Live data from Hacker News

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

thedrive.com

231–240 of 349 posts

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

#231
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do these jets even have radar and other equipment necessary to actually employ weapons? IIRC most aggressor jets have some hardpoints and avionics removed.

did you read the article? it specifically puts an emphasis on how these jets hadn't anything removed and even got state-of-the-art ECM pods with them.

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

#232

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?

If he had bought these on the black market, I’d say yes. But he didn’t, he bought them legally.

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

#233
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I don't want people to die because a tyrannical government decides it needs to occupy the population. It's acceptable to me that some people will die as a result of gun violence, if it means the citizenry keeps its right to bear arms. Every homicide is a tragedy, but the weapons are not the problem nor the cause. If you want to restrict the rights afforded by the 2nd amendment, would you like to restrict some oth…

I would like to restrict only the second amendment. I don't see how a slippery slope argument is remotely relevant. There are dozens of liberal democracies in the world that have robust personal freedom and no right to bear arms. In fact, our right to bear arms is a direct descendent of the British Common Law version that existed for centuries and has been almost completely removed in the 20th century with no loss of…

That’s probably the worse example to use for your argument. Britain is a place where cops will come to your door to investigate over non-death threat tier posts on Twitter.

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

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

They aren't incompatible statements. Certainly the parent's experience, devoid of context could easily be seen as evidence in favor of permitting the possession of firearms. But just because they may have benefitted from, or could have benefited from the owning a firearm at one point doesn't mean that they accept the broader societal trade-offs that ubiquitous gun ownership entails. I hold a number of political convi…

That's a very fair point.

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

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a civil-rights activist can threaten a racist sheriff, what's stopping a criminal from threatening a good one?

But even without the Second Amendment, the criminal could still get a gun. The difference is, with the Second Amendment, the civil-rights activist can also get a gun.

Not much of the current personal arms policy debate in the US is about whether we should strive to make it impossible for criminals or civil rights activists to get a gun. It's about the margins of ease, how that can or should vary by person, how capacity or type of weapon matters, legal exposure of different kind of carrying, and other matters that could reasonably fall under "well-regulated."

For example, some people think a recent domestic abuse record should trigger a very high level of scrutiny for firearm purchases (or even continued possession). This isn't the sort of rule that would prevent anyone from committing a crime with a gun, perhaps not even an impenetrable wall for those with such records. But it increases the practical difficulty and compounds the crime (and risk) for certain cases.

Margins matter -- seatbelts can't save all lives but they absolutely produce a safety margin.

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

#236
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do these jets even have radar and other equipment necessary to actually employ weapons? IIRC most aggressor jets have some hardpoints and avionics removed.

The article makes it clear that these jets do retain their electronic warfare pods and radar systems.

There would be little point in training against them otherwise.

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

#237
post #148

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?

Seems like part of it would be to ensure that you will always be training new pilots.

If you have a lot of 'comfortable' pilots, you have less need to do the training, so when you fight a war and start losing pilots, you have less bandwidth to create new ones.

So there's a couple of things:

You could always recall and retrain the ones you've released if you're low on pilots, that's pretty straightforward for a wartime government if they're desperate.

It is much harder to scale the recruiting / training pipeline if it is insufficient to comfortably replace the losses you're taking. So you run your pipeline at a higher rate than necessary so that in wartime you can maintain your forces.

I think this also explains why the US would allow Boeing to sell things like advanced air-force fighters to other countries. At the surface, it makes no sense to give away your best stuff to another country. But if you think about it, it lets you run your pipeline at a higher rate, and the other guy can't replace his stuff when it starts getting blown up, you get priority. So you get to run at closer to a wartime production rate, with maintenance subsidized by other countries.

It may be cheaper to do the pilot training another way, but the last thing you want is to end up with a shortage of pilots when you actually end up needing them. It is not about cost so much as it is about winning wars and the supply chain therin.

I suspect a lot of countries don't have this policy because they have a grand total of 22 planes and no way to replace them, so if they get blown up there's nothing for new pilots to fly.

tldr; think about them resources that get expended and that you will inevitably have to create more of, rather than as highly skilled professionals

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

#238

But surely the private pilots training against US military pilots get to see the current tactics, and the private radars and electronic warfare pods get to record the current combat settings of US military radars and electronic warfare systems. There is no way this is not all classified top secret and a major target for foreign intelligence. So all his personnel, pilots and technicians, need clearance as if they were…

It's secure because it's in the contract.

The company has to follow US industrial security rules. Written by US DoD.

The employees are vetted and hold clearances.

Why do you think the USAF (or US Navy) hadn't thought about this?

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

#239
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you won't need the full fleet to fend off any neighboring country – and as I said they offer the whole range now: from small prop-based CAS to state of the art (at least for everyone non-NATO, China or Russia) air superiority. And I wouldn't really worry about the amount of cash available in such conflicts. In the past it generally was enough for leaders to bribe their way into being accepted citizens of the western…

Right, but now you're talking about using mercenaries to fight a civil war and vie for power over a sovereign nation. That's much higher stakes than a cobalt mine. Mercenaries in air forces have existed, but usually in the form of hiring pilots and maintenance crews to operate aircraft owned by one of the belligerent nations. This is what occurred in the Eritrean-Ethiopian war. These countries brought up former Sovie…

ahem, the DR Congo is basically in a state of civil war. And yeah, basically the air superiority is currently held by the nation state and its allies. A private force can turn this easily. Also, the soviet caches have dried up (while I doubt the demand did) and today in most conflict areas, it should be a lot easier to put a box of cash on the table to get a service than import/export a lot of stuff on your own (you need people and control for that).

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

#240
post #114

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…

It's not that simple. Owning a fighter jet (or even trainer like an Aero L-39) requires both the nod from the ATF, and a bunch of FAA waivers. For a high end jet like an F/A-18 or F-16, It practically requires the Secretary of Defense himself to approve it. Without that approval, Boeing or Lockheed Martin can't provide parts and support for the aircraft.

Notably, Erik Prince of Blackwater/Academi notoriety played fast and loose with weapons import/export/ownership rules, and came very close to being criminally prosecuted for it. Retired Admiral William 'Fox' Fallon resigned in disgust when he realized how far outside the rules Erik Prince was operating.

When Erik Prince suggested letting his private firm handle security in Afghanistan as an outsourced contractor, then SecDef (General) Jim Mattis was dead against it, and blocked it all the way.

Post reply on HN