Fighter to be flown by Cruise?
Rocket assisted Zimmer-frame?
The occasionally rumoured Top Gun 2 movie - sequel to the seminal* '80s aerial action flick - is to go ahead. Reports have it that the project, known to have Tom Cruise aboard already, now has a scriptwriter: and more importantly, the real star, the jet fighter to be flown by Cruise, has been selected. F-35B in flight test. …
Rocket assisted Zimmer-frame?
Geeze! The real problem with a Top Gun 2 featuring the F-35 is that an UAV fighter can out turn a manned aircraft because it does not have to limit the g-forces to levels a human can endure. Even back in the 70's, when I worked in Aerospace on fighter & missile system design, we all lamented how having a meat bag on board forced the plane us to cripple the planes performance from what the airframe limitations were. The "next big one" will show that manned fighters are like that scene in War Horse where the British Cavalry charge the German machine gun emplacement - stupid and anachronistic.
Plus which, a missile doesn't need to carry fuel for the return journey.
Judging from the comments of its detractors, neither does the F35...
The problem with airframe design is simple:
You can do one thing really well or lots of things really cr#p..
An F-16 (Falcon) for instance is quite happy pulling a sustained 9G turn with a fleshy one at the controls thanks to a 30 degree reclined seat. The much newer Raptor (F22) seat is adjustable as well tilting back a staggering 55 degrees so expect it can perform some eyeball sinking turns. However if pilots could be re-trained to lay flat during flight then that g-force tolerence figure goes up beyond 12 times normal gravity into the edge of the envelope where one could rip the wings off a conventional looking airframe.
You hit the nail on the head.
"into the edge of the envelope where one could rip the wings off a conventional looking airframe."
An airframe designed with all the things required for meatbag.,, lifesupport, additional fuel, ejector seats, space to move around, manual flight controllers etc etc.
"it does not have to limit the g-forces to levels a human can endure"
I thought that Tom Cruise was the pilot, human?
Hardly. The controversial choice, in a Hollywood movie, would have been the Eurofighter (aka Typhoon). That handily beats the F35 for yank outrage value by not only being crap and overpriced, but also not American to boot.
Well, if you're going down that road, why not a Dassault Rafale? The audience would choke on their Freedom Fries.
>The controversial choice, in a Hollywood movie, would have been the Eurofighter
Yeah because even a Top Gun pilot would be vulnerable in a basically late 80s technology jet. Now in an F22 however.
that is late 80s in the UK as the US was building stealth jets by the late 80s.
I almost choked with laughter reading that at work.
.......if they had managed to stop eating fries rather than simply renaming them!
Is that you Lewis?
Hollywood would never allow the US flag to be shredded on camera.
True. Besides, for real mass appeal, they should have the Osprey inadvertantly ingest Shrillary Clinton. Now, that type of bitter, evil bird ingestion would really trash an engine!
Other than that minor quibble, I think Lewis has a grade A plot on his hands! I'd pay money to see that! Well, if they called it "Hotshots, The Threesome" and got Charlie Sheen in the lead role instead of Cruise, that is.
Wrong forum to troll against a nice, elderly, and very successful politician. You really want to head over to Breibart for that.
Oh, please... have you noticed yet that we send HER to every country that annoys the US? She is like our very own WMD.
that would be because she's the secretary of state, for christ's sake. you know, what other countries call the foreign minister. you know, the person whose job it is to go and talk to other countries.
learn something about your own country's government.
Perhaps not, but this being Hollywood you can count on them somehow finding a way to destroy the Statue of Liberty.
Hey, I'm not knocking her abilities, I actually thought she would have been a better choice of Prez than Obambi if only because she had some bitterness to fall back on. After all, she had shedloads of real experience when Obambi was still "community organising".
