Why didn't they just send F-35s to bomb Iran in Top Gun Maverick?
>>64324064In-film: Something something GPS jamming. Which doesn't make sense for obvious reasons. Behind-the-scenes: The production needed a two-seater, and one that the USN would let them fuck around with.
USA propaganda. Not interesting stop bumping your gay thread.
It's because there isn't a twin seater version of the F-35, thus the entire plotine between Maverick and Goose's son wouldn't have been possible, so they chose the F-18 instead.
>>64324064>>64324084do chinkspammers really
>>64324064When Chinkywood "Top Gun" movie gonna drop?
>>64324064Mav is a tailhook only kinda squid.I knew one that was taken off flight status so he then transferred to the AF rather than be cargo on a boat.
>>64324086alternative argument could be it was a suicide mission so they didn't want to give their best tech to the enemy people
>>64324064Because the movie would be real fucking boring.
>>64324279If they had deployed F-35's, both Rooster's and Maverick's F-35 would have to be shot down somehow by "not Iran's" IADS, so the last part of the movie (flying the F-14 together) could happen. And that wouldn't have made sense at all.
>>64324064top gun mavericks was filmed in 2018/19.usn didn't have any f-35s at that point.>Carl Vinson left San Diego for her next deployment on 3 August 2021, with CVW-2 embarked. One of the squadrons assigned to CVW-2 was Strike Fighter Squadron 147 (VFA-147). This was the first operational deployment of a U.S. Navy squadron equipped with the F-35C Lightning II.[71]
>>64324064Because the navy has almost no F35?
Because F35 is big fucking ghey
>>64324064same reason why they didn't just have a B2 drop a guided bomb on the target: doesn't make for a good movie.
Idk but the f18's in the movie suppodely went to 9 G's when climbing up after dropping the bombs and f35 can only take 7.Also the script was pretty old and having an f35 crash would be a way bigger disaster than having a F18 crash so they wouldn't have had the f14 scenes if they were sane.
>>64324645This is the correct answer.At the time there were no operational F-35C carrier squadrons.Even today there are only a handful and most carriers arent' capable of deplopying the F-35C at the moment, including the newest CVN-78.
>>64324822But the USAF *did*, and that would normally mean it's their job.Besides, we all know now that the correct answer is as many B-2s with MOPs as it takes to "drill" down that far.
>>64324832Yes, the actual way the movie would go is the airforce would use F-22s and F-35s and would use tankers to get them there and get them out.Maybe throw in a high altitude B-2 with a MOP or two for the actual high priority underground manufacturing facility.
>>64324086it's mainly this>>64324810but also it's hard to tell a compelling story about plucky upstars if they have an overwhelming advantage
IRL, Trump just sent a couple of B-2's and was done with it.
>>64324816>Idk but the f18's in the movie suppodely went to 9 G's when climbing up after dropping the bombs and f35 can only take 7Super Hornets are limited to 7.5 G
Some contrived shit that GPS bombs couldn't be used so had to use laser-guided ones, but to deliver the laser-guided bombs they had to pull some fuck-ass high-G manoeuvres that were too difficult for a pilot (other than Tom Cruise) to simultaneously fly and slew the pod on to the target to lase it, so had to be flown by twin-seaters, and there are no twin-seat F-35s
>>64324864In the movie they just said the ventilation shaft was at an angle to handwave away a high altitude drop. The bombs had to come in at a dive slope to reach the insides.
What’s a couple of stunt fighters gonna do against that?!?!
>>64324908they could have just handwaved saying the cloud-base in that terrain was too low to be able to lase the target from altitude. So had to be done below the clouds, which would mean they'd be directly over the target when in the release envelopeHalf the reason JDAMs even exist is because of NATO experience in the Balkan wars where conditions were too cloudy to drop laser-guided bombs among the valleys
>>64324900Which is also dumb, because if, for whatever reason, they HAD to use laser guided bombs, it’d be far more reliable to have some sneeki-breeki John Clark type infiltrate with a designator.Or, you know, plap the SAM sites with cruise missiles.
The script demanded It
>>64324157Somebody post it
>>64324077FBFP, and also a film where the big finale is a pair of F-35's flying calmly to the target while invisible to radar and bombing it before the enemy even knows that they're there would have been boring as fuck.
>>64324064Its not gay enough for a Top Gun movie.
>>64324084Doesn’t work the other way around, this is an american film on an american board.What’s not welcome is actual literal paid chinkshills targeting this board with implessive threads every two seconds.
