hey guys,
i'm thinking of joining the armed forces when i'm older (i'm 15)and the path that really interest's me is being a helicopter pilot, i have been looking on all the sites (army, raf, navy) so does anyone have any tips for me, that i could do to help me get in when i'm older.
If its anything like the US, you have to be an officer to fly an aircraft. Officers require a degree of some sort. Stay in school, try and make good grades
slaming said:
hey guys,
i'm thinking of joining the armed forces when i'm older (i'm 15)and the path that really interest's me is being a helicopter pilot, i have been looking on all the sites (army, raf, navy) so does anyone have any tips for me, that i could do to help me get in when i'm older.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't you need a degree to fly?
I know you need to be fit, not massively (Army's 1 1/2 mile in 11 or 12 minutes, I think - it's easy with a bit of training), but so long as you don't keel over after 5 minutes you'll be fine.
My brother's in the Infantry (via the AFC Harrogate), Step Dad used to be in the RAF (not a Pilot, though), and I've worked with the MoD computers for a few years in a previous role - sadly I've never joined .
Good luck,
Dave
Just go to your local AFCO, they'll be best able to tell you what you need to do. Do it now!
What I do know is that they'll expect you to be fit before you apply, such as 1.5 mile runs in 9 minutes.
You should be a straight 'A' A level student with a degree for best chance, but A levels are the minimum
Do some kind of community service.
There will be an interview with an officer at your AFCO, then if you pass that, a four day test at (I forget where...) if they don't say 'no' after the first 2 days. This will include the fitness tests, further interviews, aptitude tests (such as 'you're flying a jet which uses 1 kilo of fuel per minute, and 5 kilos of fuel in after burner mode,the speed af flight in normal mode is 500mph, after burner mode is 800mph, you are 200 miles from an emeny intercept who is traveling at 400mph in the same direction as you, you will use after burner mode for 20 minutes during the fight, you have then to get to one of 3 air bases after the fight, you have 1000kilos of fuel...)
All pilots will be put forwards for fast jet testing/training first, then work 'down' from that
I forget the rest. You should be able to find more info online.
joel2009 said:
If its anything like the US, you have to be an officer to fly an aircraft. Officers require a degree of some sort. Stay in school, try and make good grades
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Every pilot I've met has to be an officer.
So just perfect saying "pip pip" and drinking tea
Thanks guys I know in our school we have a careers adviser and I'm gonna make an appointment with one of them ASAP and dad says he will take me to our nearest requitment office. Sounds like it should be a nice challenge for me to sink my teeth into.
-------------------------------------
Sent from my HTC Desire
oh do they have any other physical requirements other than body fitness?
e.g. if i am a little bit short sighted will I still be able to join?
thx
(it might be fun to fly a jet...when i grow up...)
ClementNg23 said:
oh do they have any other physical requirements other than body fitness?
e.g. if i am a little bit short sighted will I still be able to join?
thx
(it might be fun to fly a jet...when i grow up...)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think if your vision is really bad they won't let you join up, i think for the very fast jets you do have to have very good vision. if you can't join up for fast jets (typhoon, euro fighter etc) you can probably come as a transport pilot or helicopter pilot.
I couldn't possibly care less about these sort of games. This puts me in, I'd venture, less than 3% of the young male population of this country who can buy an Xbox or whatnot in the first place.
Discuss.
Homework or a public speaking competition? Sweet Idea, will post my arguments once others give me ideas
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
More like inciting a flame war. ^_^ j/k
I've never liked racing, shooting, or sports games, which I've found doesn't sit well with most men my age (22). Just wondering what fellow techies think.
Usually I get a "wow, I can't believe another human being has different tastes than me" response. I don't think I've ran into a "Wow you're so gay" response but it's only a matter of time. =/
ninestraycats said:
More like inciting a flame war. ^_^ j/k
I've never liked racing, shooting, or sports games, which I've found doesn't sit well with most men my age (22). Just wondering what fellow techies think.
Usually I get a "wow, I can't believe another human being has different tastes than me" response. I don't think I've ran into a "Wow you're so gay" response but it's only a matter of time. =/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep same. I'm different to everyone in my school. Everyones got iphoned, I got a Desire, now everyones jealous haha.. anyways, I like racing and shooting games. Just the real ones. CoD and GT not things like killzone or WoW. Though I don't play often, every 2–3 weeks maybe, I do enjoy some adrenalin pumping through my veins when I due just begore the end of the mussion. It makes me more determined to finish correctly the next time etc..
