Top Gun 2: Maverick Trailer (2020)

Wait, what? The F-15C is ahead to far ahead of the F-14D (you probably want to ignore the F-14A catastrophe) in all of those metrics, plus it actually has an inservice AAM integrated already.

You're right in general- though I think I'm implying hypotheticals that aren't being considered in your response.

Putting an F-15C (or E) on a carrier would hamper it in many ways, equalizing the native advantage somewhat. Modernizing the F-14 would result in plenty more equalization, and I would expect significant advantages to remain in the F-14's favor with respect to operational radius and payload. Upgraded engines would help there significantly with range, speed, acceleration, and thrust vectoring for maneuverability a bit and would bring super cruise, as would an F/A-18E-style fuselage upgrade for range.

An AAM upgrade would also be implied, with the Phoenix platform designed to work against emerging threats in the low-observable, hypersonic space. Range would also likely be extended and RCS and IR emissions along the axis would be reduced.

Basically what we've done with the F-15 and F/A-18 over time, but bigger, with more range, speed, payload, and perhaps even greater avionics flexibility. Every F-14 (or every-other) could be upgraded with EA-18G electronic capabilities as well as limited sub-screening capabilities- and the aircraft is certainly capable of carrying torpedoes from a size and weight perspective.

Of course, cost vs. more upgraded F/A-18s won out and now the Navy flies nothing else other than F-35's off their decks.

At being a hanger queen still.

Perhaps, though a 'Super Tomcat' program could also design out most issues.


Overall a Super Tomcat with the same development effort that say Boeing has done with the F-15 (including a swath of unfielded upgrades) would be terrifying for adversaries.
 
You're right in general- though I think I'm implying hypotheticals that aren't being considered in your response.

Not really, you are implying hypotheticals that make no sense. For instance:

Putting an F-15C (or E) on a carrier would hamper it in many ways, equalizing the native advantage somewhat. Modernizing the F-14 would result in plenty more equalization, and I would expect significant advantages to remain in the F-14's favor with respect to operational radius and payload.
Upgraded engines would help there significantly with range, speed, acceleration, and thrust vectoring for maneuverability a bit and would bring super cruise, as would an F/A-18E-style fuselage upgrade for range.

You are putting a 1960's design on a carrier while trying to compare it to a literal cleansheet aircraft. If you wanted to do the same thing with the F-15 then you would have an aircraft with even better range, speed, acceleration, thrust vectoring, etc. And since you are navalizing it, you might as well.

An AAM upgrade would also be implied, with the Phoenix platform designed to work against emerging threats in the low-observable, hypersonic space. Range would also likely be extended and RCS and IR emissions along the axis would be reduced.

The AIM-54 was never designed to hit anything smaller than bombers. It is actually a terrible missile for hitting anything fast moving or maneuverable let alone LO. You are going to need a new missile or to integrate a current missile. The AIM-54 is a mythological giant but a performance mouse.

Basically what we've done with the F-15 and F/A-18

They are literally not the same aircraft when comparing current F-15 or F/A-18 and what their A models where. We didn't upgrade them, we essentially cleansheeted them and kept the name to make people in Congress say ok.

over time, but bigger, with more range, speed, payload, and perhaps even greater avionics flexibility.

And handle worse. You forgot about the handle worse part. The F/A-18E/F isn't called the Rhino because of its good handling. The F-15E isn't called the Mudhen because its an amazing performer as an interceptor.

Every F-14 (or every-other) could be upgraded with EA-18G electronic capabilities as well as limited sub-screening capabilities

Let's take a look at just the part you can see, not the real work,real quick.

Do you see this mess right here?

F-15D-Cockpit-Feature-Image.jpg



It's not just pop out some of those gauges and pop in some of these

Growler-backseat.jpg


And you have grafted the EA-18G EW and avionics into the F-14. You almost literally have to pull every bit of wiring out of the F-14 and then make all of those components that weren't designed to go there fit.

- and the aircraft is certainly capable of carrying torpedoes from a size and weight perspective.

Why are we carrying torpedoes now? It's an interceptor/air superiority fighter. Are you planning some new tactics and are going to torpedo bombers for some reason?

Of course, cost vs. more upgraded F/A-18s won out and now the Navy flies nothing else other than F-35's off their decks.

No, it wasn't just cost versus upgraded F/A-18's. The day the F/A-18 showed up the F-14 was done because this happened:

F-14A
pWFpbXD.jpg



F/A-18A
FA-18A_cockpit.jpg


Technology moved on. It is the same for the F-15 and F-16 today. The day the F-22 showed up, they were deadmen walking.

