@@kenw5901 First time I watched Aliens in the theater, I almost cut off all circulation to my girlfriend's hand. The second time I watched it, it became a comedy. One of my all-time favorites.
Fun fact: the bomb run is actually foreshadowed right at the start of the movie. As Maverick walks into Penny's bar for the first time, an aviator can be seen playing darts. He manages to get two consecutive bullseyes, then his friend covers his eyes and makes him try again.
It's also foreshadowed in the movie Star Wars where fighters fly into a valley and the hero has to hit a small target without using his targeting system.
@@Roddy556 Which was foreshadowed by WW2 aviation movies Dambusters and Sq 633. Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress also foreshadowed other A New Hope plot points.
Dropped lots of MK84 with and without Laser Kit from the A-6 Intruder. The dive delivery was the standard and surprisingly in a 40 degree 500 knot dive with the early LGB kits the steering fins didn't go to neutral it was full deflection one way or the other so it would wiggle back and forth bleeding energy all the way to the target. It would hit the ground going slower than it was released at! Typical miss was short of the target as the weapon just ran out of energy. You had to get over 45 degree in the dive just to give it enough Q to maintain the speed all the way to the target. We would joke the last thing the guy on the ground heard was the audible clacking of the fins as they deflected back and forth flying to the target. Buddy lazing was something we did as well lots of different scenarios on how we did that. First Live MK-84 (non-lgb) I dropped was -4 on a division roll into a target on the big island of Hawaii. We all had 4 MK-84 on the planes so 32,000 pounds were delivered in about 30 seconds on the target. The Army Rangers who were working the range were impressed to say the least!
Tim, Vulture 4 Bravo here. Did you salvo all 4 Mk 84s at once? I did once during my first tour in Vietnam on a TPQ drop (Ground Radar directed) from 28,000 feet. I felt like the ejection seat went off! When we got back and told maintenance what we did they said we over-geed the airplane and had to do a special inspection. Turns out the A6A Tactics Manual said "Don't do that!"
I wish there was a new more accurate version of Flight Of The Intruder using real A-6's in the same fashion as Top Gun: Maverick. I remember in A school guys that were non-aircrew were hoping they didn't get assigned to an A-6 squadron after they told us that a single A-6 can hold 30 500lb bombs (with the gear doors removed). Plus the angle at which you'd have to hump those bombs looked like a real back breaker. Kudos to them.
@@jackshittle Aboard ship, pretty much every bomb was loaded individually using hernia bars (basically a short length of pipe screwed into the front fuse pocket) and lifted by the tail fins. For a change, the Marines (shore based) had it easier: a multiple ejector rack (MER) would be loaded with six Mk 82 (500 lb) bombs and the entire MER would be loaded on the wing station using Short Airfield Tactical Support (SATS) loader (basically a fork lift that was only about 3-4 ft high with a long reach). I was a Bombardier/Navigator (B/N) in Danang and Chu Lai, later in VMA (aw) - 224 aboard USS CORAL SEA so I saw both methods used extensively. My sincerest appreciation for the "Red Shirt" ordies that humped all those bombs! Semper Fi, Vulture 4 Bravo
When in Vietnam we had F-4 Phantoms do an airstrike near fire base Digger. We were really impressed when a bomb threw trees into the air and then dropped napalm next, they made 5 passes all with ordinance. The strike you did/saw would have been awesome to the max! Those F-4s meant business we lost most of our recon platoon, we were pissed and and wanted payback.
Civilian here. I saw the movie and thought it was entertaining as hell. No way did I ever think that run was realistic. So much respect to those of you who do this for real.
Yeah, there's elements of the mission prep that make you go, "Why?" I get it, they can't use F-35s for the strike itself, fine. We can go with it. But why the heck don't you have some of the backups on the boat running intercept in 35s? Or call up the Air Force, see if we can't spare a couple Raptors out of Incirlik? I'm sure there'd be no lack of volunteers to go up for a live op, with the possibility of facing off against hostile 5th Gens. Of course, we know that's to give the aged Tomcat its day in the sun once more.
Knowing that the bomb run was actually possible instead of being Hollyweird hyperbole makes seeing Mav's old 900 Ninja and that gorgeous P-51 flying even cooler!!! Not to mention Jennifer Connelly being hotter than the Sun.
He explained the tandem drop concept really well. I guess my issue with the movie is that the planes were so close together that you would not get the extra 5 to 10 seconds of laser time on the target before the second plane would have had to pull up as well.
Years ago, I worked for the contractor that developed the laser seekers for the Paveway III. As with any development program of this type, a test article is manufactured that gets frozen, baked, and placed on a shaker table, subjected to stresses beyond what the contract calls for. The test article never failed, and became an additional asset to the program. SO, that seeker was attached to a live bomb, and dropped at a test range targeting a truck being driven by remote control, using a laser designator carried by a soldier on the ground. There were some great photos taken with a high speed camera that showed the tip of the seeker just touching the drivers side window and the glass starting to craze. This all happened about 40 years ago, and I can only imagine the improvements that have been made since then.
Thank you to Pako for filling in the blanks when Rooster deadeye'd his bombs. It wasn't clear how it was on target without being pure luck. Great vid, Ward, love your channel and content. Thank you, sir.
Great video as always. It was nice to have something to watch while I was cooking my eggs and bacon. Always glad to know there's more realism in the film than I thought even after four viewings
Thank you, Mr. Carroll. We truly enjoy seeing Pako on your channel. As we learn more about the B-21 and the EX Eagle, we would love to hear his insights and opinions.
Feeling better about seeing TM again. Thanks for the 411 and professional input on the authenticity of the action and storyline! Merry Christmas Mooch and Pako!!
Very good show with new info turns out they got it mostly right, good hop Tom. Thank you Mooch for hooking us up the someone new to give the straight story.😎✌
7:30 ~ some of that low altitude and very low altitude supersonic training takes place in Wales, U K. The F 15 E "Reapers" squadron took their last flight their recently, videos are available on here. :)
Loved the movie. However, the mission was the attack on the death star. After the targeting pod malfunctions, you can almost hear Obi Wan say use the force Rooster! Lol
Hey Mooch, this is Moose - love your vids man. Im a retired RAF Tornado GR1/4 back seater - 100 combat missions. I thought Hollywood did pretty well with the attack - even mentioned the laser code. We used 1688 for training; 1732 was the operational code (well for us anyways). Maybe you Navy mates did different. As for Pako tooling along supersonic at 100' - I'd like to see that! We would fly high subsonic at 100' but with all the crap hanging off the jet, there was no way we could go faster unless we dumped it all. Also no way to stay that low unless over flat terrain. No doubt the SE had the grunt to do it - proper amount of thrust - but were all the stores and weapons able to? I'd be surprised.
