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

341–349 of 349 posts

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

#341

Post by andromeduck »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #325
xnyan wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely misunderstand reality. When the F-35 comes to liquefy your house, I’m sure your gun will do a lot to defend yourself. You don’t have the smallest chance of defending yourself from the government, the only thing gun ownership does is let people shoot each other for no good reason. This is an incontrovertible fact proven by statistics of gun ownership countries a.k.a. the US versus others.

Gun ownership is, in aggregate, about as dangerous to the US population as car ownership. Millions of lightly armed people have stood up well to the US military. What you're talking about isn't a fact at all -- it is a myth, that overwhelming technology can decisively determine the outcome of wars. It is certainly a factor but there is no way F-35s would be sent to bomb houses (for example): the cost, relative scarci…

Not to mention the repeal or overruling of the Posse Comaitus Act would itself cause waves of mutiny within the armed forces.

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

#342

Post by justin66 »

flashman wrote: post #338
justin66 wrote: post #62

It's quite interesting that Australia wants to let these go in favor of the F-35, rather than maintaining them in a reserve capacity. Letting the F-111 go in favor of the F/A-18 made a lot of sense because they were obsolescent and expensive to operate. In this case, I wonder if they might regret it if they ever face a period of increased military tensions.

As early as 2012 the RAAF Hornet fleet flight activities (12-13000 hours per year) were estimated to exhaust the fleets' lifetime airframe limits (6000 hours) in 2020.[1] Keeping them in the air beyond this year was going to get more and more expensive and consume maintenance resources (and pilot training) that could otherwise be directed to the Super Hornets and F-35s. Frankly I'm kind of glad someone took them off…

That all makes sense, and I guess I agree on all points. Not knowing anything about the RAAF's resources (or the buyer's feelings on the deal), I would have leaned toward selling half and keeping half in a reserve capacity if it were at all feasible. If you need a reserve, you probably need it really badly, and it's not exactly unfathomable that the fancy-but-fragile F-35 might be grounded someday because of some automotive airbag recall-like "whoops" screwup by the manufacturer.

edit: it looks like you've still got two squadrons of Super Hornets until 2025, so you've got that going for you

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

#343

Post by justin66 »

angry_octet wrote: post #290
RustyRussell wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the all-in bet on the F-35 seems irresponsible, unless things have vastly improved somehow? As an Australian, this is a concern.

We don't have enough pilots to fly them. And against the type of opponent that could overcome F-35s, Classics wouldn't stand a chance. And the cost of maintaining them, a dual stream training pipeline, armaments, etc, would significantly detract from other capabilities (like AEW&C, ISR, unmanned jets, training & readiness, etc). F35s are undeniably costly, but criticisms on the capability front usually come from the…

Your comment and some of the others above brought something to mind: with the F-35 you'll miss some capabilities you had with the Hornet just because of its limited range, just like you lost some of the capabilities you had with the F-111 when you moved to the Hornet. Being able to fly an extra 50% (or whatever) further before firing a missile might have a tremendous amount of value if you have to do something like that, mid-air refueling tricks notwithstanding.

If it were me, I'd want half F-35s and half of the most advanced variant of the F-15 Strike Eagle I could afford, keeping in mind the F-15s would cost as much as the F-35. But you know, even keeping those two squadrons of Super Hornets they've got up to date would count for a lot.

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

#344

Post by angry_octet »

justin66 wrote: post #343
angry_octet wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have enough pilots to fly them. And against the type of opponent that could overcome F-35s, Classics wouldn't stand a chance. And the cost of maintaining them, a dual stream training pipeline, armaments, etc, would significantly detract from other capabilities (like AEW&C, ISR, unmanned jets, training & readiness, etc). F35s are undeniably costly, but criticisms on the capability front usually come from the…

Your comment and some of the others above brought something to mind: with the F-35 you'll miss some capabilities you had with the Hornet just because of its limited range, just like you lost some of the capabilities you had with the F-111 when you moved to the Hornet. Being able to fly an extra 50% (or whatever) further before firing a missile might have a tremendous amount of value if you have to do something like t…

A2A refuelling is still absolutely required for effective air combat, you can only fight for a short period before you are bingo. For strike you'd want a stand off weapon, but if absolute stealth was not required you can use conformal or off-board tanks.