Everyones always asking me when I'm online next to play a bit of CoD or whatever and I just don't understand how you can become addicted to something that doesn't actually exist. Well it does but not really, you know what I mean : )
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
LOL been a gamer for too long. But I have never told anyone that they were "gay" because they didn't like to game.
But.. usually they were women.
well im different to everyone in my school.
most of the lads in my year like football and cod.
"medal of honor- is ****"
"driving games - ****"
"every other game apart from cod and fifa- is ****"
i have been called gay because i have long hair and i like rock music and drum and bass (and others).
i think the reason they call you gay is because they don't like people that are different and like other things.
about 1 year ago everyones phones where sony ericssons (crap ones)
and samsung tocco lites (horrible)
but 1 lad had a t-mobile g1.
i had my 7 year old htc himalaya brick (excellent phone)
now quite a few have htc's desires, hero, legend. (and obviously don't know about xda (what a pitty))
people seem to follow other people and call you weird because you are not following.
sorry if i drifted off topic.
i like driving games, fps (half-life excellent!!)
im a gran turismo guy i love that game, i also enjoy a nice helping of cod now and then too, i cant stand football soccer or basketball games though
COD - meh
FIFA - meh
GT5 - drool
Well, an explanation is warranted for the above...
I never really got the hang of FPS games in multiplayer, mostly because I used to pwn at CounterStrike and Half-Life, but a hiatus during my formative days (read, TEENAGE) lost my edge in FPS games. Mostly I will check out the single player experience, and if it gains enough traction amongst my friends, I'll get the original copy. Mostly, for group enjoyment purposes, we game L4D if we wanna play FPS. I'm just waiting for Crysis 2 (as an excuse to upgrade my Gfx card more than anything else )
FIFA... well... is a game for douchetards who imagine that they have the skills needed to take Leo Messi/CR to whatever glories that in real life they couldn't achieve (both for the gamers and the players). Simply said, it gives little to none benefits, and merely act as an escapement and commercial device. For the more serious guys, we play futsal, which is like football played in a netball field. Pacing is fun, especially since players with less stamina can join in and height doesn't bring that much of a benefit (read, GIRLS CAN PLAY TOO). And for the brainiacs, we play Football Manager 2011.
GT5 is going to be something of a old history for me. It's more of a nostalgia device than something of real enjoyment. Back in the days, me and my brother played GT1, GT2, GT3, and probably GT4. To my brother, who is an engineer by now, it is the most accurate depiction of a car on the race-track. I'll skip the nostalgia bit... Anyway, since neither of us own a PS3, and neither of us plans to own a PS3, this game will forever reside in the droolworthy section of our hindbrains, possibly forever.
The problem with me is I'm probably in the less than 0.05% zone. I'm a self-professed geek that likes to party and do sports. I could, enjoyably, spend the afternoon tinkering with my PC/phone or just dump everything to hang out with friends, chilling out and maybe finding the answers to life (we checked, its not 42).
So gaming is cool and all that, but it's not the be all and end all for me
Gotta say... I love GT5 lol. I think I like it more than GT3 or 4 because I'm actually trying now lol. I used to have a Game Shark, Code Breaker, and Action Replay to cheat my way to having (basically) infinite cash, the AI guys wouldn't move, and every car would have like 16x acceleration lol. It made it fun cause I could get what I wanted when I wanted, but ruined the sense of accomplishment needed to make it feel way better. I actually HAVE to try and succeed in this now, which is awesome imo.
Call of Duty is cool, but I'm not into it as much anymore as I am with GT5 now.
FIFA is a game I'll never play. I don't do sports, nor like them; especially soccer.