I was an F-4 back-seater. 1688 is the same as the older, non-encoded pulse rate. So it was useful for guiding older weapons. And yes - I don't think supersonic at 100` is possible. We did 600 kts at 300` and 540` at 100`. The F-4 has a very high wing-load, especially compared to newer fighters like the F-15. The F-4 also had a bottom-wing, whereas the F-15 (and Tornado) have a top-wing. This would make the F-15 even less stable. I did some ACM in an F-15 and that thing shook like hell at low speed ;)
@@nissimhadar 1974 operational F-14A Tomcat could do 805 knots at Sea Level(SL) or 1,314kts@38,000ft. Same vintage jet with the 6 AIM-54 loadout with External Fuel Tank(EFT) jettisoned could do 708kts(Mach1.08).@ SL or 1,090kts(Mach-1.9)@38,000ft. Empty weight for an operational July 1974 F-14A was 38,188 pounds and the 6 Phoenix/2 EFT had a Max TakeOff Weight(MTOW) of 68,649lbs. A pre-service 1985 F-14D had an empty weight of 41,343lbs and a 6 AIM-54/2 EFT MTOW of 73,329 lbs with the cat being able to support a max shot of 74,349 pounds, and max. arrested bringback of 54,000lbs. 4 Phoenix/2 Sparrow and 2 Sidewinder with a MTOW of 72,646lbs allowed a bringback of 54,875lbs with EFT jettisoned with JUST 2,703 pounds of fuel left on board. The bringback issue is why full 6 Phoenix loadouts were reserved for warloads only. Though I've heard rumours of 6 Phoenix/2 sidewinder loadouts being launched in the early/mid 80's. A Strike Eagle with its Conformal Fuel Tank(CFT)(mounted beside each) and both its targeting AND navigation pods (mounted under each) engine intake really had to hurt performance esp. down on the deck. 1992 F-15C with an empty weight of 28,476lbs and max speed at SL approaching Mach 1.2 when clean weighing 34,396lbs. Same jet equipped with CFT's has an empty weight of 30,963lbs and can acheive right around Mach 1 at SL while weighing 44,190lbs. This shows us that the CFTs really dont help the F-15 speedwise esp down on the deck. For comparison, a 1976 F-15A has an empty weight of 25,870lbs. F-111B (SeaVark) with an empty weight of 46,000 pounds could do 793knots at SL with 2 Phoenix mounted internal weighing 63,220lbs launching at a MTOW of 72,421lbs or 628 knots weighing 68,365lbs with 6 Phoenix(2 internal/4 external) and a MTOW of 77,566lbs. Those are some heavy max launch weights, very very hard on equipment, plus not much of a fighter.
Wow, 100' AGL Supersonic must be a blast! Lowest I've flown as a civilian private pilot is 500 over the shoreline. Really nice to hear his take on one of my favorite scenes in this awesome movie!
Very interesting!! I LOVE that movie, wish I'd known it was in IMAX, would've definitely seen it on the huge screen! As is, I have the DVD & will be watching it from time to time on my TV. Thanks for the great interview!!
Great work Mooch - when in doubt, bring out the experts! Glad to see that the advisors for the movie got it mostly right. The accuracy for TGM far surpasses TG1 in this area. Cheers.
I would love to hear an explanation of the "Hondo" character. He was running the test flights, then he was at "Top Gun" counting pushups, then he was on the Carrier deck How is that? He is a super soldier!!
"ONE HUNDRED FEET SUPERSONIC....I like the sound of that" I suspect no one on the ground would like the sound of that, GOOD GRIEF. Very interesting video thank you both for this.
I actually was flown onto the USS Enterprise in the Navy COD and caught the wire and then we were catapulted off. I’m an Air Force guy and I’m telling you it was amazing to get that opportunity! Go Navy! 😊
I could listen to the two of you talk about Disney Ice capades and I would be engaged every second. I'm hoping for a f15 eagle episode with Paco the two of you work very well together and as always everything you put out ward I listen to every second and can't wait to see what you have every week
I've always wondered about how accurate it was in the movie to grab the stick with both hands and pull/push with the magnitude that they were pulling/pushing.
@@ascot4000 On certain aircraft - a very fast pull on the stick can stall the stabilator. In fact - I have seen a stabilator snap on an F-4E doing this exact maneuver.
A P51 required something like 50 pounds of stick force in a 4g turn. I'm sure an F18 has a lot of assist (or are the FBW? I don't know a lot about the 18) but I bet it still takes quite a lot of strength to pull a 9G climb.
@@GMdrivingMOPARguy yes, the FA18 is all FBW. The only limit for g is energy state and flight control limiting. Nothing to do with the strength of the pilot
@@nissimhadar a Hornet might snap a stabilator, but probably not a Super Hornet. They have the energy to break themselves, but the computer protected the plane
I have seen Top Gun Maverick while on my return flight from Montreal to Los Angeles. I really enjoyed the movie. Granted the screen on the back of the seat was not the greatest but while flying is hard to beat. Mooch, you made the recommendation to see Top Gun Maverick on IMAX after watching this episode and I did. The sound was great the big screen did add to the experience. But I remembered the whole plot and I almost could resite the dialog. Yes I am really glad that I spent my money to see Top Gun Maverick again. Thanks for the recommendation @Ward Carroll.
I've watched probably every you tube video on maverick I was so hooked on that movie and made several calls to imax on it ever coming out again in the last few months. How did I not hear about the re-release 😢
Curious to know why the F-18 that was lasing the target would have GBU's but not drop them as well, especially when they knew they were going to be dodging SAMs exiting the target area.
One point that bothers me in the movie, from personal experience, is the time between the two weapon drops. The second crew will be lasing into the dust cloud of #1's explosions. The correct way to do it is to (never mind....)
There were AT LEAST 3 things that bothered me about the final mission: 1) why didn’t they strike the anti-air missile sites while the a/c’s were inbound? 2) Where were the Growlers? 3) Where were the standby CAP vehicles that should have been airborne off the coast to provide protection to the outbound fighters from the mission?
