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

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

#161

Post by tptacek » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #114

naringas wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so then, it's not "a man owns a private airforce" but "a man who owns a company and this company owns a private airforce"

But what if that man who owns that company, decides he wants to change his business model? The private part is still important. It's a legitimate fleet of military aircraft that would rival the air forces of many small countries that is directed by a man who really isn't accountable to us outside our borders. This isn't new territory, it's just that you have to go back a few hundred years to see small groups of priva…

Presumably, the same thing that would happen if General Dynamics suddenly decided to change its business model, the major difference being that General Dynamics actually manufactures the weapons you're worried about private companies wielding, and Air USA acquires them.

This just doesn't make much sense as a concern.

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

#162

Post by addicted44 » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:38 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.

That's what I was thinking initially.

However, wouldn't the same pressures that apply to someone in a chain of command, also not apply to a contractor?

So, for example, if someone tasked with testing the current military strategy comes up with a wargame tactic that would embarrass the military (i.e. their bosses) they may not want to do that because embarrassing their bosses is probably not good for them.

However, in the same vein, someone reliant on those military bosses awarding them contracts would also not want to embarrass them, because it wouldn't be good for their ability to get contracts in the future.

In the former scenario, you at least have the case of a conscientious individual or team still going forward with what they think is the right thing to do.

In the latter there is no such compulsion either, so if anything, the chain of command argument makes things worse for contractors.

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

#163

Post by tptacek » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:39 PM UTC

SiempreViernes wrote: post #155

larrywright wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, technically. He has rounds of ammunition for the guns. What I meant was that they’re lacking the missiles. Not that you couldn’t do some damage with the guns, but those are weapons of last resort on these jets. They can’t carry many rounds.

And clearly a man capable of buying fighting jets couldn't source some missiles?

Where by "a man" you mean "a defense contractor that signs billion dollar contracts with the DoD".

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

#164

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:39 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #145

kube-system wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would probably be accessible to ultra-high net worth folks. Something like a super yacht can cost 2 mil/yr. Back of the napkin math indicates that's about equivalent to taking an FA18 out for a few hours per week.

Yeah, but I can even use a yat. Not many people can use an FA18... the accessibility of anysort of utility drops pretty fast when it is "can fly an f-18"

[deleted]

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

#165

Post by bkohlmann » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:39 PM UTC

for_i_in_range wrote: post #147

> He also mentioned that a jet-black Hornet would be fun to have, just for the heck of it. What a boss.

One of the most legendary paint schemes was a black F-14 with a playboy bunny painted on the tail - was from a test squadron in the 80s / 90s.

https://fullcolorbirds.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/grumman-f-14...

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

#166

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

0xff00ffee wrote: post #17

I used to have a single shut-down in 2nd amendment arguments. When my opponent would claim that the 2nd amendment gives civilians the power to overthrow a government, my favorite response was to compare poorly armed and trained americans to essentially the Taliban, and follow that up with: and then the US would drone/bomb you to oblivion with their air force superiority, like how Israel dominated the no-air-force Mid…

Besides which, the Taliban has arguably won in Afghanistan by virtue of simply continuing to exist. Hostile military occupation is unsustainably expensive, doubly so when the terrain in question is unfavorable.

Anyway, you'll probably see the same thing play out here in the coming years.

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

#167

Post by DuskStar » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

xnyan wrote: post #151

TechBro8615 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do something about it" like what? The 2nd amendment specifically says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If some nutjob wants to hurt people, he can figure out a way to do it with some household chemicals and gasoline. And if we're truly worried about that, shouldn't we be addressing the mental health problems that would cause somebody to drive a tank through a mall? I know it's a cliche, but guns don't…

Have you ever killed someone without a gun? Not trying to be metal, but I was in a self defense situation many years ago and and something terrible happened. Shooting a gun vs using "household chemicals and gasoline" to attack someone, to say nothing of knives or bare hands, are so apart from each other that I know for a fact that you have no experience with violence or how much easier it is to do violence with a gun…

"I was in a self defence situation and needed to kill someone" and "almost nobody needs to own a gun privately" seem to be incompatible statements to me.

As for the difficulty of killing large numbers of people, I'd stand by the assertion that it's easier with chemicals (explosives or incindiaries) than it is with guns.

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

#168

Post by magduf » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #109

leetcrew wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. And how often does that actually succeed? The American Civil War caused the South to lose out on slavery, at great cost to its economy; while The Troubles didn't induce the UK to give any concessions it wasn't already willing to give…

>while The Troubles didn't induce the UK to give any concessions it wasn't already willing to give beforehand.

If you look farther back in Ireland's history, it seems like Ireland's independence from UK was achieved mostly by violent resistance. After there was too much violence, England finally decided it wasn't worth it, and came up with an agreement allowing most of the island to become independent, with the exception of a handful of northern counties.

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

#169

Post by billfruit » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

justaguyhere wrote: post #43

SloopJon wrote: post #4

I'm amazed that this is even possible. I seem to recall that there are countries with unusable fighter jets, because the U.S. will no longer supply parts and expertise for maintenance. The article indeed states: "the purchase does include all of the RAAF's F/A-18 spare parts inventory and test equipment, valued at over a billion dollars alone."

I too am amazed that this is even possible, but for different reasons. Do other first world countries allow non-government companies to hold this much sophisticated military hardware? Maybe so, I just haven't heard of it. The other day I was reading about some Saudi prince's half a billion (!!!) dollar yacht. Sometimes I wonder if I live in the same planet as these people. It is hard for me to imagine such wealth and…

USAF is also looking to award a large contract for operating tanker aircraft for supporting training exercises of the USAF. Private companies will be operating aircraft to offer mid air refuelling for USAF training activities.

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

#170

Post by na85 » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #148

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…

Sounds to me like the military is simply shooting itself in the food with its "up or out" policies. Why force highly-trained and experienced people to leave just because they've gotten to a plateau in their career where they're both competent and comfortable? Do foreign militaries also have these policies?

Because those pilots theoretically move "up" to being staff officers, and then a few of them reach the highest levels of command, with the benefit of a diverse background.

It turns out that being Erich Hartmann, Maverick, or the Red Baron doesn't really translate well into being a good executive leader, and while western militaries want officers who have experience "at the sharp end", the also require leaders who understand how a headquarters works, logistics, politics, etc.