>>64324880They are, but there is a override on the flight stick that is even shown used in the movie.And the point of it being a overstress on the airframe is brought up when the CO talks to Maverick after the "unplaned" demonstration flight, bringing up that the aircraft "May never be airworthy again".A lot of the movie is complete bullshit, but this part at least has some grounding in reality.
>>64324086If they chose F-35s, both Rooster's and Maverick's F-35's would have to be shot down for the last act to happen...
>>64324084Bitch-nigger
>>64327395For some reason I thought only Legacy Hornets had the override and forgot that part of the movie.>maintenance crews HATE this one simple trick!
>>64324064No 2 seater version and cruise insisted upon being in a real jet
>>64324832>>64324064it is a little bit funny that the exact operation shown in Top Gun: Maverick happened irl
>>64327395COBRALALALALALALALALALALALALALA maneuver.
>>64325225>Or, you know, plap the SAM sites with cruise missiles.That part annoyed the hell out of me. An operation that big, that important, that time sensitive, and they really had nothing to do SEAD with? Not even a growler or two providing ECM? Every single cruise missile went to fucking up the nearby air base but they still had a perfectly good strip and hangars with fully functioning jets unscrambled?Why not use the cruise missiles on SAMs, divert half the strike package to the airbase to fuck it up and nail the target at leisure, with plenty of time for the meme pakfas to show up yet?
>>64329564So the SAMs thing is easily enough justified as not wanting to telegraph the actual target any earlier than they have to, maybe same for SEAD.Growler is a fair one, best excuse I could think of is the risk of one being shot down in not-Iran and having any of its tech recovered being unacceptable.Rest, yeah, fair criticisms.
>>64330635> not wanting to telegraph the actual target any earlier than they have to“Hmm, hey Abdul. We’re on an island in the middle of nowhere, where we just built a hidden nuclear facility. Our airfield just blew up, do you think the Americans are attacking our top secret nuclear facility?”“No, of course not. If it was the Americans, they’d blow up the radars too. It’s merely a smoking accident”Are you retarded?
>>64330692Anon at some point the real answer is asking if you want your Ace Combat movie or not.
>>64329564tlams would just get shot down by double digits sams but tlams could reach the air base due to some gbad gap.usn doesn't have any jassms.
>>64329564It really just should've been 7 B-2s with Maveric and his pilots pulling security for them in a massive furball
>>64326956They could've at least had the F-35s flying top cover to keep the fighters off them.
>>64324064They used B2s to do it in real life, and the way it played out wouldn't have made much of a movie.
>>64324064Because only the X-wing was manoeuvrable enough to get through the canyon to hit the bunker exhaust ports, and Maverick and Porkins' son needed the dramatic final battle scene.
>>64324086>It's because there isn't a twin seater version of the F-35Why not? Serious question.Even if it's a redundancy for use in combat, you'd think it would still be useful for training purposes to get new pilots accustomed to flying in the F-35 while an experienced one is still at the controls.
>>64336221sims are good enough apparently according to everyone involved. Personally i think WSOs are important now more then ever with drone bullshit
>>64324157Watched their equivalent, can't remember the name cause a little too tipsy, but the most hilarious things where them trying to court marshal a dude for a bird strike and randomly conscripting the cute Chinese girl that all Chinese military movies have to try and boost enlistment. They brought her in at the trial to say 'yes, birds exist' to roaring applause from the other pilots as she clears his name, and then the PLAF just straight-up pull her out of college so she can fucking scare birds off the runway like an E-1 with a shotgun lmao.
>>64336389Oh shit, I forgot, the do the one scene where the girl's riding down the side of the runway on her motorcycle like Maverick while shit's taking off, but then a BRAVE and DUTIFUL chink airman with too much fucking time on his hands stops her and goes 'NO, YOU CANNOT DO THAT.' Also, the one scene where one of the pilots rails against George Bush's flying skills like thirty years after the fact at a press conference.
>>64326956They didn't need to fly the mission at all. The cruise missiles they fired at the air field could do the mission in terrain navigation mode.
>>64324086but they were in an f-14 not f-18you make no sense
>>64336367>Personally i think WSOs are important now more then ever with drone bullshitNTA but I strongly agree.It's too much to ask for a pilot to also be an EWar tech and Drone Commander as well.This is probably usually done by the AWACS but if there isn't one up for whatever reason, the F-35 with a dedicated WSO who is essentially an EW/drones specialist, with flight training as an afterthought.
>>64324494>that wouldn't have made sense at allthe movie didn't make sense anyway, very few movies do