Sent from my Droid Incredible running Myn's Warm Two Point Two RLS5.
sakai4eva said:
To my brother, who is an engineer by now, it is the most accurate depiction of a car on the race-track.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is VERY cool and I didn't know that. Sucker as I am for new experiences, it makes me want to play it again with this knowledge.
sakai4eva said:
Pacing is fun, especially since players with less stamina can join in and height doesn't bring that much of a benefit (read, GIRLS CAN PLAY TOO).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, I hope I'm reading your implications right: b/c size isn't an issue, women can play the sport side-by-side with men. The other implication would be a little... off-putting. >.<
flyboyovyick said:
well im different to everyone in my school.
i have been called gay because i have long hair and i like rock music and drum and bass (and others).
i think the reason they call you gay is because they don't like people that are different and like other things.
i like driving games, fps (half-life excellent!!)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry I paraphrased your Quote
1) Nothing wrong with Long Hair and playing Bass. I did both for a long time - but now the hair fell out and I play a little guitar (i.e. it stares at me taunting me on the wall collecting dust due to RL stealing all my time)
2) Your unique... just like everybody else
3) Half Life is probably the BEST GAME EVER. And I'm a sucker for driving games. I haven't purchased GT yet as I know my wife would kill me while I was going around the track at 4am.
YOU DON'T LIKE THOSE GAMES!!! wow!!, i didn't know another human being could have such different taste to me.
But seriously 'normal' at my school is f'd up compared to everybody elses, screamo metalheads and emos rule the street and jocks are considered to be on the same level as the scum you find in public toilets... its a weird place.
Im lucky anyway because im a self admitted nerd at school but for some strange reason nobody believes me? (WTF's with that!?!) Which is especially strange considering people are paying me to set up snow leopard hackintosh on their pc's.
My favorite shooter is Gears o' War 2 (can't really call it fps), but, uh, what do you guys think of bioshock? I personally don't like it, much to the disdain of all my friends who are obsessed with it.
urbanengine1 said:
But seriously 'normal' at my school is f'd up compared to everybody elses, screamo metalheads and emos rule the street and jocks are considered to be on the same level as the scum you find in public toilets... its a weird place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, that is strange. At my school there was no "jock" contingency either, but why would there necessarily have to be, stereotypes are stereotypes.
What IS indeed common to probably every school ever are cliques. I'm guessing it's the 'us vs. them' mentality that's so crucial to so many living things.
ninestraycats said:
FIFA?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Soccer is the worst game (notice I didn't call it a sport) in the history of mankind.
There's a lot to be said for automation. Thanks to automated processes, our society hums along more nicely than it ever has. But should we include our playtime on the list of things we want to automate? Is it possible to enjoy something like an MMO if we really don't control it at all? If we assemble our army men and wind them up, is watching them go as much fun as controlling what they do?
Ah, such deep questions stemming from such a simple game. Crystal Saga
is a browser-based, free-to-play, Flash-based MMORPG (there's a mouthful) that allows players to do a lot of things, including fully automate the grinding process. I can hear the potential comments already, so click past the cut and let me explain it more.
I need to clarify what I mean when I say "fully automated." It's not as though you can tell your little on-screen character that you want it to go here, attack this, and rescue that. It's not quite that in-depth. Basically the developers have added in a system that allows you to place your character into "AFK mode." How much time he can remain in AFK mode depends on a special item that you can get from quests or from the cash shop (I was AFK for hours and hours and never spent a dime), and what happens during that AFK time depends on what specifically you told your avatar to do during that time.
You're essentially telling your character which mobs to attack, when to heal or use a healing potion, and whether to loot or not. As I say in the livestream, you "set it and forget it" like the Ronco Rotisserie. You can also click a link in your quest to auto-walk back to town or to a specific NPC, and you can auto-walk to any number of quest objectives. In fact, you can play this game and level up without ever really using more than a few buttons.
Gaming purists needn't worry; this system is not new or uncommon. In fact, if you have ever played EVE Online, Alganon or a few other titles, you have automated your play. Yep, if anything, the offline skill training that EVE popularized is much less labor-intensive than Crystal Saga's AFK mode. While I AFKed in Crystal Saga, I had to at least watch for enemies in case I was overwhelmed. Clicking "learn" in a game like Alganon takes no work at all. Hours or days later, you log in your character to find him or her smarter than before! The wonders of science!
More good news: You don't need to worry whether other players, readers, or super-cool column writers care about how you play. Crystal Saga is for younger players, true, but accessibility is not only for them. I found the automated system to be really fun. In an AFK way, of course. I liked coming back to backpacks filled with goodies, and I still had to go back to town and sell the items and organize my skills. In fact, I've realized that AFK modes in games like Crystal Saga only shine light on how incredibly boring and trivial leveling-up has become in many MMOs. The archaic system of advancement hasn't changed in years and years, so why not do away with the process, or make it something that we simply don't have to sit there and watch?
