crashes-...
[3] https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-35/mishaps-and-acci...
[4] https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/01/20...
[5] https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-22/mishaps-and-acci...
That actually seems like a pretty low accident rate compared to the F-14... in the 80s it seemed like there were a half dozen lost every year
Brand new aircraft has teething issues, or in the case of the F-22 issue found, issue fixed.
Right now there are no active 6th generation fighters, and as many others have pointed out, the F-35 is a single seater. Then again, the actor wouldn't matter with the full face helmet the F-35 uses.
6th gen is supposed to be pilotless and that obviates the need for actors.
6th gen fighters are still in development and aren't anywhere near ready for anything in a movie. The 5th gen planes are all single seaters and the Navy didn't want to risk the new shiny planes.
Or you know, swarm some drones in there ;)
But as you know, the Eagles could have flown the ring to Mordor, but it would have been a boring story.
But as you know, the Eagles could have flown the ring to Mordor, but it would have been a boring story.
But were the Eagles immune to the lure of the power inherent in the ring itself?
The whole plot hinges on that a hobbit was the most resilient against the corruption of the Ring. The Eagles were proud and powerful creatures. A ring-wraith Eagle would have been quite the setback to Gandalfs' plans.
The whole plot hinges on that a hobbit was the most resilient against the corruption of the Ring. The Eagles were proud and powerful creatures. A ring-wraith Eagle would have been quite the setback to Gandalfs' plans.
The Nazgul had Fellbeasts which constitute a pretty formidable air defence capability, and they may well have had more than that.
I would guess it was to add suspense
I can’t remember exactly but there was something about the target that rendered the F-35 and F-22 less than ideal? Plot device most likely.
F35s are single seat, and Tom Cruise can't fly it (alone) for live-action shots.
The F-35C (Navy variant) has barely been deployed out to the fleet. I think only one squadron is using F-35s and they’re still working on training/integrating the platform into carrier operations. Didn’t Top Gun 2 get filmed 3-5 yrs ago? I don’t think any F-35s were operating with the Navy then. Another point is that dog fights and exciting maneuvering is dead in 21st century air-to-air combat. Planes are basically sniping each other from 40-60+ miles away with missiles. Not as exciting to watch.
It was a movie making decision. The flight scenes are not flown by the actors. Instead they are in the back seat while actual pilots fly them.
The f-35c is a single seater. The Navy isn't letting actors fly their jets. So the only choice is the super hornet.
The f-22 is an air force jet, not Navy. Top Gun is Navy. The f-22 is also single seat.
The f-35c is a single seater. The Navy isn't letting actors fly their jets. So the only choice is the super hornet.
The f-22 is an air force jet, not Navy. Top Gun is Navy. The f-22 is also single seat.
Isn’t the super hornet the more common navy jet anyways? Yes, the navy has a few F35s, but their bread and butter are F18 super hornets.
Yes more common.
I've not seen the new movie but Miramar transitioned from Naval Airstation Miramar to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar a couple (?) decades ago.
So now I wonder what they did in the movie.
So now I wonder what they did in the movie.
I think partly this comes from the general perception of the F-35 program as a boondoggle and failure combined with the decades long production hell this film went through. Also the sponsorship from Lockheed Martin.
While it ultimately produced a capable plane, the Joint Strike Fighter spent 15 years as the next generation, failed to meet several critical goals, and still hasn't entered full production.
Better to stick to concept planes (SR-72), the plane from the first movie (F-14) and another common carrier plane (F-18).
While it ultimately produced a capable plane, the Joint Strike Fighter spent 15 years as the next generation, failed to meet several critical goals, and still hasn't entered full production.
Better to stick to concept planes (SR-72), the plane from the first movie (F-14) and another common carrier plane (F-18).
[deleted]
Is the F-35 not in full production? There are already more F-35s than super hornets for example.
As of March 2022 it sounds like they are targeting mid-2023 to pass final testing, after which the plane would enter full production [0]. There's certainly many F-35s in service worldwide though.
[0]: https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/full-rate-production-for...
[0]: https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/full-rate-production-for...
That has literally nothing to do with it. What is the purpose of speculating here? It is because they needed a two seat aircraft for filming.
You can see F-14 in various states of wing-sweep or decomposition on Google or Bing maps if you look at Iranian airfields. Last time I checked bing has more of them.
I am from Europe. Can someone explain why the US Navy has so much presence in the air, why isn't that the purview of the US Air Force?
Lobbying/inter-service politics is part of it.
