AC-130 is only used at night, limiting it's ability to perform CAS. Even at night, it can't perform CAS in contested airspace. Neither could a Super Tuc.

If we can't get an uncontested airspace, CAS is probably the least of our concerns. I wouldn't put ground troops in until the main threat was only shoulder launched, which the previously mentioned aircraft should be able to handle. I believe Desert Storm and OIF are better models than Vietnam. High threat CAS isn't were I'd be focusing defense spending at this point in time.

The truth of our fighting in the Middle East is that it is political not existential. No one in Afghanistan or Syria presents a serious threat to the security of the U.S. Our military goes there to defend allies, enhance long-term stability, and deny resources to terrorists.

But when architecting the military, the #1 consideration has to be the deterrence of existential threats. That means planning for contested air space (contested everything, really).

The U.S. is the uncontested strongest military in the world. It would probably be a mistake to take that for granted, though, by making all our decisions in the context of expeditions to the Middle East.

Agreed that existential threats are the most critical. Could argue that terrorism combined with bio/nuclear is an existential threat, but then the real threat is bio/nuclear more than terrorism.

But regarding CAS, I feel we should focus on low threat primarily and shouldn’t be using expensive jets to fill the roll. In fact, I would fund low intensity conflicts through SOCOM and let them choose the assets they want, not what big military wants to provide (i.e. the super tacano vs fighter jets).

In the event that we find ourselves in an existential threat war (really only two countries I can think of), other factors such as Nuclear, Space, Cyber, and Air Supremacy are so much more important than high threat CAS. In my mind, high threat CAS and manned Strike aren’t the best use of resources to fight this war

> Our military goes there to defend allies, enhance long-term stability, and deny resources to terrorists.

Destabilize the region to ensure petro-dollar existence, replace leadership who don't want to bow, sell weapons and infrastructure.

The US lost an AC-130 while operating over Kuwait during Desert Storm. Got caught at sunrise and was shot down with complete loss of life.

We can't plan on having air supremacy. It's nice that we've had it since Nam, but counting on it isn't always going to be an option, and we'll need to provide CAS to troops when it's necessary.

Didn’t know about the AC-130. Definitely a risk even in a moderate threat environment.

I still don’t believe F-35 is the right platform for CAS. In a medium to high threat environment, I would prefer bombers (perhaps stealthy) or drones (expendable) at altitude with a payload of JDAM and LGBs, than a fighter with just a couple. And rolling in with the gun in a fighter is silly. If the environment is that high threat, limiting collateral damage with gun runs isn’t a concern.

I feel like we are building platforms that can beat up medium threats (Iraq/Iran), won’t work against big threats (China), and bankrupt the country against small threats (counter insurgency operations). I’d favor a more diversified set of assets for specific roles and don’t think the F-35 fits the bill.

How disingenuous can you people be?