14 ms·

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

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 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 ago
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.
- bpodgursky 7y ago
  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 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 ago
    These 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.
  - fock 7y ago
    1) like the article states, infact these things are not disarmed at all. and yeah federal contracts... Who else was he contracting again currently and what's the purpose of the whole endeavour then (there's definitely more money there except for fleecing the air force...). I would understand allowing such a business when it was a direct front for CIA-CAS (which it very well might be), but just to extend the private contracting business to freaking jets seems borderline crazy 2) well, the company seems to offer the whole package (see the final sections about him storing 80000 HE-rounds for his two dozen hawks). And once the US hegemony over who runs military conflicts on this world goes the way of the dodo, well... I guess you might easily fend of someone like Kenia intervening in your nice cobalt business in congo with a dozen of NATO-grade fighters... And there is definitely a private sector available to secure your bases in a "friendly" third country.
    - btgeekboy 7y ago
      I think “disarm” here was used in the sense of reloading ammo vs. making the weapon itself usable or not.
      - fock 7y ago
        as I outlined in the other answer, you don't need a lot of weapons to counter non-NATO/China/Russia-air forces. And I'm sure, a person buying state of the art fighter jets can buy some surplus Sidewinder or Maverick missiles as well...
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Unless your cobalt mine in the Congo is generating billions in revenue, fending them off with modern combat aircraft is probably going to be a net loss. It's not uncommon to have maintenance costs of $10,000 or more per flight hour (the F-35 is apparently $20,000). A fleet of 46 aircraft flying, say, 8 hours per day is going to cost $110,400,000 per month at a $10,000 flight hour cost.
      - fock 7y ago
        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 hemisphere, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_dos_Santos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_dos_Santos Now suppose, EU drops any support for the angolan government, she wants back her power: probably easy for her to start a civil war. Some neighbors (Namibia, SA) might step up (like they did in Somalia) to help the government if it holds out the initial 1,2,3 ... weeks. Normally they would have uncontested air superiority. Now Ms. dos Santos asks Mr. K.: "How about 4 of your hornets, I heard they kick ass, do you want some diamonds?" (and yeah, they can easily operate from a number of airfields there, I just counted >20 of more than 2km lengths of asphalt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Angola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Angola). And that is how private contracting basically already works for advisors/spec-ops – great to see that extended to state-of-the-art aircraft. Really great, good progress, all hail the capital!
  - Tuxer 7y ago
    those aren't super hornets by the way (no civilian would get an authorization to fly a super hornet). They're the A/B, original hornet version, and any superhornet would fly circles around one.
  - neurotech1 7y ago
    You would still require a lot of approvals from DoD/ATF etc. to get an A-29 Super Tucano, armed or not. See my earlier comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22837486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22837486 My understanding is a F/A-18 would probably cost Mr Kirlin $10k/hr to operate. A Super Hornet actually costs about the same in variable costs per flight hour, as they require less maintenance and are younger in age, than a legacy Hornet. Of course, depreciation on a $70m jet is not cheap, which can only be flown for 8k hours, without a major rebuild.
burlesona 7y ago
Yeah I had to follow a bunch of the links to figure this out, but in short, he runs an air combat training company, and the Air Force and Navy pay him to field a training “adversary” for the military pilots to fight in mock combat. From further reading it sounds like the idea here is to get a diverse and different field of aircraft. I guess the NATO forces can practice against each other, but it’s not realistic in the sense that any opposition they would face in a real war would theoretically be using very different equipment. So guys like Air USA are paid to conjure up a fleet of all kinds of aircraft, and pilots to fly them, which will act as more legitimate test.
- ardy42 7y ago
  > Yeah I had to follow a bunch of the links to figure this out, but in short, he runs an air combat training company, and the Air Force and Navy pay him to field a training “adversary” for the military pilots to fight in mock combat. The thing that I don't get is why would the US hire him to provide adversary aircraft that it already operates? I could totally understand them hiring someone who operated a bunch of ex-Russian aircraft, but if they wanted F-18s why not just call the Navy?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    "Aggressor squadrons" train very differently, to mimic potential adversaries combat doctrine. The aircraft may also be modified to perform more like the aircraft they're simulating. They're even painted differently, like this F-15 in Russian-style camo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/F-15E-80-0010-64as-nellis.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/F-15E-80...