If you used Strike Eagles you have the same problem as Supers -- they are 4.5G, not low observable, which gives warning of a strike. But I suspect the Supers will be in service for decades.

Extreme range strike is arguably complimentary to submarines, but there are no manned F-111-like platforms available to buy, and no one thinks that is a role UAS can do.

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

#345

Post by justin66 »

angry_octet wrote: post #344
justin66 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment and some of the others above brought something to mind: with the F-35 you'll miss some capabilities you had with the Hornet just because of its limited range, just like you lost some of the capabilities you had with the F-111 when you moved to the Hornet. Being able to fly an extra 50% (or whatever) further before firing a missile might have a tremendous amount of value if you have to do something like t…

A2A refuelling is still absolutely required for effective air combat, you can only fight for a short period before you are bingo. For strike you'd want a stand off weapon, but if absolute stealth was not required you can use conformal or off-board tanks. If you used Strike Eagles you have the same problem as Supers -- they are 4.5G, not low observable, which gives warning of a strike. But I suspect the Supers will be…

To be honest I wasn't thinking much about air-to-air combat. I guess New Guinea might get some ideas, but otherwise... anyway, the F-35 will probably perform admirably for that.

I think being able to hit ships at a distance is what the RAAF is most likely to want to do. I'd be intrigued to read a real analysis that indicates otherwise.

> Extreme range strike is arguably complimentary to submarines, but there are no manned F-111-like platforms available to buy, and no one thinks that is a role UAS can do.

I assume the Strike Eagle could achieve something not far off from the F-111 in terms of range with conformal fuel tanks. Although it looks like the Super Hornet has CFT available now, which can only be a good thing for the RAAF.

> If you used Strike Eagles you have the same problem as Supers -- they are 4.5G, not low observable, which gives warning of a strike.

The newer anti-ship missiles are meant to have a long enough range that that is less of a concern. I don't know so much about whatever version of the Harpoon missile the RAAF is flying. (or what they'd be up against, or their electronic warfare capability, which actually matters a lot...)

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

#346

Post by cestith »

wcfields wrote: post #192
atdrummond wrote: post #54

I grew up in the town where Mr Kirlin and his businesses are based, have lived there on-and-off, and know him through various personal and professional circles. I also am formerly of the aerospace industry myself. I’m happy to answer questions people may have.

Ditto, (hi fellow Gem City-er?) The Kirlin’s occupy a very particular role in the city. once operating the largest franchise of Hallmark stores for nearly 60 years before quickly going out of business a few years ago. Other Kirlin defunct businesses include “The Fly”, a Blue jeans only store in the 80’s, KSNI (Kirlin Super Net Inc) a dial-up ISP in the 90’s. The mentioned Kirlin of the story used to run “The World Fr…

I lived in Quincy for about ten years and grew up in Hannibal.

I've met several members of the Kirlin family and Don's a sharp, cordial guy. I find it interesting that he's made so good a go at such an unconventional business when other members of the family have had such problems in speciality retail. I wonder where the Hallmark store business would be if Don had been in charge.

I'll not comment on the ISP because I used to work for a competitor with a fierce rivalry.

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

#347

Post by patentatt »

valuearb wrote: post #281
patentatt wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The US government significantly overpays most of its employees.

By what metric?

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

#348

Post by DuskStar »

jcranmer wrote: post #217
DuskStar wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while The Troubles didn't induce the UK to give any concessions it wasn't already willing to give beforehand. You're saying that the Brits would have agreed to let Northern Ireland vote to join rejoin the rest of Ireland at some point in the future WITHOUT force of arms? I don't believe you. And yes, that was included [0] in the Good Friday Agreement. And even if most insurgencies fail, "let's not do that because i…

Scotland got its devolution referendums and independence referendums without severe political violence, so I suspect that the British would have been willing to let such a vote happen if the Sunningdale agreement had lasted longer.

An alternative interpretation is that Scotland got its independence referendums because London had seen how much of a clusterfuck the "no, let's ignore the desires of this not-a-colony" route could end up being.
Post reply on HN