Perhaps, though a 'Super Tomcat' program could also design out most issues.

Only if you cleansheeted the aircraft what is what you are really talking about. Not upgrading the F-14. In order to actually make the F-14 less of a hanger queen you would have to literally gut the plane and then the frame and surfaces.

Overall a Super Tomcat with the same development effort that say Boeing has done with the F-15 (including a swath of unfielded upgrades) would be terrifying for adversaries.

I'm sure they would afraid of them when they worked. Or, you know, you could just terrify them with the already superior current block F-15's, F-35's, and F-22's. I don't know.
 
Only if you cleansheeted the aircraft what is what you are really talking about. Not upgrading the F-14. In order to actually make the F-14 less of a hanger queen you would have to literally gut the plane and then the frame and surfaces.

So, not intending to undercut your point out of disagreement, but this was what I was proposing above. The F/A-18E/F and F-15E are more or less clean-sheet revisions; the F/A-18E/F being actually new aircraft using much of the same parts. I believe we agree here, and that's what I'm proposing for a hypothetical F-14 Super Tomcat.

The AIM-54 was never designed to hit anything smaller than bombers. It is actually a terrible missile for hitting anything fast moving or maneuverable let alone LO. You are going to need a new missile or to integrate a current missile. The AIM-54 is a mythological giant but a performance mouse.

As above, given the same development as the AIM-9 or AIM-120 over the years, it could be modified to do a lot of things.

Why are we carrying torpedoes now? It's an interceptor/air superiority fighter. Are you planning some new tactics and are going to torpedo bombers for some reason?

Subs. An upgraded F-14 could get the munitions to their targets faster, with any sub in attack mode far easier to detect- and any sub that has attacked finding itself running very quickly.


And I need to reiterate that I'm speaking entirely in the hypothetical. Such an F-14 in service now would still be on its way out for all of the obvious reasons. At best, the rumored FB-22 would make a decent replacement, again if navalized, but Congress seems to be pretty cross about anything related to the F-22.
 
So, not intending to undercut your point out of disagreement, but this was what I was proposing above. The F/A-18E/F and F-15E are more or less clean-sheet revisions; the F/A-18E/F being actually new aircraft using much of the same parts. I believe we agree here, and that's what I'm proposing for a hypothetical F-14 Super Tomcat.

Then your original argument is that much worse. Cleansheeting something that looked like the F-14 versus cleansheeting something that looked like the F-15 is ridiculous because anything you can do that you think is superior in the F-14 you could do in another cleansheet F-15. If you want to make some sort of artificial argument about using "base metrics" and improving them from there for the F-14 an the F-15 then the F-15 is already ahead so it would stay ahead given the same level of investment.


As above, given the same development as the AIM-9 or AIM-120 over the years, it could be modified to do a lot of things.

Not really, the AIM-54 is a pig. It is almost three times the mass of the AIM-120. You can't diet off enough weight and give the F-14 the same magazine capacity without developing a new missile. It is a non-starter simply by mass.


Subs. An upgraded F-14 could get the munitions to their targets faster, with any sub in attack mode far easier to detect

Wait, so now your new Super Tomcat is going to also be equipped with a MAD (are we going to make this fixed or retractable like the S-3's?) and to carry sonobouys? You do realize what the crewing is like to actually run a sub hunter....right? The MH-60 runs 3-4, the S-3 took 4, and the P-3/P-8 run bigger crews.....etc. At some point, your clean sheet F-14 looking thing is going to be the size of a B-52 and then how are you going to get on and off of a carrier?

And, exactly what do you think "attack mode" means exactly? Its not like submarine warfare doctrine is "run silent, run deep...until you are going to shoot then blow your cover and not care".

- and any sub that has attacked finding itself running very quickly.

They wouldn't be already? I mean....none of the other air deployed assets like the MH-60's, or P-3's, or P-8's are going to be outrun by a submerged vessel so the sub is already running from people who can all catch him. It's not like he has a "turbo-boost button" that would require a supersonic asset to catch something in reality is going less than 45 knots.

And I need to reiterate that I'm speaking entirely in the hypothetical.

Well, no. You were very definitive with your statement "Range, speed, armament, avionics integration- if an F-15 were modified to operated off of a carrier deck, the F-14 would still be better at its primary mission of CAP / interceptor than an F-15 (or the current F/A-18E/F)."
 