In WW II, the separation paid off. The British Fleet Air Arm flew lightly modified RAF aircraft, which were great for many things, but not for carrier operations. The US Navy would not pay for aircraft that could not take off from and land on carriers very well.
In the 1960s, the Pentagon imagined the F-111 as an all-purpose, all-service plane. Some USN captain told a congressional committee that it would not work, so becoming a hero to his peers and losing an prospect of promotion to flag rank.
In WW II, the separation paid off. The British Fleet Air Arm flew lightly modified RAF aircraft, which were great for many things, but not for carrier operations. The US Navy would not pay for aircraft that could not take off from and land on carriers very well.
In the 1960s, the Pentagon imagined the F-111 as an all-purpose, all-service plane. Some USN captain told a congressional committee that it would not work, so becoming a hero to his peers and losing an prospect of promotion to flag rank.
They fly from naval aircraft carriers.
Exactly the same in European countries with carriers - naval aviators usually come from the navy. (The UK now also hosts Royal Air Force and Army Air Corps on carriers.)
Exactly the same in European countries with carriers - naval aviators usually come from the navy. (The UK now also hosts Royal Air Force and Army Air Corps on carriers.)
The Fleet Air Arm sill exists fwiw.
Isn't that basically what I just said? The UK also has naval aviators, just like the US.
Because of aircraft carriers. Those are the purview of the Navy, and are a mobile base of operations.
In world war 2, naval strategy shifted from battleships to becoming aircraft carriers. The only role of naval ships in modern warfare is to carry attack aircraft.
The US Airforce needs a land base and small aircraft that has to travel longer distances. It's not tactically advantageous.
The US Airforce needs a land base and small aircraft that has to travel longer distances. It's not tactically advantageous.
> The only role of naval ships in modern warfare is to carry attack aircraft.
That's not true - naval ships are also used to launch missiles, to land marines, to sweep for mines, to fight other ships trying to do these things, etc.
It's not even true that carriers only do attack. They also do fighter roles, anti-submarine, helicopter platforms, air defence platforms, etc.
That's not true - naval ships are also used to launch missiles, to land marines, to sweep for mines, to fight other ships trying to do these things, etc.
It's not even true that carriers only do attack. They also do fighter roles, anti-submarine, helicopter platforms, air defence platforms, etc.
> The ~~only~~ main role of naval ships in modern warfare is to ~~carry~~ support and defend aircraft carriers.
FTY
FTY
Not really. Submarines are a thing, and they have significant offensive capability that is completely independent of a carrier.
Aircraft carriers sail with a group of support ships ringing the carrier miles away. These include destroyers and missile cruisers. A rear admiral manages them in close coordination with the carrier captain. Under a separate chain of command submarines accompany these carrier groups to aid in detection and prevention of threats to the carrier group. As I understand it there is no communication between the surface ships and these invisible partners.
Some subs do sail as part of a carrier battle group, but most subs are either hunting other subs, or are on deterrent patrol. Ballistic missile sub have substantial firepower, and are much more survivable, and therefore, the less visible and most important part of a Navy's deterrent mission.
Aircraft carriers for force projection. The US Navy has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. The US Navy broken out from the US armed forces would be the second biggest air force in the world.
Copy pasted from a Reddit thread:
> The main differences are Navy pilots focus on maritime strike missions and anti submarine warfare. Strike missions involve the carrier air wing which is embarked. All of the squadrons in the air wing are responsible for supporting the fighter aircraft in their strikes off of the carrier. It is essentially a forward deployed force.
> As for ASW we have P-8s which do strategic anti sub warfare. These focus on strategic issues and tracking subs.
> Air force isn't a maritime strike operation like the navy is. They can focus more on single operations such as bombing, air to air, etc. The navy uses on strike aircraft for a multitude of missions while the Air Force uses multiple aircraft for different missions.
> Air Force is also responsible for something called Internal Air Defense (IADS). This is basically intercepting aircraft that try and attack the United States. If anyone tried to bomb us and crossed into our air space the Air Force would be ready to scramble and send fighters up to stop them.
> The main differences are Navy pilots focus on maritime strike missions and anti submarine warfare. Strike missions involve the carrier air wing which is embarked. All of the squadrons in the air wing are responsible for supporting the fighter aircraft in their strikes off of the carrier. It is essentially a forward deployed force.
> As for ASW we have P-8s which do strategic anti sub warfare. These focus on strategic issues and tracking subs.