@@piman2k he probably does, and since he turns up when needed he seems to fulfil that role but I don't think he launches until after the others are already back and goes out only after they see Mavericks jet on radar
Thanks Ward and Pako for your more up to date views. Whilst its wildly romantic to think an F14 could be anything in a fight with a modern plane, seeing as though the F14 was always just a fast missile truck with over super long range hypersonic missiles that would have obliterated anything long before it had a chance to see the F14. Obviously things have changed but not changed. :D
I'm coming back for the discussion about GPS jamming and the F-35. My attempt at rationalizing it is that the lack of a back seater, which means it's too much to ask of the pilot to use the laser designator accurately while flying the extreme profile. High altitude long range toss delivery is out for three reasons, because of the required impact angle, because GPS jamming makes JDAM's inertial guidance inaccurate, and there's no line of sight for a laser spot from outside the valley. Interested to hear your thoughts.
Yeah I would really like to hear an explanation on the subject as well. What you’re saying seems to have merit, but then again I’m no subject matter expert.
@@unknownuser069 I agree with you about the real reason, I was just trying to come up with an in-world reason. I still think it would be a challenge for an F-35 pilot to designate the target for his flight lead while flying the mission profile, vs a WSO.
Still wondering how to lase a target from behind with a F/A-18 E/F Litening FLIR Pod Laser Designator. I think only the F-117A (with two FLIR and Laser Turrets) and maybe the F-111 could do that. I am guessing they used Buddy Lasing. The lead F-18E drops the Paveway III LGB. Then the two-seater F/A-18F trailing behind lases it on the target. But they seem to show both Super Hornet pulling up before the shack. So one Super Hornet would need to be maintaining the laser painted on the target from behind with the the Litening Pod.
That is how they explain the setup in the movie, yes. However the laser designator would actually have a pretty good arc of view behind the aircraft dependant on your angle of climb. While nowhere near comparable to the real thing, I've spent plenty of time self-designating using an A-10C in ARMA, and one of the biggest nuisances is gauging how close you are the to the limits of the targetting pod's traversal ranges when you're outbound.
This was an amazing segment. Also amazing movie. I forget why they can't use the F-35. That would work amazing with a laser guided GBU regardless of GPS jamming, unless they were worried about loss of the airframe to the hostile nation.
Here in Atlanta no theater would move the movie back into the imax screen they left black panther in there the entire time which was a waste of time especially that last week so sad like 4 or 5 people maybe watch in black panther when there was probably I don't 50 people that would love to see Top Gun on imax again. I actually watched it in the movie theaters 33 times. I have unlimited so watching it on Dolby Digital atmos at the AMC theaters a couple times a week just from being bored and enjoy watching it. Also a movie tavern is $5 on Tuesday I thought there about 9 times. I already had the DVD but the experience on the big screen is so worth it.
This all sound nice but, from a tactical point of view, why not use the Tomahawk to take down the SAM's near the top of that mountain to assist the daggers to run away after the attack? To make the daggers face a 5gen jet would make much more sense instead of SAM's.
Supersonic at 100' I would be interested in that explanation. I assume it was hand flying or TFR? Given that the Radar altimeter (in my day) could be out run before you get to supersonic speeds. The pitot static disturbances around the airplane render it unreliable that makes me say huh...... Mudhen with a combat load, could it do the number down low? What about stores carriage limits..... Good discussion. I'm signing up for your newsletter.
I'm not a pilot, I don't even play one on tv. This does bring back a memory. When I was a teenager my dad and I were driving in the Nevada desert towards Utah, out in the middle of nowhere. An f-15 (probably out of Nellis) was off in the distance doing who knows what, as we headed down the road, all alone. He shot parallel to the road, maybe a mile or two away, circled a peak off in the distance and then dove straight down the freeway buzzing over the top of us. I don't have any idea how high he was, but it shook the truck we were in with one thunderous boom. We were both impressed. Great time. One man airshow.
Just finding this video so I'm really late. What about the attach profile would preclude from using a B-2 and a glide bomb that starts with GPS and switches to inertial guidance when GPS falls off? Are gravity bombs that easy to see from a system like S300? Could a flight of drones distract the search and track radar (S300 has tunnel vision, no?) while glide bombs come in from above?
Question: during the attack mission when they inverted as they topped the mountain on the way INTO the valley to deliver the bombs, it was to keep them low, under the SAMs. Why didn't they do the same when egressing? Just go inverted at the top of "coffin corner" and avoid those SAMs.
The way it’s portrayed is that they are pulling max G’s all the way to the ridge top just to avoid hitting the rocks. That left no room to relax the pull, roll, and clip the ridge inverted without gaining any more altitude. There was probably a way to plan the escape maneuver to minimize exposure, but the way they did it maximized the excitement.
They should have taken care of the radars guiding the SAMs with a few HARMs. The batteries themselves were fixed position, cruise missiles could have handled them making it easier to do a run on the installation, drones or have Weasels to handle the SAMs. But it was a good scene with great filming visuals.
This is a question for Ward. I've contacted you before. Thank you for your channel. I'm a former VF33 AT. 1 deployment on the Indy, supporting the F4J in AIMD shop 610, and 1 on the America supporting the F14A in the AIMD VAST shop, stationed at Oceana from 03/80 - 07/83. Regarding the 2 movies, I had a hard time accepting that the best pilots in the navy were as young as the actors in those movies. Did they do that just for Hollywood, or are they really as young as those actors seem to be?
My only complaint with the mission was when they said GPS jamming means they cant use an F-35, but the F-35 can drop laser guided bombs as well. It basically has a Sniper Pod built into the underside of the nose. Of coarse the real reason was the NAVY was not going to let Hollywood actors see inside an F-35 cockpit, and there are not any 2 seater F-35s
Isn't the Hornet more nimble than the F-35 for things like the canyon run? The jet's nickname "Fat Amy" doesn't bode well for twitchy maneuver missions. The Hornet is a dogfighter that also is a great ground attack platform made during an era (competing for the USAF contract against the F-16) when dogfighting (high maneuverability) was a prerequisite. Not so much for the design mission for the F-35.
@@swordmonkey6635 the lightning is more nimble than people give it credit for but the point is with its stealth it wouldn’t need to be down in the canyon
@@Knightfang1 F-35 pilots call it Fat Amy. The F-35 can maneuver, but not as well as the Hornet, Falcon and especially the Raptor. It's not designed to. As for stealth. The closer a jet gets to a radar receiver, the less stealthy it gets. There's a point in time (and space) where modern radars will just burn through the low visibility features and track it. In the movie, those SAM radars are VERY close and would light the F-35 up. The F-35, not being as nimble, would have to fly higher and either get painted by SAM radar or the CAP Felon's radar. I'm not trying to bash the F-35. I'm just saying the Super Hornet was the better jet for the job of threading the ravine in a timely fashion... and then having to evade SAMs afterward.