Well, no. You were very definitive with your statement

I can definitively state that you read more out of my original and followup posts than I intended. You've then proceeded to pick apart what I've clarified, including that this is all hypothetical, and your extremely negative tone shows that you're not interested in having a discussion so much as showing yourself more right or knowledgeable. I can answer every question, again in the hypothetical, that you've posted above, but as it's clear that you're not interested, I'll pass.
 
[Stepping into the middle of IdiotInCharge and Paul_Johnson's discussion of the F-14 and F-15]

They're both beautiful planes. I favor the F-15 for its sheer grunt, but the F-14 was designed for air superiority over the ocean, a place where it's very hard to hide and where ground forces do not play. I would not want to fly an F-15 against a Phoenix missile, which has a 100 mile release range, Mach 5 cruise speed, and a 100,000 ft ceiling. And the F-14 could carry six of them. The F-14 could launch his missiles and be flying away while the F-15 was still a spectator.

Really, though, it's the pilot, not the air frame. If we're talking off-the-shelf upgrades and a well trained pilot, you could still do well with a mix of F-4's and F-5's.

What's really interesting is the F-16. The F-16 never gets to play in these air superiority arguments, and to be honest it shouldn't, but the pilots who fly them are loyal to them because the plane is dependable and a joy to fly. Combined with a low purchase price, a low flight-hour cost, and the fact that it has been refitted for almost every mission a single-seat combat aircraft can fly, it's a wonder why it doesn't have more defenders.

BUT ... An F-15 is not an F-15E, and an F-15E is its own brand of freaking amazing. Any other aircraft would shit itself if it didn't dump it's ground munitions entering a dogfight.


P.S. Don't ask about my opinion on the F-35.
 
Last edited:
Not really, you are implying hypotheticals that make no sense. For instance:



You are putting a 1960's design on a carrier while trying to compare it to a literal cleansheet aircraft. If you wanted to do the same thing with the F-15 then you would have an aircraft with even better range, speed, acceleration, thrust vectoring, etc. And since you are navalizing it, you might as well.



The AIM-54 was never designed to hit anything smaller than bombers. It is actually a terrible missile for hitting anything fast moving or maneuverable let alone LO. You are going to need a new missile or to integrate a current missile. The AIM-54 is a mythological giant but a performance mouse.



They are literally not the same aircraft when comparing current F-15 or F/A-18 and what their A models where. We didn't upgrade them, we essentially cleansheeted them and kept the name to make people in Congress say ok.



And handle worse. You forgot about the handle worse part. The F/A-18E/F isn't called the Rhino because of its good handling. The F-15E isn't called the Mudhen because its an amazing performer as an interceptor.



Let's take a look at just the part you can see, not the real work,real quick.

Do you see this mess right here?

View attachment 175635


It's not just pop out some of those gauges and pop in some of these

View attachment 175636

And you have grafted the EA-18G EW and avionics into the F-14. You almost literally have to pull every bit of wiring out of the F-14 and then make all of those components that weren't designed to go there fit.



Why are we carrying torpedoes now? It's an interceptor/air superiority fighter. Are you planning some new tactics and are going to torpedo bombers for some reason?



No, it wasn't just cost versus upgraded F/A-18's. The day the F/A-18 showed up the F-14 was done because this happened:

F-14A
View attachment 175637


F/A-18A
View attachment 175638

Technology moved on. It is the same for the F-15 and F-16 today. The day the F-22 showed up, they were deadmen walking.



Only if you cleansheeted the aircraft what is what you are really talking about. Not upgrading the F-14. In order to actually make the F-14 less of a hanger queen you would have to literally gut the plane and then the frame and surfaces.



I'm sure they would afraid of them when they worked. Or, you know, you could just terrify them with the already superior current block F-15's, F-35's, and F-22's. I don't know.


Those things are not deisgned for comfort that is for sure like a car has soft pading all around.
 
[Stepping into the middle of IdiotInCharge and Paul_Johnson's discussion of the F-14 and F-15]

They're both beautiful planes. I favor the F-15 for its sheer grunt, but the F-14 was designed for air superiority over the ocean, a place where it's very hard to hide and where ground forces do not play. I would not want to fly an F-15 against a Phoenix missile, which has a 100 mile release range, Mach 5 cruise speed, and a 100,000 ft ceiling. And the F-14 could carry six of them. The F-14 could launch his missiles and be flying away while the F-15 was still a spectator.

