That depends. You certainly can't make a blanket statement like that and expect it to go unchallenged. Last time I checked, the Gunship is great in a low to no threat environment, and is currently in skyrocketing demand in theater. Everyone and their brother wants a Gunpig along for the ride. Ratchet up the threat a little and the Gunship is simply another target to shoot at.

 

Well, I guess Deuce went into a few of them. I completely agree that in the very permissive threat environment we are currently in they are fantastic, but even in this current environment they still have some limitations.

 

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.

 

Yes, they still have some limitations, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Every aircraft is going to have its limitations. That doesn't take away from the fact that they (gunships) are the weapon of choice for CAS when the troops on the ground want persistent/precise firepower when they find themselves taking fire.

As was I when I attempted to point out that fighters aren't the only aircraft in the fight. If I may remind you where this started:
I don't take what I fly too seriously; heck, I'm nearing my final day after 20 years and am waiting to hear what my class start date is. But occasionally I like to remind those whose minds are fighter-centric that there are some sub-sonic aircraft and crews out there putting a serious thumping on the enemy. Amazingly, I see this attitude in theater. One fast mover platform comes into replace another and wants to try to tell us how to coordinate ops together. It just makes a gunship guy grin; "How about listening for a sec Turbo, Burner, or whatever you go by, and we'll start with what's worked for the past 6+ years we've been here and then we'll see if we can improve on that?" Then they leave a year or two later and we start over again with the new guys.

 

I dunno, but a couple of things come to mind: Try to run the op until the JTAC instructed you to standby until the gunship is bingo, or butt in with how you've just spoted a mover with your sniper pod only to be told by the gunship you just ID'd a dog.
Yea, if it's not about fighters I know you're really put out to read about it. You're just furthering the stereotype that the typical jet jockey would rather hear about the guy who did a strafing pass and got his silver star than about a slow mover who might, just might, have something more to offer. But you do make a point; try to correct a fighter guy that the world doesn't revolve around him 365/year and you find yourself fending off criticisms about how your aircraft has limitations; well, no $*!@. So, back to observing posts for the most part rather than foolishly thinking somebody like an F-22 driver could change his colors.

 

Let's just chalk it up to "it all depends on the mission," shall we?

 

No, but you did criticize me for daring to mention some positives about gunships. Reminder below:
Then you go on to imply what you think of me personally with your final comment. Dude, if anyone's wrapped tight here, or has a chip on their shoulder it's the guy who has to go personal with the attacks.

You would be right on the mark to think I'm not an expert on fighter capes/TTPs, but I have personally been there when the strike eagle has called out a dog as a human to an SF JTAC. Hey, we all make mistakes--no big deal, but what, I can't relay an event here without being the authority on your weapon system? Jeez, sorry I used the name of the pod without having read the T.O. on it.

I appreciate that. My sentiments are the same toward what the fighter community has accomplished and is capable of. They're the best in the world at what they do and they don't settle for anything less than excellence. While I may have poked fun at some fighter stereotypes my intent was simply to add that there are often times other options that are, depending on the mission, more appropriate if not more capable. If by recognition you mean worth mentioning when talking about UAV integration in a CAS scenario, then yes, I think it might be worth considering.