MovieChat Forums > Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Discussion > Don't drones/missiles already exist that...

Don't drones/missiles already exist that could have...

posted 2 years ago by ace2 (543)
12 replies | jump to latest

Don't drones already exist that could have accomplished that mission? No human limitations due to G-force, and they wouldn't even need to come back, just fly right into the target if necessary.

Or even missiles that could be remotely targeted with the same level of precision.

I thought the plot was excellent, and is the only movie I've seen in a LONG while with no plot holes and where the characters behaved rationally. So I'm sure someone knows the explanation.

[–] Slim (108) 2 years ago

I dunno , I thought just bomb the shit out of it with a load of B2 spirits maybe take out all the AA first as well with I dunno some more of those Tomahawks or drones or something just to even out the odds. I guess they watched star wars and thought that plan was the best.

[–] TearofLys (2398) 2 years ago

IRL, cruise missiles and drones could have been used to hit the SAM batteries and decimate the enemy airfield, making the canyon run largely unnecessary, and the U.S. could have sent in a lot more jets, including F-22s, which could have handled the the SU-57s no problem, but that would have made for a boring anticlimactic ending. To enjoy movies, a little suspension of disbelief is required.

[–] ace2 (543) 2 years ago

I got the sense things had to be somewhat lowkey... going into another sovereign country without permission is against international law. So if this is in line with the first movie, its one of those things they do and deny. If they go in with too much firepower its harder to deny and there is more proof in surveillance.

[–] fc31 (4563) 2 years ago

What is more high key than losing aircraft, photos of F-18 wreckage would be unmistakable. Also the risk of pilots getting captured, it is sheer luck that did not happen.

And they knew those risks from the beginning, so I don't think put in few more stealth aircraft as escorts would be regarded as high key.

[–] sonans (1213) 2 years ago

Why even bother to use "cruise missiles and drones could have been used to hit the SAM batteries and decimate the enemy airfield"?

Why not just fly F-35 or B2 at night?

[–] millsey72 (9566) 2 years ago

Are you sure there were no plot holes in this movie?

[–] ace2 (543) 2 years ago

Nothing is perfect, but compared to something like Jurassic World, this was a documentary.

[–] aavfreak (2862) 2 years ago

Absolutely sure. This is only the second movie in the history film to have been made perfect, with zero plot holes.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I don't think much of this movie was very faithful to actual military flying.

[–] strntz (10817) 2 years ago

Off topic a bit and purely my opinion, but I strongly suspect the F35 might be the last manned fighter the U.S. designs. There will be upgrades of course, but I think the next generation of fighters will be manned remotely. Removing the support systems a physical pilot needs plus the limitations of the human body will make for a smaller more maneuverable platform.

[–] aavfreak (2862) 2 years ago

Wasn't that the whole point of the drama between Maverick and Admiral Cain? Cain wanted to shut down the Mach 10 project because he believed drones would replace pilots?

The overall feeling of their meeting was that eventually drones would replace pilots, but they weren't ready yet, setting up Maverick for his one last heroic mission.

The entire opening of the movie and Mach 10 project narrative seems to have been built for the sole purpose of providing this explanation.

[–] ace2 (543) 2 years ago

Right, but my point is doesn't this tech already exist... so why are they trying to make it seem like it was in development.

Then again maybe this was set in the recent past rather than present day. Although the use of texting tells me this had to be set post ~2010.