I would have just dropped a SEAL team in to laze the target from the ground, or used Triton UAVs to relay the GPS data, and used F-35s at altitude, but that would not have made a great a film.
Normally such movies would do a lot of explaining, glossing over various errors. It is very rare for a movie to get it absolutely right yet do no explaining of how and why. Makes you appreciate the movie even more.
Hey Mooch. Cool interview. Pako seems like a interesting guy. I'd love to hear a lot more about his Mudhen experiences. Have you interviewed him on much or any of that side of things?
Question Slightly OT: During the initial mission briefing, Maverick notes that the use of F-35s would be "negated" by GPS-jamming. Can someone please elaborate on that? In other words, why didn't they use F-35s and their stealthier capabilities in this scenario?
That was a BS excuse as Cruise couldn't have the actors being filmed actually flying as they did in the back of the super bug which he insisted on. F-35Cs have the ability to drop the same LGBs that were used on the mission. Also the only operational F-35C squadron at the time the movie was nearly finished was the RAG, VFA-125. VFA-147 didn't achieve IOC until February 2019 and VMFA-314 didn't achieve IOC until December 2020.
after watching the movie, my 1st thought was " it's impossible to fly the F/A18 when you've ripped the wings off.. ". Also, a 5th Gen SU-27 v Tomcat would last about 5 seconds..
Great pictures, you can really see that all the weapons are CGI "and many of the aircraft" as one of the artist stated on Movers channel. I'm glad I caught that interview before he had to pull it down! This in no way detracts from the movie myself ands if you still believe in Santa, I understand and will not fight back if you call me a liar...
Those guys conflated CGI and VFX. CGI is computer generated imagery. If a scene is not originally acquired from an actual camera but constructed in computer by software, that’s CGI. If the scene is captured through camera, then the footage is imported into computer for some post processing and manipulation (as made possible in the digital age), that’s just VFX. I think that filmmakers of Top Gun Maverick should genuinely be proud of what they have achieved. Especially the real flying footage, which are just incredible, because any computer generated flying scenes in other movies look like rubbish in comparison with what’s shown in TGM. If you can’t tell the difference, then you really have no reason to dislike or like what’s in TGM.
Because the SAM sites were in CLOSE PROXIMITY to the target area and Tomahawk hits would create DEBRIS in the air that could: A. Greatly reduce the aviators' visibility near the hard target further narrowing an already narrow window of success. B. FOD engines almost guaranteeing mission failure and probably the deaths of the aviators too. BTW I just got my Top Gun Maverick BluRay disc in the mail (ordered it online) and it's playing now, it looks AWESOME on my 75" Samsung! Sounds great too with the Dolby 5.1 and all that jazz! Hooyah for Home Theater! hahahaha
@@remzillavision The risk was too high including unknown variables like the WIND! Say an unexpected gust blew DEBRIS from the destroyed SAM sites right into the path of the hornets? FOD risk to the engines was unacceptable!
This is not impossible to do. I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-sixteen back home. They're not much bigger than two meters.
After flying through Beggar’s Canyon, too!
@@keirfarnum6811 May the Force be with you.
Dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
@@kenw5901 First time I watched Aliens in the theater, I almost cut off all circulation to my girlfriend's hand. The second time I watched it, it became a comedy. One of my all-time favorites.
Stay on target...
Fun fact: the bomb run is actually foreshadowed right at the start of the movie. As Maverick walks into Penny's bar for the first time, an aviator can be seen playing darts. He manages to get two consecutive bullseyes, then his friend covers his eyes and makes him try again.
It's also foreshadowed in the movie Star Wars where fighters fly into a valley and the hero has to hit a small target without using his targeting system.
@@Roddy556 Which was foreshadowed by WW2 aviation movies Dambusters and Sq 633. Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress also foreshadowed other A New Hope plot points.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Ditto
Someone is a keen observer of detail.
@@Roddy556 And that is a glaring plagiarism, unfortunately. They shoulda, coulda, written a scenario, like the Israeli raid on the bagdad reactor,
Dropped lots of MK84 with and without Laser Kit from the A-6 Intruder. The dive delivery was the standard and surprisingly in a 40 degree 500 knot dive with the early LGB kits the steering fins didn't go to neutral it was full deflection one way or the other so it would wiggle back and forth bleeding energy all the way to the target. It would hit the ground going slower than it was released at! Typical miss was short of the target as the weapon just ran out of energy. You had to get over 45 degree in the dive just to give it enough Q to maintain the speed all the way to the target. We would joke the last thing the guy on the ground heard was the audible clacking of the fins as they deflected back and forth flying to the target. Buddy lazing was something we did as well lots of different scenarios on how we did that. First Live MK-84 (non-lgb) I dropped was -4 on a division roll into a target on the big island of Hawaii. We all had 4 MK-84 on the planes so 32,000 pounds were delivered in about 30 seconds on the target. The Army Rangers who were working the range were impressed to say the least!
Tim, Vulture 4 Bravo here. Did you salvo all 4 Mk 84s at once? I did once during my first tour in Vietnam on a TPQ drop (Ground Radar directed) from 28,000 feet. I felt like the ejection seat went off! When we got back and told maintenance what we did they said we over-geed the airplane and had to do a special inspection. Turns out the A6A Tactics Manual said "Don't do that!"
I wish there was a new more accurate version of Flight Of The Intruder using real A-6's in the same fashion as Top Gun: Maverick. I remember in A school guys that were non-aircrew were hoping they didn't get assigned to an A-6 squadron after they told us that a single A-6 can hold 30 500lb bombs (with the gear doors removed). Plus the angle at which you'd have to hump those bombs looked like a real back breaker. Kudos to them.
@@jackshittle Aboard ship, pretty much every bomb was loaded individually using hernia bars (basically a short length of pipe screwed into the front fuse pocket) and lifted by the tail fins. For a change, the Marines (shore based) had it easier: a multiple ejector rack (MER) would be loaded with six Mk 82 (500 lb) bombs and the entire MER would be loaded on the wing station using Short Airfield Tactical Support (SATS) loader (basically a fork lift that was only about 3-4 ft high with a long reach). I was a Bombardier/Navigator (B/N) in Danang and Chu Lai, later in VMA (aw) - 224 aboard USS CORAL SEA so I saw both methods used extensively. My sincerest appreciation for the "Red Shirt" ordies that humped all those bombs! Semper Fi, Vulture 4 Bravo
When in Vietnam we had F-4 Phantoms do an airstrike near fire base Digger. We were really impressed when a bomb threw trees into the air and then dropped napalm next, they made 5 passes all with ordinance. The strike you did/saw would have been awesome to the max! Those F-4s meant business we lost most of our recon platoon, we were pissed and and wanted payback.