The Navy was 0-3 in combat launches with the AIM-54. Not a huge sample size, but not a stellar performer. Plus, the AIM-120D has the same range while it also has GPS and HOJ guidance/targeting with a platform that carries an AESA radar as opposed to a pulse doppler radar. And, that platform will show up with at least twice as many missiles.......which have actually hit in combat. True, one of those combat hits was a shoot down of the Army.

Really, though, it's the pilot, not the air frame. If we're talking off-the-shelf upgrades and a well trained pilot, you could still do well with a mix of F-4's and F-5's.

IdiotinCharge went down the road of complete nonsense, let's not do that again. Neither of those platforms could you do well with in a modern contested airspace with off-the-shelf upgrades nor would either have the tools to be useful in an uncontested airspace.
 
IdiotinCharge went down the road of complete nonsense

Your assumptions- not what I said, but what you read into- were complete nonsense, and you continue to ignore hypotheticals as if you have an actual cat in the fight versus a bunch of enthusiasts talking. It's the only reason I can rationalize your insulting tone in a place where we could be having a discussion.
 
Meh, watched the original Top Gun and I just have 0 interest in this. Hollywood needs to try a bit harder.
 
[Stepping into the middle of IdiotInCharge and Paul_Johnson's discussion of the F-14 and F-15]

They're both beautiful planes. I favor the F-15 for its sheer grunt, but the F-14 was designed for air superiority over the ocean, a place where it's very hard to hide and where ground forces do not play. I would not want to fly an F-15 against a Phoenix missile, which has a 100 mile release range, Mach 5 cruise speed, and a 100,000 ft ceiling. And the F-14 could carry six of them. The F-14 could launch his missiles and be flying away while the F-15 was still a spectator.

Really, though, it's the pilot, not the air frame. If we're talking off-the-shelf upgrades and a well trained pilot, you could still do well with a mix of F-4's and F-5's.

What's really interesting is the F-16. The F-16 never gets to play in these air superiority arguments, and to be honest it shouldn't, but the pilots who fly them are loyal to them because the plane is dependable and a joy to fly. Combined with a low purchase price, a low flight-hour cost, and the fact that it has been refitted for almost every mission a single-seat combat aircraft can fly, it's a wonder why it doesn't have more defenders.

BUT ... An F-15 is not an F-15E, and an F-15E is its own brand of freaking amazing. Any other aircraft would shit itself if it didn't dump it's ground munitions entering a dogfight.


P.S. Don't ask about my opinion on the F-35.

I never cared for the F-16, until I saw one up close at an air show and got to chat with a pilot about the aircraft at length. Really fantastic air superiority fighter, a dog-fighter in the true sense of the word.

Still though, the Tomcat will always have a place in my heart. Such a gorgeous aircraft. I think only perhaps the SR-71 rivals it in terms of pure aesthetic beauty.
 
[Stepping into the middle of IdiotInCharge and Paul_Johnson's discussion of the F-14 and F-15]

snip

P.S. Don't ask about my opinion on the F-35.

What is your opinion of the f-35? Personally i think it is one of the best planes ever made.
 
What is your opinion of the f-35? Personally i think it is one of the best planes ever made.

Shots fired :D



[still not sure about traditional F-35 performance in general vs. aircraft it is replacing, or more complementing now, but the new capabilities it brings are pretty revolutionary]
 
  • Like
Reactions: filip
like this
What is your opinion of the f-35? Personally i think it is one of the best planes ever made.

Who cares, ultimately. :) I think the F16 and F18 were beautiful aircraft. Also, watching the F35 and F18 launching from a Super Carrier is also cool. (Youtube, of course.)
 
the deal with the f35 is that its less of a plane, and more of a weapon system. An evolution of sorts, thats been happening for 50+ years. From what i've read an F106 was about the pinnacle of airframe performance. Since then its been about having enough power to lift enough technology into the air and deliver it accurately on target, without being targeted yourself. Trade offs in speed, manoeuvrability, range, all have been made in order to maximise these features. Today if you get in a dog fight with a mig 21, it doesn't matter what your driving, at that point your likely at a disadvantage. But that is unlikely to happen because the mig cant see you, and you have all the options before it gets to that point.

On topic, I really hope hollywood doesnt dick this movie up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: filip
like this
Today if you get in a dog fight with a mig 21, it doesn't matter what your driving, at that point your likely at a disadvantage.

