I stopped watching after 10 minutes. Why? This film has a stillborn premise.
Yes, I know. The audience is supposed to suspend their reality senses and accept the film's premise. After which, entertainment is possible. In a picture like this, if you can suspend your normal belief patterns during the initial premise, then you might enjoy this film. Alas, with THIS film, it is a matter of simple intelligence, and that's where MOST people SHOULD say, 'hey this is not possible under ANY circumstances'. Water does not flow against gravity. Fire WILL burn if you touch. If you kick the ball it will be kicked. See? Things like that.
In this film during the first 5 minutes you will be ask to accept that the U.S. Air Force would conduct what is known as a hostile RF environment test in an F-17 over Utah, AND carry two LIFE NUCLEAR warheads, similar to the Trident and Polaris missiles (i.e. approx 9.8 Mtons/missile).
It does not take a pro to realise that the story's test is for testing the airplane's ability to NOT be detected by enemy radar, Doppler, Infra-red heat tracing, etc.
There is NO airplane, submarine, carrier or destroyer tests that the combined American military would ever need to conduct with LIVE NUCLEAR warheads. (This goes for Britain, France, Russia, and China, as well) Trust me, it is impossible because it serves no purpose and is dangerous. This is a faulty premise that a ten year old would question.
Professional writers are usually better than this.
Tom Clancy does FAR better job with a story's premise,...until about half way through the flicker (or book), when his idiotic politics take over.
For realism and trade-craft, try John Lecarré. Mr. Lecarré actually worked for the Hone Office, SS Group, (i.e., "MI-6"). Cheers.