> Air force isn't a maritime strike operation like the navy is. They can focus more on single operations such as bombing, air to air, etc. The navy uses on strike aircraft for a multitude of missions while the Air Force uses multiple aircraft for different missions.
> Air Force is also responsible for something called Internal Air Defense (IADS). This is basically intercepting aircraft that try and attack the United States. If anyone tried to bomb us and crossed into our air space the Air Force would be ready to scramble and send fighters up to stop them.
Nothing to do with Europe vs US. It's just that the US has many more carriers than any European country. In European countries with aircraft carriers its the same. The pilots belong to the Navy.
Same question about why the US's navy marines fought in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan far from any beaches, rather than leaving the land warfare to the US army.
Marines are trained as vanguard forces, first into the fight. It's a whole extra set of things to know and psyche yourself up for.
I met a mechanic working on a jet engine pulled from a fighter in the repair facility of a US aircraft carrier (his biceps were as thick as my legs); I asked him why he was wearing a Marine pattern camouflage uniform. He explained that he was a Marine just on loan to the Navy because they needed an additional jet mechanic on the ship.
He told me that unlike the Navy sailors he had his gear bag with him and was ready to be dropped ashore to engage in hostilities at a moments notice.
He told me that unlike the Navy sailors he had his gear bag with him and was ready to be dropped ashore to engage in hostilities at a moments notice.
Basically all our taxes go to military. The military can’t even say no, we’ve got everything we need to Congress, so sure why not.
> Basically all our taxes go to military.
This isn't true - defence is like 16% of Federal spending, and not even all of that is the military.
> The military can’t even say no, we’ve got everything we need to Congress, so sure why not.
And this isn't relevant either for this context. It's argued for some specific issues, such as production of main battle tanks, but the explanation for that is to maintain manufacturing capability.
Naval aviation is pretty clear capability requirement in the modern operating environment - it's how we'd defend for example Taiwan - and isn't due to the reasons you're saying.
This isn't true - defence is like 16% of Federal spending, and not even all of that is the military.
> The military can’t even say no, we’ve got everything we need to Congress, so sure why not.
And this isn't relevant either for this context. It's argued for some specific issues, such as production of main battle tanks, but the explanation for that is to maintain manufacturing capability.
Naval aviation is pretty clear capability requirement in the modern operating environment - it's how we'd defend for example Taiwan - and isn't due to the reasons you're saying.
[deleted]
Aircraft carriers project US force 'anywhere'.
It's politically complicated to just 'put an airbase somewhere'.
This is going to change as Carriers become more difficult to defend.
But then so is everything.
It's politically complicated to just 'put an airbase somewhere'.
This is going to change as Carriers become more difficult to defend.
But then so is everything.
Carriers have always been hard to defend in open total war. The fact that they are useful in relative peacetime has largely to do with nuclear deterrence, and the US's overwhelming naval and air superiority over most of its opponents.
If a serious opponent starts sinking US aircraft carriers, then the war is already escalating far beyond that level.
If a serious opponent starts sinking US aircraft carriers, then the war is already escalating far beyond that level.
>Carriers become more difficult to defend
Carriers are also very difficult to sink. And that's if you even manage to get past their countermeasures and actually manage to land clean hits. You need to be really lucky or the fleet command needs to be really incompetent.
Carriers are also very difficult to sink. And that's if you even manage to get past their countermeasures and actually manage to land clean hits. You need to be really lucky or the fleet command needs to be really incompetent.
Because aircraft turned out to be very very very good at killing ships in the 1940s, and the best way to deliver those (short ranged, when you compare to the Pacific) planes to where your enemies ships happened to be was to build an airstrip on a ship and then send that ship relatively close to the ships you wanted to kill.
And because ships are owned by the Navy, and the planes flying off those ships are killing the Navy's direct opponents, and the actual aircraft in question are specific to the Navy... It makes sense for the people flying the planes to be Navy too.
And because ships are owned by the Navy, and the planes flying off those ships are killing the Navy's direct opponents, and the actual aircraft in question are specific to the Navy... It makes sense for the people flying the planes to be Navy too.
The US has the two best air forces, the US Airforce and the US Navy
Fun fact: the US Army has more aircraft than the Air Force or navy.
Also, the marines have fighters, too.
Also, the marines have fighters, too.
[deleted]
The army has a ton of helicopters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_m...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_m...
Tradition.
In addition to that, even the US Marines has its own air wing with their own fighter aircraft even. Is there a compelling reason why Marines need to fly air combat missions.