The A-6, another kickass product from the boys and girls over at Grumman Ironworks!
Civilian here. I saw the movie and thought it was entertaining as hell. No way did I ever think that run was realistic. So much respect to those of you who do this for real.
He’s kind of splitting hairs it wasn’t a very realistic mission it would have never gone down like this in a real scenario.
@@reboundrides8132 It's an unrealistic mission carried out realistically. Which is exactly what you want from a military movie.
@@skepticalbadger fair analysis 🧐
Realistic… try realism look up operation opera. In my opinion this movie was loosely based on that event
Yeah, there's elements of the mission prep that make you go, "Why?" I get it, they can't use F-35s for the strike itself, fine. We can go with it. But why the heck don't you have some of the backups on the boat running intercept in 35s? Or call up the Air Force, see if we can't spare a couple Raptors out of Incirlik? I'm sure there'd be no lack of volunteers to go up for a live op, with the possibility of facing off against hostile 5th Gens. Of course, we know that's to give the aged Tomcat its day in the sun once more.
This guy is one of your best guest. Would love to hear about his experiences in the F 15 EX. I'm very intrigued with that plane.
Thanks
Knowing that the bomb run was actually possible instead of being Hollyweird hyperbole makes seeing Mav's old 900 Ninja and that gorgeous P-51 flying even cooler!!!
Not to mention Jennifer Connelly being hotter than the Sun.
Thanks!
Thanks for the support, Joe!
2:20 I laughed out loud at the Centurion patch with the zero's crossed off and "significant emotional event". Great stuff guys! 😂👍
I have a Kitty Hawk 399 trap patch. Due to clerical error I thought I had 400. But missed by one….
@@timsparks7049 That's hilarious. Thanks for sharing! 👍
Only because of THIS video did I learn that Maverick was RE-released in IMAX. Already bought 2 tickets for the 12/11 show @ Neshaminy Mall (PA) AMC
He explained the tandem drop concept really well. I guess my issue with the movie is that the planes were so close together that you would not get the extra 5 to 10 seconds of laser time on the target before the second plane would have had to pull up as well.
Years ago, I worked for the contractor that developed the laser seekers for the Paveway III. As with any development program of this type, a test article is manufactured that gets frozen, baked, and placed on a shaker table, subjected to stresses beyond what the contract calls for. The test article never failed, and became an additional asset to the program. SO, that seeker was attached to a live bomb, and dropped at a test range targeting a truck being driven by remote control, using a laser designator carried by a soldier on the ground. There were some great photos taken with a high speed camera that showed the tip of the seeker just touching the drivers side window and the glass starting to craze. This all happened about 40 years ago, and I can only imagine the improvements that have been made since then.
Love the explanations and the technical background provided. Thank you Mooch and Pako .
Thank you to Pako for filling in the blanks when Rooster deadeye'd his bombs. It wasn't clear how it was on target without being pure luck. Great vid, Ward, love your channel and content. Thank you, sir.
Great video as always. It was nice to have something to watch while I was cooking my eggs and bacon. Always glad to know there's more realism in the film than I thought even after four viewings
Thank you, Mr. Carroll. We truly enjoy seeing Pako on your channel. As we learn more about the B-21 and the EX Eagle, we would love to hear his insights and opinions.
Merry Christmas Mooch. Love your vids. Please keep doing them. Have a fantastic 2023.
Thanks for watching, Rob!
Feeling better about seeing TM again. Thanks for the 411 and professional input on the authenticity of the action and storyline! Merry Christmas Mooch and Pako!!
Very good show with new info turns out they got it mostly right, good hop Tom. Thank you Mooch for hooking us up the someone new to give the straight story.😎✌
7:30 ~ some of that low altitude and very low altitude supersonic training takes place in Wales, U K. The F 15 E "Reapers" squadron took their last flight their recently, videos are available on here.
:)
Pako is a wealth of knowledge! 1,000 combat sorties!!! The Goat!
Loved the movie. However, the mission was the attack on the death star. After the targeting pod malfunctions, you can almost hear Obi Wan say use the force Rooster! Lol
The death star trench run was "inspired" by the Dambusters and Sq 633, aviator movies.
Thanks Pako another great interview
Hey Mooch, this is Moose - love your vids man. Im a retired RAF Tornado GR1/4 back seater - 100 combat missions. I thought Hollywood did pretty well with the attack - even mentioned the laser code. We used 1688 for training; 1732 was the operational code (well for us anyways). Maybe you Navy mates did different. As for Pako tooling along supersonic at 100' - I'd like to see that! We would fly high subsonic at 100' but with all the crap hanging off the jet, there was no way we could go faster unless we dumped it all. Also no way to stay that low unless over flat terrain. No doubt the SE had the grunt to do it - proper amount of thrust - but were all the stores and weapons able to? I'd be surprised.
I was an F-4 back-seater. 1688 is the same as the older, non-encoded pulse rate. So it was useful for guiding older weapons.
And yes - I don't think supersonic at 100` is possible. We did 600 kts at 300` and 540` at 100`. The F-4 has a very high wing-load, especially compared to newer fighters like the F-15.
The F-4 also had a bottom-wing, whereas the F-15 (and Tornado) have a top-wing. This would make the F-15 even less stable. I did some ACM in an F-15 and that thing shook like hell at low speed ;)
Moose Mate, I know we used 1776 for our LGB code does that number sound familiar?
Wow I hadn’t thought of that in awhile.
All good!
