Top Gun 2
Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but on 2nd viewing of the film (the wife loves it!) I noticed that the carrier "ground" crew all wear the usual coloured vests, but with squadron markings (VFA-125 etc.). Does each squadron take a team to support the Carrier Wing, if so, how are they organised - one squadron do launches, another fuelling, etc., or does each squadron provide a proportion of each role?
Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but on 2nd viewing of the film (the wife loves it!) I noticed that the carrier "ground" crew all wear the usual coloured vests, but with squadron markings (VFA-125 etc.). Does each squadron take a team to support the Carrier Wing, if so, how are they organised - one squadron do launches, another fuelling, etc., or does each squadron provide a proportion of each role?
Better than the first one.
The following users liked this post:
That does seem to mean there's a lot of duplication and additional people onboard, but I'm not surprised!
Worth looking at the Service Inquiry report into the loss of F35 ZM152 where two squadrons were embarked, one adequately resourced with personnel (USMC) the other not (617 Sqn). There is a description of what the squadron engineers have to do, especially "see-off teams"
https://assets.publishing.service.go...52__BK-18_.pdf
1.4.152. It was not until the commencement of Op FORTIS that it was discovered just how much carrier operations increased demands on see-off teams. Aircraft were required to be moved around the deck more frequently than was the case on an airfield, placing an additional workforce demand on the Sqn. Also, see-offs required additional tasks such as last-minute refuelling and management of chains,' which required more engineers. The combined effect of these was that a larger engineering workforce was needed when embarked compared to land-based operations. This resulted in personnel being drawn from maintenance work in the hangar. During Op FORTIS twelve 617 Sqn personnel were repatriated to the UK for personal or medical reasons but were not replaced. The panel determined that carrier operations required even more engineers than the DMSpA figure suggested. The limited workforce available to 617 Sqn worked at a commensurately higher, more fatiguing rate and were therefore potentially more prone to errors. The panel concluded that insufficient workforce availability was a contributory factor.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...52__BK-18_.pdf
1.4.152. It was not until the commencement of Op FORTIS that it was discovered just how much carrier operations increased demands on see-off teams. Aircraft were required to be moved around the deck more frequently than was the case on an airfield, placing an additional workforce demand on the Sqn. Also, see-offs required additional tasks such as last-minute refuelling and management of chains,' which required more engineers. The combined effect of these was that a larger engineering workforce was needed when embarked compared to land-based operations. This resulted in personnel being drawn from maintenance work in the hangar. During Op FORTIS twelve 617 Sqn personnel were repatriated to the UK for personal or medical reasons but were not replaced. The panel determined that carrier operations required even more engineers than the DMSpA figure suggested. The limited workforce available to 617 Sqn worked at a commensurately higher, more fatiguing rate and were therefore potentially more prone to errors. The panel concluded that insufficient workforce availability was a contributory factor.
The following 3 users liked this post by topgas:
None, unfortunately. I do have a bit of an interest following working on the T-45.
My question was that each squadron (12 a/c?) would bring a crew for launch and recovery, so another crew would see off the next squadron. From the response it seems each squadron brings their own. Would it be more efficient for one crew to see off the full launch of that type e.g. 3 x 12 F-18s,approximately? But I do understand that the deck is a really hazardous place so safety precautions regarding manning and roles need to be closely followed.
My question was that each squadron (12 a/c?) would bring a crew for launch and recovery, so another crew would see off the next squadron. From the response it seems each squadron brings their own. Would it be more efficient for one crew to see off the full launch of that type e.g. 3 x 12 F-18s,approximately? But I do understand that the deck is a really hazardous place so safety precautions regarding manning and roles need to be closely followed.
They didn't say there was no CGI in Top Gun 2. What they said was that there was no CGI used for any of the Super Hornets' flying (although there was some juxtaposition of shots for the shot of one flying under the tail of another one); everything you saw them do they really did and unlike the first one, the actors really were in the Super Bugs for teh close-ups (except for the shot of TC being in an E by himself, the acknowledged they digitally inserted his face), they were in the rear seats of Fs (you can see the cheater bars) . Now there was no way to get an SU-57 in there without CGI, and the Iranians wee rnot going to let them borrow an F-14, so those were CGI (and it was excellent). One thing, if you've ever watched an F-14 launch, wit the wings straight out it's angle of climb would have allowed it to avoid getting its gear knocked off.
"the Iranians wee rnot going to let them borrow an F-14,"
i wonder if they asked?
i wonder if they asked?
I was somewhat disappointed. The storyline was air to ground attack not air to air combat. Isn´t 'Top Gun' all about air to air combat?
Well and then the diversity. All backgrounds present. Politically too correct. Ok, I reckon, it has to be like that these days and I am just an old white man.
But seriously if your life depended on it who would you rather fly with? Wouldn´t it be Iceman?
Well and then the diversity. All backgrounds present. Politically too correct. Ok, I reckon, it has to be like that these days and I am just an old white man.
But seriously if your life depended on it who would you rather fly with? Wouldn´t it be Iceman?
I was somewhat disappointed. The storyline was air to ground attack not air to air combat. Isn´t 'Top Gun' all about air to air combat?
Well and then the diversity. All backgrounds present. Politically too correct. Ok, I reckon, it has to be like that these days and I am just an old white man.
But seriously if your life depended on it who would you rather fly with? Wouldn´t it be Iceman?
Well and then the diversity. All backgrounds present. Politically too correct. Ok, I reckon, it has to be like that these days and I am just an old white man.
But seriously if your life depended on it who would you rather fly with? Wouldn´t it be Iceman?
They didn't say there was no CGI in Top Gun 2. What they said was that there was no CGI used for any of the Super Hornets' flying (although there was some juxtaposition of shots for the shot of one flying under the tail of another one); everything you saw them do they really did and unlike the first one, the actors really were in the Super Bugs for teh close-ups (except for the shot of TC being in an E by himself, the acknowledged they digitally inserted his face), they were in the rear seats of Fs (you can see the cheater bars) . Now there was no way to get an SU-57 in there without CGI, and the Iranians wee rnot going to let them borrow an F-14, so those were CGI (and it was excellent). One thing, if you've ever watched an F-14 launch, wit the wings straight out it's angle of climb would have allowed it to avoid getting its gear knocked off.
Overall though, I'd agree that the CGI of the Tomcats and Su-57s was outstanding, to the extent that had I not known there was no way they could have used real aircraft, I would have believed them to be real aircraft!
I don't think anyone cared TBH
The following users liked this post:
In TG1 the other characters had important and memorable parts to play. I thought in TG2 they seemed like two-dimensional extras who I didn’t care about and now can’t remember.
I watched an after-action interview with a few actual former Top Gun instructors who had been guests at a screening of TG2. They thought it was great fun, stressing it was not a documentary. They skipped critiquing the trivia, so I find myself able to the same. It's a fillum!
CG
CG