Anyway, who else could the Osprey ingest? Michelle Obama would probably make the engine choke and spit her out. Tim Geithner would slip through untouched, leaving just a slick layer of oil on the engine blades. Leon Panetta would be so out of touch he'd still be looking for the Prez in the Oval Office whilst Obambi was being loaded onto the Osprey. And Eric Holder would be too busy trying to secretly sell the Osprey AF1 to some Mexican drug cartel, just to prove that all drug smuggling is actually the fault of American cargo aircraft manufacturers....
Hard-core Republicans loathe Hillary Clinton and love Rush Limbaugh. Absolutely baffling, but then again, rationality hasn't been the strong suit of Republicans since Nixon.
ElectroMAGNETIC catapults - that's going to increase the number of minesweepers we need to escort every carrier
...they just have to keep moving very VERY fast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drGlg0fWunQ 7:00 or so on...
I'd watch this version!
But it also sounds like it will be 10x better than what is produced.
If this is what we should expect, then more posts from the pub please.
Bruckheimer and Simpson were the Shakespeare and Marlowe of the ADHD age, makers of movies for those whose attention span was regulated by the speed of a thumb on a TV remote. (Seductions at Hollywood speed; courts of inquiry that take about two weeks; etc.) And I greatly fear that hundreds of young men who could not carry a tune in a bushel basket will again be butchering "That Loving Feeling" in American barracks across the world.
I must say, though, that it was a movie well suited to Tom Cruise's abilities.
As in looking buff and showing more shiny white teeth than a sled-dog team?
Well, maybe strutting, too, but mostly those.
Sadly we all know that the actual script will be a pale imitation of the wonderful storyline shown above.
Could I suggest that El Reg offer their services to Hollywood in the hope they can drag plot quality up from the current gutter standards?
or do a playmobil version of it
A de Haviland mosquito to match Cruise's wooden acting.
> A de Haviland mosquito to match Cruise's wooden acting.
....or the Bede BD-5 to match his stature.
a Focke-Wulf Ta 154, another wooden wonder, but the glue holding it together isn't too strong and its liable to fall to pieces.
Anyway, how is tom cruise-missile going to shoot down anything when he's firing blanks
The mossie was a good plane.
A bit more time travel and we could have a Top Gun star where the gun actually was on top - the venerable SE5a.
Hey, the Mosquito was the greatest plane ever made!
We all know this version is going to be a lot better than what ends up on the big screen.
will be replaced by vegetarian lesbians who use solar powered laptops to save Antarctic whales in their off time. Remainder of the cast will be determined by Hollywood Focus Groups and many, many polls.
You mean to say they actually eat those cucumbers, Damn!
Some vegeterians eat fish as well
If they don't accept your version of the plot for Top Gun 2, don't worry; it's a shoe-in for the almost-guaranteed Hot Shots: Ménage à Trois (I'm sure you guys can come up with a better title though)
...where Lt. Topper Harley will be played by Martin Sheen.
This is about as far fetched as anything you hear about from DARPA. Are they going to be writing the script?
Bring back the Harrier!
for some enterprising film-maker/puppeteer to take this script and make a spoof....
... and vote on who gets to play the 'Dead Meat' character.
Never mind a spoof - make a low-budget version of this script for real, then sue the ass off the MPAA etc if they date to release a full-budget version.
I'd definitely go and see that version - now you need the financial backing...
It looks the Navy has issues to recruit pilots since the F-14 was replaced with far inferior planes, starting with the slow and short-range F-18E, and now the slow, little armed F-35?
Don't get me wrong, the F-35 could be a good attack plane for a first strike in a heavily protected environment, but it will never be a long-range "fleet defender" and dogfighter for air superiority. One you fired your missiles and the combat get to close range, stealth capability are useless and while it could be maneuverable, it is still slow and with too little power - especially if the fighter you have to face is from the Su-27 family.
While with the F-14 the US Navy had one of the top fighters of the time, they no longer have. Any movie with one of the actual planes will be just a parody of the old one.
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds