A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s

Post by tptacek » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 5:30 PM UTC

dv_dt wrote: post #81

parsimo2010 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's often more expensive to create specialized training capabilities in house. Contractors have an advantage with both equipment and personnel costs. A contractor can maintain their jets however they want as long as it's safe and they can meet their contract requirements. The contract maintainers can stay at their job as long as they want. The USN and USAF maintainers move every few years and have pretty good retire…

I think this is "cheaper" like - its cheaper to to have supply chains for critical medical gear in China. Makes for a great target for espionage on military tactics and capabilities for one risk.

Post by naringas » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 5:34 PM UTC

blakesterz wrote: post #8

His company buys these things and then has a contract with the Navy for when they do training. So IF I'm reading this correctly, it's not just some random dude buying all this stuff for fun, it's his company and they have a very clear business purpose for doing this. "He was also one of the early pioneers of the then-fledgling, if not wholly experimental, adversary air support market. In the early 2000s, he joined fo…

Post by astronautjones » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

Zenst wrote: post #33

burlesona wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I had to follow a bunch of the links to figure this out, but in short, he runs an air combat training company, and the Air Force and Navy pay him to field a training “adversary” for the military pilots to fight in mock combat. From further reading it sounds like the idea here is to get a diverse and different field of aircraft. I guess the NATO forces can practice against each other, but it’s not realistic in th…

Effectively privatised wargames. Many forces cross train in wargames scenarios on various scales, this is just a business that operates by providing services in one of those fields. Kinda neat in many ways and equally wonder how outsourcing would have financial gains for both parties. Certainly the combat/training dn flying styles will be different and with that offer some good training that flying against more forma…

Post by throw1234651234 » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #72

parsimo2010 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's often more expensive to create specialized training capabilities in house. Contractors have an advantage with both equipment and personnel costs. A contractor can maintain their jets however they want as long as it's safe and they can meet their contract requirements. The contract maintainers can stay at their job as long as they want. The USN and USAF maintainers move every few years and have pretty good retire…

It might also be beneficial to have a training combatant, who is not in the same chain of command as the trainees. Gives external perspective, and reduces the chance of collusion to show "good results" if done right.

Post by jcranmer » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #75

krapp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The 2nd amendment does not give the citizenry the ability to overthrow the government, it prevents the government from restricting the right to bear arms because bearing arms is necessary for a free state. Why is the right to bear arms necessary for a free state if not to give the citizenry the ability to overthrow the government? It's not as if indian raids or an invasion from Spain or Britain are causes for concer…

it's probably not possible for armed citizens to actually overthrow the US government without support from the conventional armed forces. but it's not necessary to completely overthrow a government to extract concessions. a credible threat of widespread chaos and violence might tip the scales against a very unpopular policy.