One of the interesting things about TOPGUN is that it wasn't there to train pilots. It was there to train flight instructors. TOPGUN graduates were expected to give presentations on flight technique, tactics, and principles and were graded very strictly by a panel of judges: if you couldn't make the Navy's latest knowledge of aircraft weapons systems pellucidly clear to the average pilot, you didn't pass. The idea was that the best pilot in a unit would be sent to TOPGUN, then return to their unit to teach the other pilots how to fly to the needed standard.
We see Maverick do this in Top Gun: Maverick, but both movies seem to reinforce this notion that TOPGUN's purpose is to train elite pilots to fly difficult missions when that's not really the case. It's kind of like Interpol in the movies, when you see "Interpol agents" going undercover or conducting investigations. Interpol doesn't have field agents of its own; its job is to coordinate communication and collaboration between national law enforcement agencies.
We see Maverick do this in Top Gun: Maverick, but both movies seem to reinforce this notion that TOPGUN's purpose is to train elite pilots to fly difficult missions when that's not really the case. It's kind of like Interpol in the movies, when you see "Interpol agents" going undercover or conducting investigations. Interpol doesn't have field agents of its own; its job is to coordinate communication and collaboration between national law enforcement agencies.
Ok, but can we talk about the word “pellucidly” for a moment? Clearly (no pun intended) this isn’t in the common English vernacular. In fact, I’ve never once heard or read it before. May I ask where you found it?
Pellucid is randomly common in 40s-60s scifi.
You probably mean Pellucidar, the fictional hollow Earth populated by prehistoric humans and creatures imagined by writer Edgar Rice Burroughs.
I recall having come across it in articles on/translations of continental philosophy. I've never heard anyone use it in conversation.
I usually see it associated with very clear water, as in a 'pellucid pool'.
Its not an uncommon word.
"Of all that is most beauteous—imaged there
In happier beauty; more pellucid streams,
An ampler ether, a diviner air,
And fields invested with purpureal gleams;
Climes which the Sun, who sheds the brightest day
Earth knows, is all unworthy to survey."
-- Wordsworth
"Of all that is most beauteous—imaged there
In happier beauty; more pellucid streams,
An ampler ether, a diviner air,
And fields invested with purpureal gleams;
Climes which the Sun, who sheds the brightest day
Earth knows, is all unworthy to survey."
-- Wordsworth
That's how more or less all centralised courses at all levels work in militaries. Attendees bring back to their units the standardisation, updates, and best practices from the centralised schools. This happens at all levels, from airman/sailor/private to staff colleges.
Same with USAF Weapons school. "Patches" are instructors-of-instructors. They grade and instruct others during their instructor upgrades. They also write tactics papers, and are considered POCs for the squadron for various things. They also are in charge of training plans, and give or delegate academic briefings. Anecdotally, they are some of the hardest workers in the squadrons.
And, as `closewith` said, they standardize tactics and information flow between squadrons and communities.
And, as `closewith` said, they standardize tactics and information flow between squadrons and communities.
I had a brother-in-law who taught at USAF Fighter Weapons School. He was also a right royal bastard with paranoid schizophrenia and extreme narcissistic syndrome.
Thanks $DEITY my sister-in-law finally managed to complete her divorce against him. And he's still being a right royal pain in the ass to her.
I don't wish ill on many people on this planet, but he's at the top of that list.
Thanks $DEITY my sister-in-law finally managed to complete her divorce against him. And he's still being a right royal pain in the ass to her.
I don't wish ill on many people on this planet, but he's at the top of that list.
Ah yes and this was more noticeable in Top Gun Maverick compared to the original. Almost the whole second movie is about training a team of pilots for a specific mission.
Although I don't think the 2nd movie claimed that was Top Gun's purpose, it was just a secret mission training happening on Top Gun premises with Top Gun graduates/high achievers.
The Jocko Podcast has a long interview with the "Godfather of TOPGUN" Dan Pedersen [1].
[1] https://jockopodcast.com/2020/05/20/230-push-the-envelope-an...
[1] https://jockopodcast.com/2020/05/20/230-push-the-envelope-an...
The Fighter Pilot Podcast also has a good episode with the (then) commander of TOPGUN that compares and contrasts the school to the original film.
https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/007-topgun-vs-t...
I believe they have some more recent episodes about the new film too, but I'm not currently caught up on the podcast.
https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/007-topgun-vs-t...
I believe they have some more recent episodes about the new film too, but I'm not currently caught up on the podcast.
[deleted]
More here: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/09/i-feel-the-need-the-need...