Why didn't maverick just fly in in a bomber instead?

Navy propaganda

>top gun 3 will not be made in your lifetime

>>63880299
Yvan eht nioj motherfucker.

>>63880286 (OP)
Out of your ass: What dedicated bombers does the Navy field right now?
Perhaps the B43 Shrike?
Or the B12 Gonzo?
Oh, wait: The A24 Anteater, isnt it?

Clearly what we need is a plane designed specifically to beat the obligatory tunnel run mission at the end of every Ace Combat game.

>>63880324
It’s literally being made right now, anon

>>63880286 (OP)
Because Cruise wanted to make a movie about cool jets doing cool shit so he contrived a way to do it.

>>63880515
>Perhaps the B43 Shrike?
>Or the B12 Gonzo?
>Oh, wait: The A24 Anteater, isnt it?

Are we wildcatting airplanes now? I'd like to include the A-1/18 Super Doug

>>63880716
PanAVia-8B Harry Tornado

>>63880286 (OP)
because they had to fly in the canyon

>>63880286 (OP)
What Ace Combat mission briefing screen is this

>>63880286 (OP)
>Why didn't maverick just fly in in a bomber instead?
Didn't want to get shot down? Better question is
>Why didn't maverick just fly in an F-35 instead?
And I thought the movie was set back in the late 2010s when the F-35 wasn't rated for that kind of mission yet?

>>63880286 (OP)
1: Navy paid for a good chunk of the movie
2: If the climax of the film was a group of C-130's flying at their maximum altitude (with a heavy escort of F-22's) and dropping a few hundred Rapid Dragon'd cruise missiles out the back from 2000km away it would have been pretty boring
3: Tom Cruises ego is at risk of collapsing under its own weight into a singularity, and he wanted to look as cool as he did back in the first film.

>>63881241
>1: Navy paid for a good chunk of the movie
Money well spent.
>3: Tom Cruises ego is at risk of collapsing under its own weight into a singularity, and he wanted to look as cool as he did back in the first film.
He succeeded. It as a good, old fashioned fun movie.
>2: If the climax of the film was a group of C-130's flying at their maximum altitude (with a heavy escort of F-22's) and dropping a few hundred Rapid Dragon'd cruise missiles out the back from 2000km away it would have been pretty boring
You could have made your point better without going full retard anon.

>>63881092
There’s a throw away line about GPS jamming causing the F-35s to be unusable, the only reason why they chose F-18s is because you could throw the actors into the backseat for the in flight shots.

>>63880286 (OP)
They wanted to Do A Star Wars.
The F-35 could've nailed this mission with a single aircraft but noooo they had to make up some absurd cope about 'gps jamming' as if the cunt's a remote controlled drone.

>>63883627
>Iran has resorted to building Kiev-class carriers

Grim

>>63883627

>>63883627
See? I told you faggots the houthis sunk a carrier!

>>63880515
There have been calls to make the B-1 the navy's dedicated bomber. But there has also been calls to put 20, 25, or 30mm cannons on it (similar to AC-130's but fast firing) on them to make them CAS aircraft....

Who would win?

>100 million dollar Locksneed Martin vvundervvaffen

OR

>One spicy fella redneck rigged for the cost of a single AR

>>63881092
After the jamming quote, it is implied that they need a two seater plane to visually aim the bombs, though Maverick manages to do it all by himself in a single seater in training.

>>63883957
The block on top is an extra battery, not explosives

>>63880628
But the contrivance wasn't viable. F-35s can self lase. So can the B-2. The mission needed something else to force the use of the f-18. It's not hard to think of something, like constant enemy AWACS, satellites watching the sight, or some ground based super duper thermal sensors.

>>63883957
Imagine if you replaced the RPG with a fleshlight and made the drone use AI to home in on dicks.