This is what I didn't have the heart to tell these guys as they went back and forth like nervous lesbians, copy-pasting Wikipedia at each other: none of that shit matters in a dogfight since russians can cobra maneuver out of anything. A Mig on your 12, he pops smoke - and BLINDS you - flips a cobra and now your 12 is your 6 -- and he doesn't even fire on you, just laughs and breaks off. And this russian pilot is wearing a TRACK SUIT.

iTZZi9y.gif


396c63bd06aa10bf0454c3e0848f120d.gif
 

Attachments

  • 396c63bd06aa10bf0454c3e0848f120d.gif
    396c63bd06aa10bf0454c3e0848f120d.gif
    1.9 MB · Views: 20
Last edited:
This is what I didn't have the heart to tell these guys as they went back and forth like nervous lesbians, copy-pasting Wikipedia at each other: none of that shit matters in a dogfight since russians can cobra maneuver out of anything. A Mig on your 12, he pops smoke - and BLINDS you - flips a cobra and now your 12 is your 6 -- and he doesn't even fire on you, just laughs and breaks off. They also wear track suits (Adidas in white or red) for swagger.

That's the fun part- the F-22 has that. But it doesn't need it- the Mig (lol) or more likely Suhoi would still have to get within visual range and to do that against a concerted US effort, F-22's or no, would border on impossible.
 
That's the fun part- the F-22 has that. But it doesn't need it- the Mig (lol) or more likely Suhoi would still have to get within visual range and to do that against a concerted US effort, F-22's or no, would border on impossible.

The post quoted was sarcasm. You're not going to do an airshow stunt in combat, especially not when armed.
 
The post quoted was sarcasm. You're not going to do an airshow stunt in combat, especially not when armed.

The US experimented with unstable/high manuverability fighter designs like the X-29, but the Air Force concluded it wasn't worthwhile. Stealth and better electronics were more important.

Next it looks like we're moving into a hypersonic era where speed is king.

Shots fired :D

[still not sure about traditional F-35 performance in general vs. aircraft it is replacing, or more complementing now, but the new capabilities it brings are pretty revolutionary]

Only people in the know have the real performance figures. Pilots seem to love it and it's performed exceptionally well in wargames.

This forum has some elite internet warriors with PhDs in Tom Clancy who disagree. Maybe they have secret info the rest of us don't know about.
 
Last edited:
Only people in the know have the real performance figures. Pilots seem to love it and it's performed exceptionally well in wargames.

This forum has some elite internet warriors with PhDs in Tom Clancy who disagree. Maybe they have secret info the rest of us don't know about.

Compared to other similar aircraft the F-35 is obviously a step up. The only real downside is the small internal weapons load. You can carry externally but then you loose your low RCS advantage. But it is nice to have the option and will come in handy for many scenarios. Compare that to an F-16, F-18 or Eurofighter which simply don't have the option. Plus internally, the A has a longer range than an F-16 or F-18 unless I am not recalling correctly.
 
You guys really need to read the complaints from the serviceman aboard the Theodoore Roosevelt, it was an absolute shit show.
 
You guys really need to read the complaints from the serviceman aboard the Theodoore Roosevelt, it was an absolute shit show.
Sailors complain about everything while under way. However once their ship shows up on a big screen, then they boast about it happening while they were underway
 
Sailors complain about everything while under way. However once their ship shows up on a big screen, then they boast about it happening while they were underway
It's like any adventure. Very precious few of them are fun in the moment. In the retelling, very different.
 
I started to write a manifesto. And then I stopped. And I started again. And I stopped. Really, I must have written a couple of pages.

I will simplify to one word replies:


Good lord are we still talking about the movie trailer?

Maybe.


IdiotinCharge went down the road of complete nonsense, let's not do that again.

Retort.


What is your opinion of the f-35? Personally i think it is one of the best planes ever made.

Money.


A Mig on your 12, he pops smoke - and BLINDS you - flips a cobra and now your 12 is your 6 -- and he doesn't even fire on you, just laughs and breaks off.

Huh?


This forum has some elite internet warriors with PhDs in Tom Clancy who disagree.

Unfair.


The only real downside is the small internal weapons load.

Mission.
 
Last edited:
Overall a Super Tomcat with the same development effort that say Boeing has done with the F-15 (including a swath of unfielded upgrades) would be terrifying for adversaries.

More like terrifying to the Navy budget.

We have the F-35 as the front line fighter with the F/A-18's as the workhorses for a long time. odds are the F-35 will be the last manned front line fighter aircraft anyway. UACV will be doing the work in a generation.
 
All this aircraft chatter has me in the mood for a flight sim..

Any good ones out there for military craft? I'll compare the f14 while flying it from my gaming chair and drinking a coke.
 
Back
Top