Sparky
@@nissimhadar 1974 operational F-14A Tomcat could do 805 knots at Sea Level(SL) or 1,314kts@38,000ft. Same vintage jet with the 6 AIM-54 loadout with External Fuel Tank(EFT) jettisoned could do 708kts(Mach1.08).@ SL or 1,090kts(Mach-1.9)@38,000ft. Empty weight for an operational July 1974 F-14A was 38,188 pounds and the 6 Phoenix/2 EFT had a Max TakeOff Weight(MTOW) of 68,649lbs. A pre-service 1985 F-14D had an empty weight of 41,343lbs and a 6 AIM-54/2 EFT MTOW of 73,329 lbs with the cat being able to support a max shot of 74,349 pounds, and max. arrested bringback of 54,000lbs. 4 Phoenix/2 Sparrow and 2 Sidewinder with a MTOW of 72,646lbs allowed a bringback of 54,875lbs with EFT jettisoned with JUST 2,703 pounds of fuel left on board. The bringback issue is why full 6 Phoenix loadouts were reserved for warloads only. Though I've heard rumours of 6 Phoenix/2 sidewinder loadouts being launched in the early/mid 80's.
A Strike Eagle with its Conformal Fuel Tank(CFT)(mounted beside each) and both its targeting AND navigation pods (mounted under each) engine intake really had to hurt performance esp. down on the deck.
1992 F-15C with an empty weight of 28,476lbs and max speed at SL approaching Mach 1.2 when clean weighing 34,396lbs. Same jet equipped with CFT's has an empty weight of 30,963lbs and can acheive right around Mach 1 at SL while weighing 44,190lbs. This shows us that the CFTs really dont help the F-15 speedwise esp down on the deck.
For comparison, a 1976 F-15A has an empty weight of 25,870lbs.
F-111B (SeaVark) with an empty weight of 46,000 pounds could do 793knots at SL with 2 Phoenix mounted internal weighing 63,220lbs launching at a MTOW of 72,421lbs
or
628 knots weighing 68,365lbs with 6 Phoenix(2 internal/4 external) and a MTOW of 77,566lbs. Those are some heavy max launch weights, very very hard on equipment, plus not much of a fighter.
@@hoghogwild Sea level does NOT mean close to the terrain…
@@nissimhadar Then I have to ask, what does Sea Level mean?
Wow, 100' AGL Supersonic must be a blast! Lowest I've flown as a civilian private pilot is 500 over the shoreline. Really nice to hear his take on one of my favorite scenes in this awesome movie!
Very interesting!! I LOVE that movie, wish I'd known it was in IMAX, would've definitely seen it on the huge screen! As is, I have the DVD & will be watching it from time to time on my TV. Thanks for the great interview!!
Saw the movie for the first time recently. What an amazing movie! Thanks for this video
I am glad Paco is on our side!🇺🇸
Great work Mooch - when in doubt, bring out the experts! Glad to see that the advisors for the movie got it mostly right. The accuracy for TGM far surpasses TG1 in this area. Cheers.
Thank you so much for Pako's sharing and insight. another great episode Mooch. Merry Christmas to you all
Merry Christmas!
I would love to hear an explanation of the "Hondo" character. He was running the test flights, then he was at "Top Gun" counting pushups, then he was on the Carrier deck How is that? He is a super soldier!!
He's the movie's stand-in for all enlisted sailors, because God forbid they feature us actually doing our jobs
l have watched this movie twice ans learned something both times.....Thanks Mooch.....
Old Shoe in my 80's 🇺🇸
"ONE HUNDRED FEET SUPERSONIC....I like the sound of that" I suspect no one on the ground would like the sound of that, GOOD GRIEF. Very interesting video thank you both for this.
Always learning on this channel.
Excellent! Thank you!
Great interview! Love the Banter between AF and Navy.
I actually was flown onto the USS Enterprise in the Navy COD and caught the wire and then we were catapulted off. I’m an Air Force guy and I’m telling you it was amazing to get that opportunity! Go Navy! 😊
I could listen to the two of you talk about Disney Ice capades and I would be engaged every second. I'm hoping for a f15 eagle episode with Paco the two of you work very well together and as always everything you put out ward I listen to every second and can't wait to see what you have every week
A F15 episode with Paco will be nice. Please, Mooch.
Okay!
Thanks, Mooch! This conversation is totally jawsome.
I've always wondered about how accurate it was in the movie to grab the stick with both hands and pull/push with the magnitude that they were pulling/pushing.
@@ascot4000 On certain aircraft - a very fast pull on the stick can stall the stabilator.
In fact - I have seen a stabilator snap on an F-4E doing this exact maneuver.
Probably makes sure that you got the paddle that turns out the 7.5g limiter, since they needed more than that to miss the inside of the mountain
A P51 required something like 50 pounds of stick force in a 4g turn. I'm sure an F18 has a lot of assist (or are the FBW? I don't know a lot about the 18) but I bet it still takes quite a lot of strength to pull a 9G climb.
@@GMdrivingMOPARguy yes, the FA18 is all FBW. The only limit for g is energy state and flight control limiting. Nothing to do with the strength of the pilot
@@nissimhadar a Hornet might snap a stabilator, but probably not a Super Hornet. They have the energy to break themselves, but the computer protected the plane
Great job explaining movie accuracy
Very interesting. Thank You!!!
When I saw this in Top Gun, and I haven't heard anyone comment on this yet, it seems eerily similar the attack on the Death Star 1 in Star Wars.
Yes, they stole the plots from Star Wars A New Hope and Firefox (Clint Eastwood Steals a MIG).
@@nycshelbygt500 Or the incident where a downed allied pilot stole an FW-190 from a German airfield and flew it to England
I have seen Top Gun Maverick while on my return flight from Montreal to Los Angeles. I really enjoyed the movie. Granted the screen on the back of the seat was not the greatest but while flying is hard to beat.
Mooch, you made the recommendation to see Top Gun Maverick on IMAX after watching this episode and I did. The sound was great the big screen did add to the experience. But I remembered the whole plot and I almost could resite the dialog. Yes I am really glad that I spent my money to see Top Gun Maverick again. Thanks for the recommendation @Ward Carroll.
Great view and insight guys! I only flew AH-64 ‘ s with similar symbology at much lower velocities 🇺🇸
Thanks for the detailed walk through of that part of the movie. I'm really surprised that the movie depicted things that accurately.
Thanks guys
Loved your books!
Kudos to Tom Cruise. It sounds like always he surrounds himself with the experts and makes it realistic. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Excellent content.
Nice work on this episode. Thanks to you both.
Thanks for insight👍
You both are a great team🙏🏻 excellent content!!!
The Punks War Trilogy was Excellent! Definitely Recommend
100 feet @ supersonic??? Oh my gosh! What a rush! I had no idea that was even possible… We have an amazing military!!!
Great explanation!!
Another great video. Pretty sure I’ve refueled PAKO out in the AOR in years past. Painful loss today for Navy 😬
Ward the SAMS in the movie were old-fashioned Vietnam War-era SAMS.
