Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 349 posts

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

#261

Post by patentatt »

ShakataGaNai wrote: post #224
wazoox wrote: post #212

I don't understand what's the point of having a private contractor instead of say, a dedicated Air Force squadron. A private contractor who effectively has a monopoly is necessarily more expensive, as he needs to make a profit, while an Air Force squadron doesn't. Looks like some sort of elaborate public money scam to me.

It ends up being a cost optimization & liability thing. Lets be honest, at least in the USA, our Government isn't terribly efficient with money. However, a corporate is driven by profit so they will be smarter. If you had an Air Force squadron of older planes, they need their own dedicated mechanics who are certified. Government certified vendors, who've gone through the vetting/price bidding process (likely the vend…

Smarter = pay less and give workers less rights and benefits than the US Government.

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

#262

Post by andai »

tootie wrote: post #221
TechBro8615 wrote: post #174

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…

> Britain

> no loss of free speech or press and no descent into tyranny

That's a good one!

Not saying it isn't still one of the best places. But the trajectory is sadly quite clear.

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

#263

Post by cptaj »

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…

Oh yeah?

New headline: A man owns the most advanced private air force and uses it to antagonize the US Navy for profit

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

#265

Post by tootie »

mhh__ wrote: post #173
tootie wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it all and while it's great that he has a legitimate reason to own these, it doesn't change the fact that he owns a private air force, heavy weapons and state-of-the-art countermeasures. It's a terrifying legal precedent and he's opened the door for a new market niche that less savory people can sneak into. The US already has ludicrously expansive personal rights to weapons ownership for any reason. We have a…

I believe private ownership of nuclear weapons is illegal in the US. Atomic Energy act maybe? (Can't remember when specifically)

Has it ever been challenged on 2nd amendment grounds?

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

#266

Post by greedo »

projektfu wrote: post #186
greedo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TOPGUN is pretty much gone now.

By that you mean it's merged into NSAWC? Because there's still a TOPGUN course.

I meant culturally in the USN. TOPGUN used to be all air to air, all day. Now it's strike fighter training, E2 training, as well as the classical A2A.

This may be better in some ways since the entire goal of TOPGUN was to train the trainers who would go back to their squadrons and improve capabilities. And that role has changed dramatically since the 80's where being the best pilot meant you might leave the Gulf of Sidra alive. A2A combat hasn't been important for over 20 years. We'll need to reinvent it for the future I fear.

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

#267

Post by mhh__ »

tootie wrote: post #265
mhh__ wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe private ownership of nuclear weapons is illegal in the US. Atomic Energy act maybe? (Can't remember when specifically)

Has it ever been challenged on 2nd amendment grounds?

I don't think so. I have no legal training but I think there is a difference between a firearm and a nuclear weapon on grounds that the interpretation of the second amendment is at a personal/militia level rather than some kind of national threat that would warrant use of nuclear weapons.

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

#268

Post by projektfu »

greedo wrote: post #266
projektfu wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that you mean it's merged into NSAWC? Because there's still a TOPGUN course.

I meant culturally in the USN. TOPGUN used to be all air to air, all day. Now it's strike fighter training, E2 training, as well as the classical A2A. This may be better in some ways since the entire goal of TOPGUN was to train the trainers who would go back to their squadrons and improve capabilities. And that role has changed dramatically since the 80's where being the best pilot meant you might leave the Gulf of S…

It seems Israel has a strong dogfighting capability, but who else right now?

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

#269

Post by jowsie »

t0mas88 wrote: post #257
fsckboy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

his spelling error was "would've" and "may've"

I see that more and more recently, English spelled phonetically. Like "their" instead of "they're" and the example above. Very curious whether it's an American thing or foreigners writing a non-native language.

I'm a brit and do it out of lazyness.

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

#270

Post by stardek »

t0mas88 wrote: post #257
fsckboy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

his spelling error was "would've" and "may've"

I see that more and more recently, English spelled phonetically. Like "their" instead of "they're" and the example above. Very curious whether it's an American thing or foreigners writing a non-native language.

With the most common North American accent "would've" and "would of" sound very similar. My suspicion is that the error tends to arise in people that have learned language more from speaking than reading.
Post reply on HN