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

Post by neurotech1 » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

bpodgursky wrote: post #19

save_ferris wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds fairly straightforward, but what happens if that business plan changes? If private paramilitary aviation is anything like other private security services, then there’s definitely a market with some pretty deep pockets with questionable motives.

1) It's enormously expensive and difficult to arm disarmed 4th gen planes. You'd need another extremely expensive military contractor to equip them with (expensive) missiles, rockets, or whatever. Plus, in all likelihood, the defense contractors would refuse, if it did anything to risk federal contracts. 2) These planes (superhornets) are is a wildly inefficient way to arm a paramilitary. These things cost tens of th…

Post by andrekandre » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

riazrizvi wrote: post #92

Ericson2314 wrote: post #29

Why the hell does the pentagon outsource this?

It’s a great solution to a problem of conflicted interests. If the USAF gets a massive budget to protect us against air threats, how can you trust them to conduct honest tests? They are motivated to only ever report great news on how awesome a job they are doing always. Here you create an incentive structure for people to really try to figure out how to beat them. It’s the same reason a company might hire an outside…

Post by balls187 » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

mthoms wrote: post #141

balls187 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do other first world countries allow non-government companies to hold this much sophisticated military hardware? No, they don't. And neither does the US. The F18 is now nearly 40 years old. Typically the advanced and sophisticated aspects of airframes are not allowed for sale, to private entities, or even non-us government ones. The advanced avionics, weapons systems, etc, are all tightly controlled.

The article claims that the configuration will not change from what the RAAF had been flying, and that the planes have been more or less fitted with the most modern upgrades available. So, nothing rivaling next generation hardware but also nothing to sneeze at either.

Post by rexpop » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

astronautjones wrote: post #105

Zenst wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So for this to pay off as a business over being done inhouse, does make you wonder and try to work out why that is. "inhouse" is probably still a no-bid buddy contract with a large defense corporation, so his rate probably doesn't even need to be very low at all

Post by jjtheblunt » Fri, Apr 10, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #95

salmo wrote: post #82

I think a lot of folks are skimming the top of this and missing the really interesting parts. Their focus doesn’t seem to be providing adversaries against pilots, but adversaries against weapons systems. He’s essentially selling organic data to train JTACs against. The goal here isn’t as much great avionics, but great combinations of sensors and sensor jamming. The military focuses on having a combat ready fleet, whi…

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…