20 ms·
A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s
- samizdis 7y agoThe temptation to become a Bond villain must be strong.
- mindtricks 7y agoIt didn't seem that long ago that having an island shaped like a skull was a cost-prohibitive proposition, but seems we're almost there.
- grecy 7y agoOh, it's still unimaginably expensive. Some people just have that much money.
- SloopJon 7y agoI'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."
- paulie_a 7y agoAt one point Pepsi had the sixth biggest Navy in the world. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the-6th-largest-military-in-the-world-2018-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-pepsi-briefly-became-the...
- ceejayoz 7y agoThe Knights [edit:] Hospitaller briefly had a decently sized bomber fleet after WWII, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta#Air_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Ma...
- JorgeGT 7y agoNote, Knights Hospitaller, not Templar.
- ceejayoz 7y agoWhoops, got 'em mixed up. You're right.
- morpheuskafka 7y agoTrue, but the whole reason this worked is that they were a sovereign international personality separate from Italy, not just a private Italian organization.
- toast0 7y agoThey needed that Navy for the Cola Wars.
- benibela 7y agoThe East India Company probably also had a big Navy
- ForHackernews 7y agoHis company is a US Air Force contractor, so I'm sure they don't have a problem giving him parts and maintenance help. Is this another example of the DoD contracting out something that would cost half as much for them to do themselves?
- whatsreal 7y agoFrom the article he is saving the DoD some money on JTAC training operations. I'd imagine their role here would also save some money.
- ForHackernews 7y agoMaybe. The text hints that they also maintain their own adversary fleet in addition to hiring contracting firms like the one in the article. > These Israeli-designed pods are pretty much the world standard in modular self-protection jamming systems and are used on the Pentagon's own aggressor fleet...
- asciimike 7y ago> 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. Turns out the US has this problem as well... my brother is a Harrier pilot, and it seems to me like the US has mostly run out of spare parts for them. They bought a number of RAF Harriers for parts, but even so, it's a question of whether the F-35 will actually be ready in time to replace those squadrons.
- justaguyhere 7y agoI 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 power
- wmf 7y agoThis company is a US military contractor so they're effectively part of the government.
- numpad0 7y agoStill I believe there were laws forbidding private purchases of military planes. Weird if export buybacks didn’t count.
- balls187 7y ago> 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.
- mthoms 7y agoThe 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.
- lobotryas 7y agoAlso no munitions. Unless you are worried about info leaks to China (who else is sophisticated enough to take advantage of it?) I’m not seeing your concern.
- justin66 7y ago> 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. Fighter jets are heavily dependent on spares and expertise, but Iranian F-14 Tomcats managed to score something like 50 or 60 kills during the Iran-Iraq war, which happened after the US stopped playing nice with them. They're still flying a few of them today. If this makes you wonder how they're doing this if everyone is playing by the export rules involving selling arms to Iran, you wouldn't be the first. They have some native production capacity, but...
- tomcam 7y ago> He now holds eight licenses with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), allowing him to own military machine guns and cannons, as well as thousands of rounds of ammunition to fire through them. Dude is totally not an intelligence asset of any kind. Just an enthusiast.
- 0xff00ffee 7y agoRight? How does one "contractor" obtain so much power?
- ectospheno 7y agoYou are aware that the vast majority of defense articles employed by the military are not manufactured by the military right? Lots of companies have such licenses. The article even lists his competitors in this particular space.
- throwanem 7y agoI mean, I've known people who owned ATF-licensed automatic weapons. They're scarce because no new licenses have been issued since the '86 ban, but prices for grandfathered weapons tend to run in the order of tens of thousands of dollars, depending on what you want and who's selling. If you're looking for conspiracy theories, looking past the ownership of large numbers of military jets, to the handful of rich-enthusiast-grade small arms, seems like a weird flex.
- slowmovintarget 7y agoHe runs a company that provides advanced flight combat training. This actually makes some sense.
- blakesterz 7y agoHis 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 forces with the Airborne Tactical Advantage Company (ATAC), which was blazing a trail with their contracts with the Navy to supply fast jet targets and electronic warfare pod toting adversaries that mimic everything from enemy cruise missiles to fighters for Navy and Marine fighter aircraft and Navy surface combatants to train against. "
- save_ferris 7y agoSounds 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.