Again, I know what you are thinking. "But that's what makes MMOs fun!" I get that many of you might feel that playing the game is the fun part. I agree that playing is fun. But grinding is not. Of course, this raises another question: Why didn't Crystal Saga just design a better way of leveling? Or better yet, why doesn'tCrystal Saga do away with leveling altogether and invent a brand-new way to play MMOs? Good question, Beau. I think the answer is that these devs do not care to redesign the entire process but instead want to speed it up and get you to the good stuff. In a world filled with "AAA," indie, and free-to-play games that are all filled to the brim with massive amounts of grind, I appreciate these AFK systems that are showing up more often. Give me a cash shop filled with every single item in the game and we have a deal.
I've been playing Oblivion a lot lately. We have all probably played it a lot. If not, we jammed on Morrowindbefore that. Remember "fast travel?" You know, the ability to click on an area in the map and instantly transport there, instead of traveling the long, literal way on horseback? We have all used it at some point. I use it when I am faced with an incredibly long (but not difficult) ride. If it is dangerous and within a 15-minute window, I will be on the trail. Games like Crystal Saga allow for the same choices, and I appreciate that. Long ago I lost the feeling that even the mere presence of such systems tainted my gameplay. They exist, and I don't care.
The rest of the game is fun and colorful, including the pet system. I like the fact that the game runs on anything and that there are always players around. Other than those few facts, there's not much more you need to know about your first several hours in the game (which is how long I generally spend in a game before writing this column). It sort of pains me to say so, but the existence of an "AFK mode" is about the only thing I came across that makes Crystal Saga much fun. It sounds weird, but I got the same feeling when I found pocketfuls of goodies that I used to get when I logged into EVE and saw that my skill training was completed. It's worth checking out, even just to surprise yourself.
Next week I will be looking at Starjack Online, a free-to-play empire-builder that has sucked me in. For some reason, the game does not allow me to stream or video it, so look for a screenshot-heavy article next time. Now, go log in!
If you've seen the movie, go ahead and share your thoughts here. I'll go first. Obviously, I understand this is just a movie, it's made for the entertainment value, but I can't help picking it apart.
Overall, I think the movie did what it was supposed to do - a "feel good" flick about America. The nostalgia was nice. But, my experience as a Marine veteran as well as knowledge of military aviation raised a lot of issues for me.
First...The SR-72/Aurora/Darkwing project. It's plausible that someone like Maverick could indeed become a test pilot, but most such projects are run under the Air Force, at the end of a pilot's career. It would have made more sense to put this at the end of the movie, although he would have a literal snowflake's chance in hell of surviving a Mach 10+ disintegration. The human body cannot withstand supersonic ejection; the force of the air stream can literally rip your body apart. Maverick would have been pink mist. Also...You crash a multi-billion (if not trillion) dollar prototype, chances are you'll never fly again.
This brings me to the bar scene, where apparently no one knows who he is, and he eventually gets thrown out by Hangman and the other pilots. The problem with this is, someone like Maverick would have quite the reputation; everyone there would have been buying him drinks, not throwing him out on his ass. Not to mention anyone in the military knows you don't put your hands on an O-6.
I do like the line where he tells Penny "Being a fighter pilot is what I am". This is true for pretty much every career pilot I've known - their whole life revolves around it, and when it's over, they have a lot of trouble finding a sense of purpose. It's tough to know you're staring at the end of something you've done (and loved) your entire adult life, wondering what the hell do you do now?
The element of TOPGUN itself, the Navy's Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, was rather lacking. The pilots were all graduates of TOPGUN, sure...but the idea that only they could perform the mission doesn't make sense. In reality, the military would simply use whatever assets that were the closest and most capable. But, assuming all this...Why are all these pilots struggling against G's like 2nd week flight school boots in the G trainer? They're fighter pilots, not truck drivers. They should be well used to handling high Gs with composure. Then Phoenix crashes her jet...Bird strikes are a thing, engine flameouts are a thing, but she apparently forgot all the boldface procedures. Chances are she'd still have at least limited power even with a fragged motor, and there's no reason she'd lose control of the jet. Still, she crashed it, and they still somehow sent her on this high risk mission. In reality, that wouldn't happen...She wouldn't necessarily be grounded, but she'd be off the team after that. And why are they flying out of NAS North Island? TOPGUN has been at NAS Fallon since 1996, and it's just a waste of gas to fly back and forth that far. That being said, they could have been training at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, also out in the middle of the Mojave desert. Also, why are two admirals running TOPGUN? And what's the point of Hangman? His story arc is basically "mean girl" > "Not mean girl". No pilot would volunteer for mission commander; if anything they'd fight about who DOESN'T want to be mission commander.
