How would the end mission from Top Gun 2 really be executed?

Use the code "Binkov" to redeem some exclusive rewards! The bonus ends July 6th 2022

This video takes the lack of realism out of Top Gun's end mission and shows how would the US military really go about performing such a task. Would it really be just 4 Super Hornets? How many other options does the US military have? Watch to find out!

If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.

[Binkov]

Use the code "Binkov" to redeem some exclusive rewards! The bonus ends July 6th 2022

[billdude]

That why they call him TOMahawk CRUISEmissle

[Nealikus]

You can’t film The Cruise in a one seater, since the US military refused to let him fly one of their in use a/c. That’s the reason they use the super hornet.

[MilkyWay-fdfz]

To be completely honest Binkov, pretty sure they used the F/A-18 because the pilot can control the plane with the actors in it.

[christaylor]

Your analysis is always fun BUT it’s Maverick, Maverick could down the entire PLA with only flares 😂

[spartenkiller]

You know it's funny, George Lucas paid homage to "The Dam Buster's" with the death star attack. They literally flew heavy bomber's through a narrow canyon and skip bomb's off the water to avoid torpedo nets.

That's about as close to a "trench run" as you're likely to see in real life. In fact almost all the dogfight scene's from a new hope pay homage to WW2 movies. Now that Top Gun is paying homage to Star wars. We've come full circle boys.

[RayearthIX]

The mission in the movie is literally a mission from an Ace Combat video game (multiple really, as nearly every one has a “fly low through a canyon to avoid radar” mission), and I absolutely loved it. There were dozens of “realism” issues, but who cares? Movie was a blast.

[carlhenry]

The director actually said they couldn't use F-35's because they're only one seater planes. Since the actors weren't allowed to fly the planes they could only use the F-18's which come with double seating so that trained naval pilots could do the flying for them. It took them almost 15 months to figure out how to mount camera's in the F-18 as well.

[Duncan]

The main obvious reason they didn't use F35s is because they wouldn't have been able to get the real flight footage of the actors as the F35s are single-seaters. For me that the most amazing thing about this film, it's not CGI or a background (like the original), real fighter pilots were flying the planes as the actors played their parts.

[Jerecus]

The actual issue is that, both B2 and F35s are incredibly expensive, and the navy and AF wouldn't want to use up those flight hours for a fictional movie. Also the fact that they needed a Fighter with two seats to film the real life shots in the movie (The F35 is a one seater) the super hornet was perfect to use not only as a filming device but also to get that same feeling as the first top gun got using the F-14. So I understand the unrealistic parts of the movie were made for legit reasons instead of just being lazy.

[Airdrifting]

"Sir, if we can cover entire enemy runway with Tomahawk missiles, why can't we just take out the stationary AAs with the same Tomahawk missiles?"
"Nah, we need those AAs alive so they can shoot at the F-18s later to make the movie more dramatic."

[ThePippin]

The real reason F35's weren't used is that they are single seaters. Short of all the actors becoming legitimate air force pilots, they wouldn't be able to get any in-cockpit shots in the same way they did in the F18's.
I can get behind that decision. Those shots really did make the film great.

[mikycarney]

Haven't watched the video yet but I'm going to go ahead and assume B1 lancer dropping a bunker buster

[glenn_r_frank_author]

The film used Super Hornets really only because F-35 does not have a second seat where the actors could be filmed in cockpit ( and the cost to the movie production if they could have) ... so they invented the thing that the F-35s could not be used because of GPS issues... just as a funny way to get around using the Hornets. it was a fun film and great action... better film than the original Top Gun IMHO but... yeah, militarily probably not the way it would be done.

[TrusePkay]

"At least it showed SU-57s detectible by radar. That's plausible" 🤣😂 - Binkov

[bfish]

I think the reason was "the f35 doesn't have a 2 seat version, so we couldn't film our pilots, and a B2 wouldn't let us do an homage to star wars."

[captainarcher]

They made the mission way more complicated than it needed to be, which is probably the most realistic part of the movie.

[ramonpunsalang]

A B-2 with a MOP would make for a very dull movie, I suppose,

[robryan]

When the Israelis took out Osirak in Iraq in the 90s, they used something like 16 F16 fighters

Only needed like 4 bombs to destroy the place, but they’d sent 32, just in case

[daleburnfart]

This mission was planned specifically for Maverick. If the US military had someone with Maverick's skill they would do it exactly how they did it in the movie because 40 pound balls.