- bpodgursky 7y ago1) 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 thousands of dollars an hour to fly, are built to fight nation-states, and you can't exactly maintain them on an airstrip in the middle of nowhere. If you want to gun down rebels in the jungle, you'd buy Super Tucanos, for a tenth or less of the cost-per-hour fly time (plus, easier to arm and provision) Edit: my bad, just regular hornets, not superhornets. read too quickly
- stouset 7y agoThese seem to be F/A-18A/B models so just regular hornets. Which also tracks with their acquisition since the RAAF is selling off and replacing their aging A/B hornet fleet (the US has already retired theirs, except for the Blue Angels). That said I agree with everything else you said, just wanted to point that detail out.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- olivermarks 7y agoIt's not clear aside from the fig leaf of 'being a Navy contractor' whether this is a mercenary for hire airforce. I wonder what regulatory control there is on a private airforce located in the US?
- hencq 7y agoIt's actually pretty clear, since it says what they do right in the article: > 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 forces with the Airborne Tactical Advantage Company (ATAC), which was blazing a trail with their contracts with the Navy to supply fast jet targets and electronic warfare pod toting adversaries that mimic everything from enemy cruise missiles to fighters for Navy and Marine fighter aircraft and Navy surface combatants to train against. In other words, they provide targets for training for Navy aircraft.
- slg 7y agoJust because they have been hired to pretend kill Navy pilots doesn't necessarily rule out that they are a "mercenary for hire airforce" that could also be hired for other more violent tasks. OP was questioning what regulation exists to stop that from happening.
- mlyle 7y agoA big one is that you can't buy air to air missiles. There's talk that these types of aggressor squadrons might be a last-ditch aircraft reserve for the US or allies, but they're not exactly primed/ready for war without armament or modern radars. (No, the fact that some of their aircraft have functional cannons and cannon rounds doesn't count).
- kgilpin 7y agoHow about the fact that they have modern radar? :-)
- Tade0 7y agoThis fleet, if armed, would stand a chance against my country's air force.
- cmauniada 7y agoare you a fellow Canadian?
- Tade0 7y agoNope, Poland. We have some MiG-29s which were essentially gifted by none other than the German Luftwaffe and a few F-16s bought in the mid 00's. Overall not bad, but this one guy has more than half the number of our aircraft.
- facorreia 7y agoIt would obliterate my country's (Brazil) air force.
- microtherion 7y agoIt would outnumber the Swiss F/A-18s by 50% (Switzerland also has Tigers; not sure they would be of any use). And to further improve his odds, he could always attack outside office hours: https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/feb/19/swiss-air-force-ethiopian-airlines-hijacking-office-hours https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/feb/19/swis...
- haberman 7y ago> He now holds eight licenses with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), allowing him to own military machine guns and cannons, as well as thousands of rounds of ammunition to fire through them. I'm very curious what these licenses say about how he is allowed to use these machines. What kind of work is he allowed to take? Who is he allowed to shoot at?
- WhyKill 7y agoJust to answer. None of your concerns are covered by the license he has (Special Occupation Tax aka SOT). With a SOT7 + one of the other ones you can own and transfer machine guns and Destructive Devices legally. This is the same license a gunsmith will get to manufacture and sell(transfer) firearms incidentally. No this is not a license to kill.
- mattclase 7y agoI'm no expert, but its a very vague statement. Certain firearms like short-barrel rifles (SBR), suppressors, calibers > 50, and machine guns require an ATF license. That said - these aren't hard to come by. Many people file multiple ATF form 4's (with a $200 tax) to acquire suppressors, machine guns, and SBR's. 8 is nothing special, you'll see people on r/guns with more. The tl;dr is if you have the mone and time and clear background, its not hard.
- 0xff00ffee 7y agoI 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 Middle East in The Six Day War Looks like the joke is on me, now: People now actually have an option of building their own Air Force. Greaaaaaat,
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- komali2 7y agoHe has to have at least 6 various ATF licenses to arm, and load, weapons on his planes. Incidentally, if we were going to let civilians arm themselves, imo that's the only way to go about it - make it an extremely licensed, yet free, process. But you're still not wrong - I have the same opinion. In any case 2nd amendment arguments on fighting the USA are moot - the 2nd amendment doesn't legalize fighting the USA. Guns or not, if the USA decides you're the enemy, you're automatically a terrorist regardless. And terrorists have not had any issues getting guns.
- jakear 7y agoIt's not about the civilians being able to overthrow the government, it's about the government not being able to overthrow the civilians. When wrongthink starts being criminalized, would you prefer to be defenseless in your home, or have some - feeble sure, but some - means of protecting yourself? Or would you rather just prefer to think wrongthink will never be criminalized? I believe The Clash puts it best: When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun When the law break in How you gonna go? Shot down on the pavement Or waiting in death row You can crush us You can bruise us But you'll have to answer to Oh, guns of Brixton The Clash - The Guns of Brixton
- inscionent 7y ago
- Ericson2314 7y agoWhy the hell does the pentagon outsource this?