The mission itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's extremely unlikely that something high risk like this would be flown by a four ship strike package of Rhinos (Super Hornets). A real strike package would have included AWACS, air superiority fighters, SEAD taking out the SAMs, most likely some EA-18G Growlers...and if they absolutely had to be subtle, they'd use F-35Cs....assuming the mission wasn't carried out by Air Force B-2's. GPS jamming is a thing, but it's much harder to jam laser, and they'd probably drop some SEALs in to lase the target for them. The whole valley thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either. No way is any adversary going to leave such an obvious back door open. That entire valley would be littered with SAMs, MANPADs, and AAA....and if for whatever reason they didn't see them on radar (which they would have while they were out to sea) they would definitely have heard them. The TLAM strike does make sense, but they'd probably program them with an off-axis waypoint so they didn't come in from the same direction as the fighters. The pilots wouldn't be too happy about missiles flying a couple hundred feet over their heads; if one goes haywire, that could be it for you or your wingman. It's worth noting that TLAMs are subsonic cruise missiles, too, so they wouldn't be outrunning fighters cruising at 400+ knots.
The diving delivery doesn't make a whole lot of sense. F/A-18s are 4th generation fighters; laser guided bombs don't have to be dropped in a dive, they just have to be dropped into a virtual "basket" where the seeker head can acquire the laser signal. They could do this while staying under the rim of the mountain crater.
The F-14 scene is pretty cool, although if he'd taken off using flaps...he might have saved the nose gear. But, if he saved the nose gear, he wouldn't be able to barricade, and movies have to have tension, right? That being said, the chances of surviving against not just one, but two Su-57s in a F-14 are...Not great. The Felon's capabilities are doubted, sure...the cockpit looks like it has very poor rear visibility...but, it is a 5th gen fighter with 3D thrust vectoring. It would make quick work out of the heavy, ungainly F-35, let alone a Tomcat, and modern heat seeking missiles like the AIM-9X and R-73 (R-74 in the Su-57's case) are hard to decoy with flares. There's no way flying through a canyon would confuse the Felon's systems...they'd just hang back and keep firing missiles until they brought the Tomcat down. They wouldn't bother following it through the canyon, either...they could just fly a couple thousand feet above and behind and maintain visual contact.
Finally...nobody would be crowding the flight deck celebrating. Everyone topside has a job; if your job doesn't involve you being on the flight deck, you won't be there. Their first priority would be ensuring nothing caught fire, and they did that. Second priority would be clearing the deck, because an aircraft carrier is busy 24/7 with launches, recoveries, and training.
Anyway, that's just my take. Feel free to share yours.
We Were Soldiers and Hamburger Hill are good... never liked Tom bs Cruise at all.
blackhawk said:
We Were Soldiers and Hamburger Hill are good... never liked Tom bs Cruise at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hacksaw Ridge was pretty excellent too. I'm not a huge fan of Cruise either but the intent here is to talk about what we like or didn't like about Maverick
V0latyle said:
Hacksaw Ridge was pretty excellent too. I'm not a huge fan of Cruise either but the intent here is to talk about what we like or didn't like about Maverick
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Numerous technical errors as usual... try to pretend you're stupid, don't think, pretend it's not Tom Cruise and the movie might be ok.
Probably not.
I once shot out a 30" crt with a 9mm Glaser safety slug because Tom Cruise was on it at that time. Got him center mass
Deeply satisfying and the micro shrapnel from it was incredible. Replaced the crt for $169... it was so worth it.
After thinking over, watch Spy Hard instead. Far more believable, better script and acting too
Dang! Glad I saw the movie before reading all of this. I loved it! Could care less about all the technical authenticity or whatever, I go to the movies to forget about the real world, and if I wanted to see all this technical stuff, I could have saved the $60 bucks, had a few sips of Scotch and looked it all up on the interwebz, and forgotten all about it anyways!
Good thing Badgers are simple creatures!
Badger50 said:
Dang! Glad I saw the movie before reading all of this. I loved it! Could care less about all the technical authenticity or whatever, I go to the movies to forget about the real world, and if I wanted to see all this technical stuff, I could have saved the $60 bucks, had a few sips of Scotch and looked it all up on the interwebz, and forgotten all about it anyways!