Damn. Another excellent vid with two awesome professionals. Keep it coming!
Really good background information. Love it.
I've watched probably every you tube video on maverick I was so hooked on that movie and made several calls to imax on it ever coming out again in the last few months. How did I not hear about the re-release 😢
Thank you for sharing
🙏🇺🇲🤗🎖️
Curious to know why the F-18 that was lasing the target would have GBU's but not drop them as well, especially when they knew they were going to be dodging SAMs exiting the target area.
This kind of attention to detail is one of the big reasons why Tom Cruise is one of the last true movie stars.
One point that bothers me in the movie, from personal experience, is the time between the two weapon drops.
The second crew will be lasing into the dust cloud of #1's explosions.
The correct way to do it is to (never mind....)
There were AT LEAST 3 things that bothered me about the final mission:
1) why didn’t they strike the anti-air missile sites while the a/c’s were inbound?
2) Where were the Growlers?
3) Where were the standby CAP vehicles that should have been airborne off the coast to provide protection to the outbound fighters from the mission?
I agree but remember it’s “Not a documentary.”
Answers, 1. They didn't think about it. 2. They didn't think about it. 3. They didn't think about it. Those items blew the movie for me.
Doesn't Hangman count as the off shore CAP?
@@piman2k he probably does, and since he turns up when needed he seems to fulfil that role but I don't think he launches until after the others are already back and goes out only after they see Mavericks jet on radar
Excellent breakdown of possibly the best movie ever made!
I think Highlander got the academy award for “best movie ever made”.
Thanks Ward and Pako for your more up to date views. Whilst its wildly romantic to think an F14 could be anything in a fight with a modern plane, seeing as though the F14 was always just a fast missile truck with over super long range hypersonic missiles that would have obliterated anything long before it had a chance to see the F14. Obviously things have changed but not changed. :D
WHAT! Re-release! Hell yeah my saturday is planned
I'm coming back for the discussion about GPS jamming and the F-35. My attempt at rationalizing it is that the lack of a back seater, which means it's too much to ask of the pilot to use the laser designator accurately while flying the extreme profile. High altitude long range toss delivery is out for three reasons, because of the required impact angle, because GPS jamming makes JDAM's inertial guidance inaccurate, and there's no line of sight for a laser spot from outside the valley. Interested to hear your thoughts.
Yeah I would really like to hear an explanation on the subject as well. What you’re saying seems to have merit, but then again I’m no subject matter expert.
@@unknownuser069 I agree with you about the real reason, I was just trying to come up with an in-world reason.
I still think it would be a challenge for an F-35 pilot to designate the target for his flight lead while flying the mission profile, vs a WSO.
G TMs is after my time, however, if it is inertially guided, GPS jamming would have no effect has inertial is internal to the weapon.
@glennburt8360 Pure inertial guidance is not accurate enough for many missions, they often require GPS aiding to correct the inertial drift.
I like how you switch between one and two talking heads. Tres slick
much respect!
very interesting, thanks
Still wondering how to lase a target from behind with a F/A-18 E/F Litening FLIR Pod Laser Designator. I think only the
F-117A (with two FLIR and Laser Turrets) and maybe the F-111 could do that.
I am guessing they used Buddy Lasing. The lead F-18E drops the Paveway III LGB. Then the two-seater F/A-18F trailing behind lases it on the target. But they seem to show both Super Hornet pulling up before the shack. So one Super Hornet would need to be maintaining the laser painted on the target from behind with the the Litening Pod.
That is how they explain the setup in the movie, yes. However the laser designator would actually have a pretty good arc of view behind the aircraft dependant on your angle of climb. While nowhere near comparable to the real thing, I've spent plenty of time self-designating using an A-10C in ARMA, and one of the biggest nuisances is gauging how close you are the to the limits of the targetting pod's traversal ranges when you're outbound.
Super Bug is equipped with ATFLIR not Litening.
This was an amazing segment. Also amazing movie.
I forget why they can't use the F-35. That would work amazing with a laser guided GBU regardless of GPS jamming, unless they were worried about loss of the airframe to the hostile nation.
Because of GPS jamming, apparently. Extremely skoshy.
Outstanding!
Here in Atlanta no theater would move the movie back into the imax screen they left black panther in there the entire time which was a waste of time especially that last week so sad like 4 or 5 people maybe watch in black panther when there was probably I don't 50 people that would love to see Top Gun on imax again. I actually watched it in the movie theaters 33 times. I have unlimited so watching it on Dolby Digital atmos at the AMC theaters a couple times a week just from being bored and enjoy watching it. Also a movie tavern is $5 on Tuesday I thought there about 9 times. I already had the DVD but the experience on the big screen is so worth it.
This all sound nice but, from a tactical point of view, why not use the Tomahawk to take down the SAM's near the top of that mountain to assist the daggers to run away after the attack? To make the daggers face a 5gen jet would make much more sense instead of SAM's.
Supersonic at 100' I would be interested in that explanation. I assume it was hand flying or TFR? Given that the Radar altimeter (in my day) could be out run before you get to supersonic speeds. The pitot static disturbances around the airplane render it unreliable that makes me say huh...... Mudhen with a combat load, could it do the number down low? What about stores carriage limits..... Good discussion. I'm signing up for your newsletter.
I'm not a pilot, I don't even play one on tv. This does bring back a memory. When I was a teenager my dad and I were driving in the Nevada desert towards Utah, out in the middle of nowhere. An f-15 (probably out of Nellis) was off in the distance doing who knows what, as we headed down the road, all alone. He shot parallel to the road, maybe a mile or two away, circled a peak off in the distance and then dove straight down the freeway buzzing over the top of us. I don't have any idea how high he was, but it shook the truck we were in with one thunderous boom. We were both impressed. Great time. One man airshow.
Just finding this video so I'm really late.
What about the attach profile would preclude from using a B-2 and a glide bomb that starts with GPS and switches to inertial guidance when GPS falls off?
Are gravity bombs that easy to see from a system like S300?
Could a flight of drones distract the search and track radar (S300 has tunnel vision, no?) while glide bombs come in from above?
Very interesting
Will WSO back seaters eventually become responsible for unmanned Wingmen ? or will this always be done from the ground ?
Awesome video...Thank You
Thanks for info
Question: during the attack mission when they inverted as they topped the mountain on the way INTO the valley to deliver the bombs, it was to keep them low, under the SAMs. Why didn't they do the same when egressing? Just go inverted at the top of "coffin corner" and avoid those SAMs.
