Originally Posted by
GunshipGuy
My response was to Cooperd's that a fighter is the preferred choice for the guys on the ground when they're doing serious work. He clarified that he was speaking first to UAV's--that SOF are going to want something besides a UAV at their disposal when it comes to providing CAS. I still stand by my assertion that the serious guys we've worked with are going to want gunships first and foremost. Getting what they want, well now that's a different matter. The threat may not allow for a gunship until it's been cleared. I'll also add that if they want a big boom they're going to ask for someone else. But if they want CAS (which is how, perhaps with bias, I read his post) the platform of choice is the gunship. I hasten to add that perhaps I owe an apology here for pointing out something that is pretty much a given (e.g. MOTO).
We're probably talking about two different things here. For DA type missions where it's basically a kick in the door type thing (like we're doing now) or armed recce type thing (also now), then yes, I agree that AC-130s are the preferred platform. If it's more of a setting conditions type thing, or higher threat level, or conventional assets conducting larger scale maneuvers, then the Gunship may not be the choice asset. Cooper said the guys in cammo may prefer fighters when doing serious work. You said only when HDLD (what you meant was gunpigs) weren't available. I guess it depends on which guys in cammo and what work they're doing. I'm definitely not throwing spears at the gunship community - I have lots of friends there who've done great work. I'm just trying to point out parochialism when I think I see it, which I think is the bane of joint ops. We're all just cogs in the US military machine, sometimes people take what they fly or what they do a little too seriously.