Good thing Badgers are simple creatures!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any critter that decorates its den entrance with bones from its plunders isn't a simple creature
blackhawk said:
simple creature
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you meant, Simply effective!
Badger50 said:
I think you meant, Simply effective!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Simply hungry too
Meh... saw it.
Great cinematography... at times,
sound track- meh,
script- another death star miracle... it was pretentious and rehashed.
wokeness- a token women top gun, lame.
It had a click to it but it felt like a 80yo cougar making a pass at you.
It's ok... hella better then any of the new woke Disney crap
Guess I'll watch it again. Older Tom Cruise isn't nearly as anoying as young TC.
What do two F18 pilots, Wombat and Mover think?
They bring up some interesting aspects of the movie.
I want to believe... *explodes into pink mist*
The sequel to a classic created another classic...Tom Cruise back as Maverick is fantastic...a film to watch and re-watch..
V0latyle said:
If you've seen the movie, go ahead and share your thoughts here. I'll go first. Obviously, I understand this is just a movie, it's made for the entertainment value, but I can't help picking it apart.
Overall, I think the movie did what it was supposed to do - a "feel good" flick about America. The nostalgia was nice. But, my experience as a Marine veteran as well as knowledge of military aviation raised a lot of issues for me.
First...The SR-72/Aurora/Darkwing project. It's plausible that someone like Maverick could indeed become a test pilot, but most such projects are run under the Air Force, at the end of a pilot's career. It would have made more sense to put this at the end of the movie, although he would have a literal snowflake's chance in hell of surviving a Mach 10+ disintegration. The human body cannot withstand supersonic ejection; the force of the air stream can literally rip your body apart. Maverick would have been pink mist. Also...You crash a multi-billion (if not trillion) dollar prototype, chances are you'll never fly again.
This brings me to the bar scene, where apparently no one knows who he is, and he eventually gets thrown out by Hangman and the other pilots. The problem with this is, someone like Maverick would have quite the reputation; everyone there would have been buying him drinks, not throwing him out on his ass.
I do like the line where he tells Penny "Being a fighter pilot is what I am". This is true for pretty much every career pilot I've known - their whole life revolves around it, and when it's over, they have a lot of trouble finding a sense of purpose. It's tough to know you're staring at the end of something you've done (and loved) your entire adult life, wondering what the hell do you do now?
The element of TOPGUN itself, the Navy's Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, was rather lacking. The pilots were all graduates of TOPGUN, sure...but the idea that only they could perform the mission doesn't make sense. In reality, the military would simply use whatever assets that were the closest and most capable. But, assuming all this...Why are all these pilots struggling against G's like 2nd week flight school boots in the G trainer? They're fighter pilots, not truck drivers. They should be well used to handling high Gs with composure. Then Phoenix crashes her jet...Bird strikes are a thing, engine flameouts are a thing, but she apparently forgot all the boldface procedures. Chances are she'd still have at least limited power even with a fragged motor, and there's no reason she'd lose control of the jet. Still, she crashed it, and they still somehow sent her on this high risk mission. In reality, that wouldn't happen...She wouldn't necessarily be grounded, but she'd be off the team after that. And why are they flying out of NAS North Island? TOPGUN has been at NAS Fallon since 1996, and it's just a waste of gas to fly back and forth that far. That being said, they could have been training at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, also out in the middle of the Mojave desert. Also, why are two admirals running TOPGUN? And what's the point of Hangman? His story arc is basically "mean girl" > "Not mean girl". No pilot would volunteer for mission commander; if anything they'd fight about who DOESN'T want to be mission commander.
The mission itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's extremely unlikely that something high risk like this would be flown by a four ship strike package of Rhinos (Super Hornets). A real strike package would have included AWACS, air superiority fighters, SEAD taking out the SAMs, most likely some EA-18G Growlers...and if they absolutely had to be subtle, they'd use F-35Cs....assuming the mission wasn't carried out by Air Force B-2's. GPS jamming is a thing, but it's much harder to jam laser, and they'd probably drop some SEALs in to lase the target for them. The whole valley thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either. No way is any adversary going to leave such an obvious back door open. That entire valley would be littered with SAMs, MANPADs, and AAA....and if for whatever reason they didn't see them on radar (which they would have while they were out to sea) they would definitely have heard them. The TLAM strike does make sense, but they'd probably program them with an off-axis waypoint so they didn't come in from the same direction as the fighters. The pilots wouldn't be too happy about missiles flying a couple hundred feet over their heads; if one goes haywire, that could be it for you or your wingman. It's worth noting that TLAMs are subsonic cruise missiles, too, so they wouldn't be outrunning fighters cruising at 400+ knots.