- logfromblammo 7y agoSo it'll come out of a different line-item in the budget.
- jrockway 7y agoI'm guessing that paying a contractor to support both the Navy and the Air Force is easier than figuring out who from the Navy and Air Force will lead the combined training effort. I assume this is like one department of a company using Azure and the other using AWS because nobody wants to share their turf. Writing a check is easier than talking to your coworkers.
- riazrizvi 7y agoIt’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 firm to do penetration testing, rather than ask its head of cyber security, “Hey why don’t you conduct a test to see if you are doing an awesome job, as we need to figure out whether to fire you or give you more money”.
- andrekandre 7y agonot to sound condescending, but i’ve got news for you: outsourced contractors will tell you what you pay them to tell you of course all that depends on the contractor, who’s doing the hiring, and the industry etc but the point is, just because it’s outsourced doesn’t mean the incentive structure will “work” any better than internally
- breischl 7y agoThere was a very nice top-level comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22834981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22834981
- ryanmarsh 7y agoF/A-18's are a dime a dozen right now (not literally obviously). There's a bunch of old ones coming off the line and being refit as ... no joke, drones for target practice for other drones. There's a remote-fly-by-wire package they install that apparently has been around for quite a while. I guess this means they're also developing a remotely controlled or AI based fighter platform but they wouldn't confirm, just that these new "drones" get shot down by other "drones". Source: I was given a tour of the facility and told what they were doing with the old F-18's. Pretty wild.
- justin66 7y agoThey did the same thing with a lot of classic fighter jets, including all of the century series and the F-4. (I imagine plenty of F-16s have been used as drones as well.) It's reminiscent of the way you can buy spectacular used luxury cars for a song once they've got a certain amount of wear and miles on the odometer. Maintaining them and accounting for the future cost of repairs makes their value drop precipitously.
- angry_octet 7y agoThose are ex-USN (or shudder original USMC) F/A-18s, that have seen very hard use. I wouldn't be happy flying in one. In contrast the RAAF Hornets are almost mint. I don't know about using them for drone target practice though, Loyal Wingman (ugh, what a name) only got to WoW the other day. More likely advanced tactics development for manned aircraft.
- brenden2 7y agoIt's not really an "air force" in the military sense, as these planes are unarmed and can't shoot anyone down unless the pilot carries a handgun or rifle. EDIT: Actually it looks like they do have machine guns with rounds, but nothing such as guided missiles.
- aaronmdjones 7y agoOn the contrary, the cannons are still intact and functional and they have over 74,000 high-explosive rounds for them. This is in the article.
- brenden2 7y agoI stand corrected.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- atdrummond 7y agoI 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.
- sixQuarks 7y agoWhat is the fastest land animal in the world?
- atdrummond 7y agoNot sure what cheetahs have to do with Kirlin or his jets.
- nomadiccoder 7y agoWhat is the slowest water animal in the world?
- atdrummond 7y agoI’m going with coral.
- wcfields 7y agoDitto, (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 Freefall Convention” the largest skydiving convention in the world. For about a week and a half the small Airport would be beset by 10,000 skydivers and cessnas. One quirk of Quincys airport is a super long runway that can support a DB Cooper style 737 jet landing, so one would be chartered to allow 100s of skydivers to do high altitude jumps. Unfortunately the convention ended because of the Bible-thumping city leaders didn’t care for the weeks of debauchery that were part of the festival attendees.
- justin66 7y agoIt'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.
- RustyRussell 7y agoIndeed, the all-in bet on the F-35 seems irresponsible, unless things have vastly improved somehow? As an Australian, this is a concern.
- angry_octet 7y agoWe 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 uninformed lunatic fringe (like APA), who are really the equivalent of climate change deniers, and groups with an axe to grind (Boeing would prefer to make more Super Hornet sales).
- justin66 7y agoYour 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.
- Wald76 7y agoThis is also a great way to keep several squadrons of reasonably capable fighters maintained and in operation. In a time of national emergency they (and their pilots) could be drawn on.
- salmo 7y agoI 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, while he focuses on a fleet that can provide lowest cost options to provide appropriate training data. A lot of that fleet is made up of trainers fit with electronics packages and Cessnas similarly Frankensteined. Then the military and manufacturers rent it out vs maintaining their own limited-use fleet. The hornets are great, not just because they’re sweet jets, but because of the electronics packages and maintainability. ...and then he has a paramilitary nut/Bond villain vibe that keeps the story less dry and probably appeals to the intended audience.
