Get Task & Purpose in your inbox
The original 'Top Gun' was a recruiter’s dream. The sequel will be anything but
Editor's Note: The following is an op-ed. The opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Task & Purpose.
The new trailer for Top Gun: Maverick was everything an aviator or wannabe aviator could hope for. I'm a sucker for a good military action movie as much as the next guy, so of course I'll go see it. Even a longtime helicopter and tiltrotor pilot like me can appreciate that a Low Altitude Tactics (LAT) flight at 500 knots is pretty badass — and yes, even acknowledge that an F/A-18E Rhino might be almost as sexy as a V-22.
In 1986, Top Gun (or TOPGUN for purists) changed civilians' whole perception of the military in general, and the Navy and naval aviation in particular. Applications for Annapolis skyrocketed. So did enlistments, along with buyer's remorse when thousands of sailors realized the only need for speed they'd feel would be manning their brooms a little quicker during "sweepers."
Top Gun: Maverick will probably be a very entertaining movie. While the Navy definitely would have shit-canned Mav years ago, Xenu has come through for him big time. Tom Cruise will be at his Cruisiest. But while popcorn sales will be through the roof in 2020, recruitment numbers won't skyrocket like they did in 1986. In fact, I'd bet they won't even budge.
The impact that Top Gun had on enlistment was unusual for one simple reason: there hadn't been a big conflict since the end of the Vietnam War 13 years earlier. Despite all of the supposed belligerency of the Reagan era, the biggest fight of the era was 72 hours in Grenada, immortalized in the Clint Eastwood classic Heartbreak Ridge. As much as Top Gun s air-to-air engagements made fighter jocks seem like knights of the sky, the real action in the next major conflict, the 1991 Gulf War, involved mostly dropping bombs. Dogfighting is so rare today that a state-of-the-art F/A-18E splashing a museum-worthy SU-22 Fitter rates a Distinguished Flying Cross.
Against the backdrop of almost no actual fighting in the real world, the bloodless yet glamorous engagements of Top Gun were seductive, and signing up to work in naval aviation was a glamorous gateway to the amateur shirtless volleyball circuit. But n 1986, there weren't multiple conflicts occurring simultaneously around the world, and while I don't know the plot of Top Gun: Maverick yet, but I venture to say that the climax will not be a mission representative of 99.9% of modern American air warfare, where the danger of just landing the aircraft is greater than the danger posed by the enemy.
This isn't an exaggeration. Today, the real nature of air warfare is readily apparent to anyone who cares. It's making the doughnuts, except occasionally someone dies; it means going to sea for eight months and maybe getting to drop some ordnance if you're lucky. Is Top Gun: Maverick going to feature a $70 million fighter dropping JDAMS on tribal gatherings in Yemen? Is Mav going to spend 3 hours performing duties as pretty much a manned UAV, recording the "pattern of life" of Afghan villagers with a targeting pod?
Movies and pop culture shape society, and even the military, more than many admit. In the absence of real conflict, Top Gun shaped its own narrative. It defined conflict on Hollywood's terms. But after nearly two decades of conflict, even the dullest moviegoer knows that flying F/A-18s is more deliveryman than steely-eyed killer. High explosive deliveries to huts in the middle of nowhere may be tactically essential, but they aren't the stuff of summer blockbusters.
During a time of peace, a movie glamorizing war drove recruitment through the roof. Unfortunately, in a time of war, movies glamorizing war don't work as well. You can count the number of true war movies this year with one hand. All the big ones, Aftermath, The Last Full Measure, etc. are about wars from generations past.
Today's wars don't offer the simplicity and clear heroes and villains the medium requires. They've gone for 18 years, so it's clear that no ending suitable for a movie climax is anywhere in sight. In today's wars, the heroes aren't pretty boys with spiked hair, but hard men with ridiculous beards.
Carl Forsling is a senior columnist for Task & Purpose. He is a Marine MV-22B pilot and former CH-46E pilot who retired from the military after 20 years of service. He is the father of two children and a graduate of Boston University and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter @CarlForsling
Five people have been indicted in federal court in the Western District of Texas on charges of participating in a scheme to steal millions of dollars from benefits reserved for military members, U.S. Department of Justice officials said Wednesday.
As the military services each roll out new policies regarding hemp-derived products like cannabidiol, or CBD, the Defense Department is not mincing words.
"It's completely forbidden for use by any service member in any of the services at this point of time," said Patricia Deuster, director of the Human Performance Laboratory at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland.
The warning, along with the policies issued recently by the Air Force, Coast Guard and Department of the Navy, comes as CBD is becoming increasingly ubiquitous across the country in many forms, from coffee additives and vaping liquids to tinctures, candies and other foods, carrying promises of health benefits ranging from pain and anxiety relief to sleeping aids and inflammation reduction.
The Navy has fired five senior leaders so far in August – and the month isn't even over.
While the sea service is famous for instilling in officers that they are responsible for any wrongdoing by their sailors – whether they are aware of the infractions or not – the recent rash of firings is a lot, even for the Navy.
A Navy spokesman said there is no connection between any of the five officers relieved of command, adding that each relief is looked at separately.
'We are a people organization' — Army leaders push renewed focus on soldiers amid rise in sexual assaults and suicides
After months of focusing on modernization priorities, Army leadership plans to tackle persisting personnel issues in the coming years.
Acting Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy said Tuesday at an event with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies that what people can to hear service leadership "talk a lot about ... our people. Investing in our people, so that they can reach their potential. ... We are a people organization."
Two U.S. military service members were killed in Afghanistan on Wednesday, the Resolute Support mission announced in a press release.
Their identities are being withheld pending notification of next of kin, the command added.
A total of 16 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan so far in 2019. Fourteen of those service members have died in combat including two service members killed in an apparent insider attack on July 29.
Two U.S. troops in Afghanistan have been killed in non-combat incidents and a sailor from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln was declared dead after falling overboard while the ship was supporting operations in Afghanistan.
At least two defense contractors have also been killed in Afghanistan. One was a Navy veteran and the other had served in the Army.