The diving delivery doesn't make a whole lot of sense. F/A-18s are 4th generation fighters; laser guided bombs don't have to be dropped in a dive, they just have to be dropped into a virtual "basket" where the seeker head can acquire the laser signal. They could do this while staying under the rim of the mountain crater.
The F-14 scene is pretty cool, although if he'd taken off using flaps...he might have saved the nose gear. But, if he saved the nose gear, he wouldn't be able to barricade, and movies have to have tension, right? That being said, the chances of surviving against not just one, but two Su-57s in a F-14 are...Not great. The Felon's capabilities are doubted, sure...the cockpit looks like it has very poor rear visibility...but, it is a 5th gen fighter with 3D thrust vectoring. It would make quick work out of the heavy, ungainly F-35, let alone a Tomcat, and modern heat seeking missiles like the AIM-9X and R-73 (R-74 in the Su-57's case) are hard to decoy with flares. There's no way flying through a canyon would confuse the Felon's systems...they'd just hang back and keep firing missiles until they brought the Tomcat down. They wouldn't bother following it through the canyon, either...they could just fly a couple thousand feet above and behind and maintain visual contact.
Finally...nobody would be crowding the flight deck celebrating. Everyone topside has a job; if your job doesn't involve you being on the flight deck, you won't be there. Their first priority would be ensuring nothing caught fire, and they did that. Second priority would be clearing the deck, because an aircraft carrier is busy 24/7 with launches, recoveries, and training.
Anyway, that's just my take. Feel free to share yours.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The best Way to explain what I think is summed up in the video of this guy..
*not my video* hope it’s ok to post
I think maverick died in the beginning and lived his dream afterlife. However, we will never know.
I’ve read many posts about it, so I don’t think I’m the only one (besides the guy making the video).
It makes sense. But if he died that also means.. no part 3. 🫤
Cv7676 said:
The best Way to explain what I think is summed up in the video of this guy..
*not my video* hope it’s ok to post
I think maverick died in the beginning and lived his dream afterlife. However, we will never know.
I’ve read many posts about it, so I don’t think I’m the only one (besides the guy making the video).
It makes sense. But if he died that also means.. no part 3. 🫤
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's one way to put it.
On another topic, I saw several comments on YouTube insisting that they used minimal CGI in the movie because Tom Cruise apparently doesn't like doing CGI. So, explain these:
- The SR-72 Darkstar is still in development; if there are any flying prototypes, they are undoubtedly UAVs, much less capable of Mach 10.
- The US military has very specific rules on "safety bubbles" in training - a buffer zone around your aircraft that MUST be clear of other aircraft, the only exceptions being formation flight. Even professional stunt pilots like the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds maintain "bubbles" of at least several hundred feet and use perspective angles to create the illusion of much closer proximity for maneuvers such as the head on break. Why would the military break hard and fast rules written in blood for a film?
- There are only 5 total flying Su-57/PAK-FA fighters, all in the Russian Air Force. How exactly did the Navy gain cooperation from a historically belligerent foreign military to use their 5th generation fighters for a film?
- The only flying F-14 Tomcats are all owned by Iran, again historically belligerent towards the United States, so same problem as above. While a real F-14 was used in the movie, it's a non-flying airframe with no engines or avionics that was shipped in pieces to the film set.
- The missiles...think those were real?
- The one thing that MIGHT be real would be the Mi-24 helicopter, just because there are so many all around the world.
V0latyle said:
That's one way to put it.
On another topic, I saw several comments on YouTube insisting that they used minimal CGI in the movie because Tom Cruise apparently doesn't like doing CGI. So, explain these:
- The SR-72 Darkstar is still in development; if there are any flying prototypes, they are undoubtedly UAVs, much less capable of Mach 10.
- The US military has very specific rules on "safety bubbles" in training - a buffer zone around your aircraft that MUST be clear of other aircraft, the only exceptions being formation flight. Even professional stunt pilots like the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds maintain "bubbles" of at least several hundred feet and use perspective angles to create the illusion of much closer proximity for maneuvers such as the head on break. Why would the military break hard and fast rules written in blood for a film?
