Top gun trailer

[Sorry]

Couldn't find a thread.

https://youtu.be/qSqVVswa420

[notorious]

Since this is a Top Gun thread, why not throw a little F-14 love into it?

Guess what they were going to install on the last proposed Tomcat Variant? The Super Tomcat 21:





Leading edge wing extensions just like the F-18.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by notorious

The wing extensions on each side of the canopy (greatly enlarged from the YF-17 to F-18) are what gives it amazing nose control at all speeds. If an opponent gets a little slow against an 18 it's ****ed.




The only plane that has thrust vectoring (and only 2 dimensional) is the F-22, for the US. I guess the Marine F-35 counts, but I think it's only used for takeoff and landing just like the Harrier.

Our designers determined there is way too much energy lost while using 3 dimensional vectoring. The Russians have it on a few planes, and they appear to defy physics.

It would be on everything if the US determined it increases lethality.

Yeah, I thought it must be those leading edge extensions. They can't be any sort of panacea though or you'd see them a lot more often.

It's not surprising they didn't work out on the Tomcat though - there are only so many aerodynamic 'boosts' you can give that big ol' bird. That thing was a tank with wings - I just don't see doing much to make them more maneuverable.

They were pretty prominent on the F-16 but not F-15, also a bigger jet. I wonder if they just don't have much impact on a heavy aircraft that's mostly just using brute strength to get where its going.

I read a story awhile ago about the F-15 and how insane they built that thing out of fear of the MiG (I think it was the 25). They thought the MiG was a world-beater so they overbuilt the hell out of the F-15. Then that Russian defected with it and they realized the MiG was pretty much nothing more than a rocket sled and pretty much a complete piece of shit at that.

But they'd built such a good jet that it essentially had no peer for about 20 years. I guess the Flanker would've been its contemporary when it finally came online but the USSR fell shortly after it first hit the scene, IIRC. And my recollection was that they just didn't have enough of those until the 90s to really use them much.

How many military platforms have ever been truly unchallenged for a decade? Maybe the Abrams? I mean they've been trying to replace that thing for 20 years and they keep coming to the same conclusion "damn - this thing is REALLY good - lets just put in some new targeting systems and upgrade the armor again..." My buddy was the commander of a Bradley in Iraq and he spoke highly of those but spoke almost in hushed awe about the Abrams.

I suspect it will go undefeated and history will look back on it about like the Iowa Class battleship - they'll never make a tank better than the Abrams; they'll just stop making those goliath main battle tanks.

[notorious]

The F-14 was extremely complex and very expensive to keep flying. Very good design, just didn't make sense.

I wish they would installed the stronger engine from the D's right off the bat. The A model engines were gutless and unreliable.

I've got dozens of books about Russian aircraft development, with the Famous Russian Aircraft series by Yefim Gordon being the best. I read through the Mig-31 book and it's amazing how much it looks like the 25 but is a far superior aircraft. Check them out, but hold onto your balls for the cost. I am trying to get the Su-27 book and it's expensive if you can find it.

On the tank side of things the Leopard II is considered the better tank, but the M1 has the receipts. It's kicked ass on the battlefield for a long time while the Leopard II has held it's dick in it's hand over that stretch.

[DJ's left nut]

Pft.

Find me a picture of an Abrams that looks like this:



And we'll talk.

My buddy always said that the only thing that existed when he was out there (2007ish) that could take out an Abrams was another Abrams. I believe all of our Abrams losses are self-inflicted.

[notorious]

Dayum. That's how a T-72 reacts to a hit.

[sully1983]

Finally got around to seeing this in theaters. It lives up to the hype and well worth the wait.

Movies like Top Gun: Maverick are why we go to the movies in theaters. Just a ****ing absolute blast from start to finish.

The dog fights were must see and the story/acting was surprisingly good and everything clicked for me. I also wasn't expecting it to pack such an emotional punch but it did.

[Kman34]

Originally Posted by sully1983

Finally got around to seeing this in theaters. It lives up to the hype and well worth the wait.

Movies like Top Gun: Maverick are why we go to the movies in theaters. Just a ****ing absolute blast from start to finish.

The dog fights were must see and the story/acting was surprisingly good and everything clicked for me. I also wasn't expecting it to pack such an emotional punch but it did.

The scene with Val Kilmer did it for me..

[BWillie]

This was the best movie I've seen all year and I really thought it was going to suck.

Tom Cruise is a good actor...like it or not.

[Rams Fan]

Originally Posted by BWillie

This was the best movie I've seen all year and I really thought it was going to suck.

Tom Cruise is a good actor...like it or not.

Tom Cruise is like Nicolas Cage, Will Smith, and The Rock where they just play the same kind of character over and over.

I’ll give Cruise credit for doing his own stunts, though. The movie was very enjoyable.

[staylor26]

I see so many complaints/shots on social media about this movie being war propaganda

It’s about as low on propaganda as a movie about the military could possibly be.

[Rams Fan]

Originally Posted by staylor26

I see so many complaints/shots on social media about this movie being war propaganda

It’s about as low on propaganda as a movie about the military could possibly be.

I don’t understand how it’s propaganda when they don’t even mention what country the enemy is lol

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

I don’t understand how it’s propaganda when they don’t even mention what country the enemy is lol

Funny because that is exactly what I said.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

I don’t understand how it’s propaganda when they don’t even mention what country the enemy is lol

Bro, it’s Iran. It is obvious.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

Tom Cruise is like Nicolas Cage, Will Smith, and The Rock where they just play the same kind of character over and over.

I’ll give Cruise credit for doing his own stunts, though. The movie was very enjoyable.

Most long-term big name stars end up playing a character that becomes a huge part of most of their roles, and they mainly fool around on the edges in order to avoid being completely typecast. It's how they last as big stars.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Funny because that is exactly what I said.

Tehran in winter. The topography of Iran is exactly as portrayed in the movie