- tootie 7y agoI 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 guy buying up a private air force. We have several guys building space vehicles. If Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos wanted a nuclear-armed ICBM could we actually stop them? Or, maybe more likely, some QAnon nutjob getting his hands on an armored vehicle and driving it through a shopping mall in Atlanta?
- tptacek 7y agoWhat precedent? Virtually all heavy weaponry is sourced from private companies. The last DoD contract Don Kirlin was involved with was worth $6.4B.
- DuskStar 7y agoYou do realize that there's a ton of precedent for privately-owned heavy weaponry in the US, right? As the 2nd Amendment folks would point out, there used to be US citizens who owned warships. F/A-18s without guided weaponry aren't really that much of a change. (they've got cannons, but afact no JDAMs, JSOWs, AMRAAMs or even dumb bombs) > Or, maybe more likely, some QAnon nutjob getting his hands on an armored vehicle and driving it through a shopping mall in Atlanta? Well, you can literally buy WW2 era tanks. And it doesn't take all that much to make them street-legal. This isn't new. And yet, we DON'T see nutjobs abusing it.
- Spinosaurus 7y agoAir USA (Don Kirlin, president), along with a bunch of other companies were selected as contractors for the U.S. Air Force to provide "Red Air" (adversary training) services. This is not new; the Air Force uses private companies for training as the cost savings are immense: • Reduced flight hours and maintenance on fleet aircraft. • Instructors do not need to be pulled from schedules. • Fleet aircraft do not need to be hard scheduled. • Cost per flight hour is much lower for common aggressor platforms (A-4, L-39, F1M, and now these legacy F-18s) than the aircraft the Air Force is training in. • Private companies can more easily maintain and source parts for aircraft the military cannot (Migs, for instance). This particular sale was the remainder of the RAAF's retired F-18 fleet, which Canada started buying in early 2019. These are _not_ Super Hornets. Some of these companies have been around for decades. Some competitors: • ATAC • Top Air • Draken
- angry_octet 7y agoLet us not forget the hemorrhaging of pilots from the USAF, largely due to the hostile work environment and the general bullshit they have to endure. They simply don't have enough experienced people to provide this function.
- creddit 7y agoThis is interesting. Anywhere I can learn more about this or if you have the chance, would you expand?
- angry_octet 7y agohttps://warontherocks.com/2018/03/air-force-in-crisis-part-iii-dear-boss-its-all-about-the-culture/ https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/air-force-in-crisis-part-i... https://federalnewsnetwork.com/dod-personnel-notebook/2019/04/new-study-shows-grim-outlook-for-future-of-air-force-pilot-shortage/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/dod-personnel-notebook/2019/0... https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-considering-stop-loss-to-keep-pilots-2017-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-considering-sto... https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-is-still-short-more-than-2-000-pilots-1.621269 https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-is-still-sh... https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD300/RGSD397/RAND_RGSD397.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations... And that doesn't even touch the shitshow which is drone crew morale.
- wolf550e 7y agoBut 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 active military (maybe more, because advanced tactics and information on all different NATO allies and aircraft, not a single squadron like most service member know). Even if for some reason it is cheaper for the US military to have this in a private company instead of maintaining aggressor squadrons with Migs, how is this secure?
- VLM 7y agoThat's not the secret sauce, in the same sense that keeping source closed doesn't usually improve code quality from a security standpoint. The other counter is there are 26 operators of the F-16. Frankly it would be easier both in practice and legality to get cooperation from some dude in Pakistan or Venezuela than a US citizen who can at least sorta be watched over. Most of the tactics are not terribly advanced in the sense of some mysterious secret martial arts kick that defeats all. Most of the time battles are won logistically long before the fighting starts. Everyone in the business kinda knows what F16s do, not any more of a secret than knowing what Mig29s do, the struggle is always having enough resources in the right places at the right times to do anything about it. Something that often surprises civilians is most US military manuals are freeware and have always been that way. If you want to learn how an Army Brigade Combat Team operates, you don't join the KGB and steal documents, you just download FM 3-96 and read it. This is why actual veterans get annoyed about fictional hollywood military stuff; if you don't understand the role of a BCT's information operations officer sufficient to portray one in a movie, its just sheer lazyness to make something up instead of simply reading the FM. Its all part of the interesting strategy to handling massive public communications networks; half a century ago you could have an edge if it depended on having a secret sauce. Now that anyone with a web browser can download the official F-16 flight manual your strategy for having an edge relies on other forms of secret sauces. A good analogy for the problem is that excellent world class scientific documentation exists for weight loss and athletic performance, yet most people will not train in those areas. Olympic athletes are not high performers because the textbooks for weight lifting are kept secret and only for their reading.