- There are only 5 total flying Su-57/PAK-FA fighters, all in the Russian Air Force. How exactly did the Navy gain cooperation from a historically belligerent foreign military to use their 5th generation fighters for a film?
- The only flying F-14 Tomcats are all owned by Iran, again historically belligerent towards the United States, so same problem as above. While a real F-14 was used in the movie, it's a non-flying airframe with no engines or avionics that was shipped in pieces to the film set.
- The missiles...think those were real?
- The one thing that MIGHT be real would be the Mi-24 helicopter, just because there are so many all around the world.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you watch Hamburger Hill or We Were Soldiers you don't have turn off your your intellect while watching, but it may get bruised. Hamburger Hill is one of the most realistic war movies ever made. My Nam buddy Al said "It was like that!". It seems plotless and random, horrible $hit happens just like war. Hard to say who "won".
I've watched Hamburger Hill over a dozen times.
Das Boot (director's cut) is another excellent war movie. Uboat ace Captain Eric Topp was a consultant for that film.
blackhawk said:
If you watch Hamburger Hill or We Were Soldiers you don't have turn off your your intellect while watching, but it may get bruised. Hamburger Hill is one of the most realistic war movies ever made. My Nam buddy Al said "It was like that!". It seems plotless and random, horrible $hit happens just like war. Hard to say who "won".
I've watched Hamburger Hill over a dozen times.
Das Boot (director's cut) is another excellent war movie. Uboat ace Captain Eric Topp was a consultant for that film.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah. And the whole point of Top Gun is a feel good all American movie. If we want to talk about ridiculously unrealistic, how about Mission: Impossible...
V0latyle said:
Yeah. And the whole point of Top Gun is a feel good all American movie. If we want to talk about ridiculously unrealistic, how about Mission: Impossible...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I blew MI off after a few minutes
The Bruce Lee movies still impress, he was pulling punches and nunchuk hits so fast it was a blur even at 40fps? Wow. Like Jimi on the guitar, where they mere mortals?
Two oldies but goodies are the original Freaks (all the freaks are real) and Spider Baby with a young Sid Haig, a stellar performance from Lon Chaney jr plus more top shelf character actors.
blackhawk said:
Yeah I blew MI off after a few minutes
The Bruce Lee movies still impress, he was pulling punches and nunchuk hits so fast it was a blur even at 40fps? Wow. Like Jimi on the guitar, where they mere mortals?
Two oldies but goodies are the original Freaks (all the freaks are real) and Spider Baby with a young Sid Haig, a stellar performance from Lon Chaney jr plus more top shelf character actors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Typical movie framerate is 24fps. I've honestly never watched the Bruce Lee movies so I don't know.
V0latyle said:
Typical movie framerate is 24fps. I've honestly never watched the Bruce Lee movies so I don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe 36fps, they deliberately used a higher frame rate to shoot the action scenes. Don't ask me how they integrated that?
blackhawk said:
Maybe 36fps, they deliberately used a higher frame rate to shoot the action scenes. Don't ask me how they integrated that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now there's a technical brain teaser. Before digital film, both cameras and film projectors were mechanical, so the movie had to be played at the same rate at which it was filmed. Variable speeds would be a problem since the soundtrack was synchronized to the film as well. It's not so difficult with digital technology, but most video encoders use a static frame rate - the BIT rate can be variable, wherein the "depth" of the information recorded can vary, but the frame rate generally doesn't.
Now if they shot the entire movie in 36fps, that would make sense.
V0latyle said:
Now there's a technical brain teaser. Before digital film, both cameras and film projectors were mechanical, so the movie had to be played at the same rate at which it was filmed. Variable speeds would be a problem since the soundtrack was synchronized to the film as well. It's not so difficult with digital technology, but most video encoders use a static frame rate - the BIT rate can be variable, wherein the "depth" of the information recorded can vary, but the frame rate generally doesn't.
Now if they shot the entire movie in 36fps, that would make sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
36fps it appears to be. Lee was incredibly fast and formidable.
blackhawk said:
36fps it appears to be. Lee was incredibly fast and formidable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh okay, so they shot at 34fps, which resulted in a bit of a "slow motion" effect when played at the standard 24fps.