It wouldn't have been as exciting and action packed for the viewers. That's my guess 😂
I think the reason they're inverted over the top of the mountain is to avoid negative g-forces and a red out.
The way it’s portrayed is that they are pulling max G’s all the way to the ridge top just to avoid hitting the rocks. That left no room to relax the pull, roll, and clip the ridge inverted without gaining any more altitude. There was probably a way to plan the escape maneuver to minimize exposure, but the way they did it maximized the excitement.
I’ve prob supported Pako. Was stationed at Seymour and currently support the fielding of the EX.
They should have taken care of the radars guiding the SAMs with a few HARMs. The batteries themselves were fixed position, cruise missiles could have handled them making it easier to do a run on the installation, drones or have Weasels to handle the SAMs. But it was a good scene with great filming visuals.
Just a question here. Why wouldn't the second planes also be prepared to fire a bomb as well if the front one's plane had issues?
Was Pako ever at Seymour Johnson AFB in Goldsboro NC?
What about the egress? Why fly lowlevel ingress then fly at medium altitude on egress? What’s the logic of that?
I'd have thought the lone "proof run" Maverick did would have resulted in the target being in the pod's dead zone "above" the aircraft.
This is a question for Ward. I've contacted you before. Thank you for your channel. I'm a former VF33 AT. 1 deployment on the Indy, supporting the F4J in AIMD shop 610, and 1 on the America supporting the F14A in the AIMD VAST shop, stationed at Oceana from 03/80 - 07/83. Regarding the 2 movies, I had a hard time accepting that the best pilots in the navy were as young as the actors in those movies. Did they do that just for Hollywood, or are they really as young as those actors seem to be?
My only complaint with the mission was when they said GPS jamming means they cant use an F-35, but the F-35 can drop laser guided bombs as well. It basically has a Sniper Pod built into the underside of the nose. Of coarse the real reason was the NAVY was not going to let Hollywood actors see inside an F-35 cockpit, and there are not any 2 seater F-35s
Isn't the Hornet more nimble than the F-35 for things like the canyon run? The jet's nickname "Fat Amy" doesn't bode well for twitchy maneuver missions. The Hornet is a dogfighter that also is a great ground attack platform made during an era (competing for the USAF contract against the F-16) when dogfighting (high maneuverability) was a prerequisite. Not so much for the design mission for the F-35.
@@swordmonkey6635 the lightning is more nimble than people give it credit for but the point is with its stealth it wouldn’t need to be down in the canyon
@@Knightfang1 F-35 pilots call it Fat Amy. The F-35 can maneuver, but not as well as the Hornet, Falcon and especially the Raptor. It's not designed to.
As for stealth. The closer a jet gets to a radar receiver, the less stealthy it gets. There's a point in time (and space) where modern radars will just burn through the low visibility features and track it. In the movie, those SAM radars are VERY close and would light the F-35 up. The F-35, not being as nimble, would have to fly higher and either get painted by SAM radar or the CAP Felon's radar.
I'm not trying to bash the F-35. I'm just saying the Super Hornet was the better jet for the job of threading the ravine in a timely fashion... and then having to evade SAMs afterward.
I would have just dropped a SEAL team in to laze the target from the ground, or used Triton UAVs to relay the GPS data, and used F-35s at altitude, but that would not have made a great a film.
Normally such movies would do a lot of explaining, glossing over various errors. It is very rare for a movie to get it absolutely right yet do no explaining of how and why. Makes you appreciate the movie even more.
Awesome to hear the breakdown. I just read the article in The Merge! If your not subscribed your missing out!
Hey Mooch. Cool interview. Pako seems like a interesting guy. I'd love to hear a lot more about his Mudhen experiences. Have you interviewed him on much or any of that side of things?
oh shit Pako flew the EX thats fucking incredible
Question Slightly OT: During the initial mission briefing, Maverick notes that the use of F-35s would be "negated" by GPS-jamming. Can someone please elaborate on that? In other words, why didn't they use F-35s and their stealthier capabilities in this scenario?
That was a BS excuse as Cruise couldn't have the actors being filmed actually flying as they did in the back of the super bug which he insisted on. F-35Cs have the ability to drop the same LGBs that were used on the mission. Also the only operational F-35C squadron at the time the movie was nearly finished was the RAG, VFA-125. VFA-147 didn't achieve IOC until February 2019 and VMFA-314 didn't achieve IOC until December 2020.
after watching the movie, my 1st thought was " it's impossible to fly the F/A18 when you've ripped the wings off.. ". Also, a 5th Gen SU-27 v Tomcat would last about 5 seconds..
Great pictures, you can really see that all the weapons are CGI "and many of the aircraft" as one of the artist stated on Movers channel. I'm glad I caught that interview before he had to pull it down! This in no way detracts from the movie myself ands if you still believe in Santa, I understand and will not fight back if you call me a liar...
Those guys conflated CGI and VFX. CGI is computer generated imagery. If a scene is not originally acquired from an actual camera but constructed in computer by software, that’s CGI. If the scene is captured through camera, then the footage is imported into computer for some post processing and manipulation (as made possible in the digital age), that’s just VFX. I think that filmmakers of Top Gun Maverick should genuinely be proud of what they have achieved. Especially the real flying footage, which are just incredible, because any computer generated flying scenes in other movies look like rubbish in comparison with what’s shown in TGM. If you can’t tell the difference, then you really have no reason to dislike or like what’s in TGM.
I'm still trying to understand why they didn't target any of the SAM sites with the Tomahawks and cruise missiles at the beginning of the attack?
Because the SAM sites were in CLOSE PROXIMITY to the target area and Tomahawk hits would create DEBRIS in the air that could:
A. Greatly reduce the aviators' visibility near the hard target further narrowing an already narrow window of success.
B. FOD engines almost guaranteeing mission failure and probably the deaths of the aviators too.
BTW I just got my Top Gun Maverick BluRay disc in the mail (ordered it online) and it's playing now, it looks AWESOME on my 75" Samsung! Sounds great too with the Dolby 5.1 and all that jazz! Hooyah for Home Theater! hahahaha
@@markirons3838 wouldn't we/they have considered all that and timed it . . . perfectly?
Because it's a movie not a documentary.
@@remzillavision The risk was too high including unknown variables like the WIND! Say an unexpected gust blew DEBRIS from the destroyed SAM sites right into the path of the hornets? FOD risk to the engines was unacceptable!