- for_i_in_range 7y ago> He also mentioned that a jet-black Hornet would be fun to have, just for the heck of it. What a boss.
- bkohlmann 7y agoOne 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-tomcat-vandy-one/ https://fullcolorbirds.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/grumman-f-14...
- cyberferret 7y agoA businessman and aircraft collector in South Africa has one of the last flying examples of a Blackburn Buccaneer [0] and English Electric Lightning... Paint scheme on both: Jet Black! [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXLBhBz_2tE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXLBhBz_2tE
- for_i_in_range 7y agoGotta love South Africa. A land where they let civilians own and fly a nuclear bomber
- rkagerer 7y agoDid anyone else notice the mention of the M61 20mm Vulcan cannon that's staying installed? Have these guys got live weapons and ammunition for these craft?
- sg47 7y agoAir King
- jb775 7y agoI wonder if this guy is able to get insurance on the planes. I'd imagine that if a single plane was destroyed he'd be out millions of dollars.
- HeyLaughingBoy 7y agoYou typically can't get insurance on race cars either, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone.
- RobRivera 7y agoRed team contracts are fun and pay well. Even moreso when you run a red team company
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- okareaman 7y agoThis man is an inspiration. He has a clear purpose for doing this incredibly fun thing. Living the dream!
- wazoox 7y agoI 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.
- grumple 7y agoWelcome to the way American government works. We create needs and give the money to corporations to fulfill those needs.
- ShakataGaNai 7y agoIt 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 vendors selling you the latest F35 or whatever will want in on it too...). Dedicate pilots certified to fly these planes and likely only these planes... etc. Instead you shift the logistics to a smaller and more agile group who can optimize for their very specific and small use case. The private contractor can also go out and train people from other military forces (like Canadians, eh?). That allows them to make money from multiple sources, where as the US Government would not. Sure maybe join training exercises, but that's not the same thing. There are a lot of cases in business where outsourcing something specialized to another party makes a lot of sense - unless there is a huge scale for it. Just look at The Cloud. For a lot of companies, it doesn't make sense to pay the overhead of datacenters, datacenter techs, etc etc. For a few companies, that do it at scale, it makes a ton of sense (Ex FAANG).
- patentatt 7y agoSmarter = pay less and give workers less rights and benefits than the US Government.
- inamberclad 7y agoAny chance a FSDO or DPE is on here? What's the registration process for these aircraft? Do they get N-numbers? I'm assuming they're registered as experimental or experimental-exhibition. Do the pilots need type certificates? Who provides the training?
- SeanFerree 7y agoA real Howard Hughes here!
- phyzome 7y agoKind of weird title. Of all the private air forces, one has to be the most advanced. And it will be owned by somebody. I guess the title is saying that it's specifically a male adult?
- MarlonPro 7y agoDang! This guy can wage wars against small countries!
- jariel 7y agoThis is clearly some guy and his buds who love flying combined with the niche need for adversarial aircraft. Though it's surely very expensive to operate these things, it's also probably cheaper than if the USAF had to do it. Risky business though.
- bawana 7y agoI just saw a netflix documentary, 'operation odessa', where two guys were buying russian helos and even a sub for the Cali cartel. I am not amazed at the resourcefulness of the human animal. Anything we make (including information) gets weaponized for bad actors. And that's only the stuff we know about.
- cyberferret 7y agoInteresting. A good family friend of ours is a maintenance supervisor in the RAAF. Last time he invited me down to the hangar to let me see the F/A-18s up close, he was lamenting how the first batch that the RAAF purchased (which I assume are among the ones this guy bought) were getting really fatigued and increasingly difficult to maintain. He mentioned that instead of the routine 4 hours maintenance required for each hour of flying time, they were requiring upwards of 10+ hours maintenance per flying hour. Sounds like these beasts will be expensive money pits to operate nowadays.
- ggm 7y agoDoesn't this breed a false sense of security? Unless you train against the cutting edge mig, how do you know you can wax its tail?
- 29athrowaway 7y agoHe may own fighter jets, but actual weapons are sold separately.
- harikb 7y agoAppropriate, albeit cheesy, Netflix movie to watch along with this - Angel has fallen
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]