    - ardy42 7y ago
      > "Aggressor squadrons" train very differently, to mimic potential adversaries combat doctrine. Yeah, but doesn't the US have those too, at Top Gun and Red Flag? I'd think that Top Gun would have aggressor squadron pilots qualified to fly F-18s.
duxup 7y ago
Well even if it was private the rough estimates of cost per flight hour of an FA18 is something in the range of +$10k to +$20... That would seem pretty unfeasible / unlikely for a private owner, even a wealthy one to fly it much at all.
- kube-system 7y ago
  It would probably be accessible to ultra-high net worth folks. Something like a super yacht can cost 2 mil/yr. Back of the napkin math indicates that's about equivalent to taking an FA18 out for a few hours per week.
  - duxup 7y ago
    Yeah, but I can even use a yat. Not many people can use an FA18... the accessibility of anysort of utility drops pretty fast when it is "can fly an f-18"
    - kube-system 7y ago
      Most people can't pilot a super yacht either; they hire a full crew. The FA18 can seat two. Also, anyone who has the money to buy and operate one of these vehicles has more than enough money to get someone to teach them how to fly it. But yes, this is not an hobby for the masses.
      - duxup 7y ago
        Yeah but the joy of a yacht probably has less to do with piloting it than the joy of piloting an F18.
        kube-system 7y ago
        If you gave me the option to ride on a yacht or ride in an F18, I would 1000% choose the latter.
Giorgi 7y ago
Yes, that's exactly the "Catch" here, even though article presents it as if some random dude buying up expensive things for leisure.
- tootie 7y ago
  The article explains all of this really clearly from the start.
naringas 7y ago
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"
- swalsh 7y ago
  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 private individuals accumulate this much physical force. Just think about some of the disagreements that have occurred over scare resources for responding to the pandemic. Imagine how that picture can change.
  - larrywright 7y ago
    They’re not armed jets, that’s an important distinction. Short of flying into something, how would these actually pose a threat?
    - superkuh 7y ago
      You didn't read the article? They are armed jets.
      - larrywright 7y ago
        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.
        SiempreViernes 7y ago
        And clearly a man capable of buying fighting jets couldn't source some missiles?
stoolpigeon 7y ago
My favorite milblogger retired, hated having a "regular" job, joined ATAC and then died not too long later flying an old Israeli fighter. I'm glad if these companies are getting newer aircraft.
- greedo 7y ago
  Lex LeFon was a fantastic writer. He really didn't like the Kfir, and I don't blame him.
cptaj 7y ago
Oh yeah? New headline: A man owns the most advanced private air force and uses it to antagonize the US Navy for profit
pmarreck 7y ago
In that case it's pretty brilliant. I was going to say that the maintenance cost of all those jets is probably pretty impressive
OJFord 7y ago
Alternative less interesting title: > Private security company takes over as leader in air capability after recent asset purchase
ChuckMcM 7y ago
Another way to write this might be, "This guy figured it would be fun to own fighter jets and so figured out a business he could be in that would allow him to do so with the government's blessing." I don't know if that is what he did of course, just guessing. It is a strategy I've seen employed successfully before. My daughter used this strategy by getting a research project approved for school on "studying organizing goal directed group behavior in online groups" where it was required she join several different raiding guilds in World of Warcraft to evaluate their strategies for co-operative goal seeking behavior. I thought it was pretty creative.
noad 7y ago
This is such weird phrasing. I imagine the corporate prison industry uses the same words: "She was also one of the pioneers of the fledgling private incarceration market. By creating this dynamic new industry, unlimited synergies can by unleashed within public-private partnerships".
mikorym 7y ago
As far as I know, the last operational Cheetahs were sold by the SANDF to similar contractors. If you look in the article, you'll see: > Kirlin says that he looked at all the aircraft his competitors have bought, especially the Mirage F-1s from Spain and France and Atlas Cheetahs from South Africa that his competitors ATAC and Draken USA have snapped up, and passed on them. He actually showed me the approved ATF forms for importing these jets dated years ago as proof of his claim. Three primary reasons were behind his decisions. The first was concern that they simply weren't the right plane for the job—he wanted something more advanced. Second, that working with certain foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) would be a major hassle. > Finally, he is a firm believer in buying flyers, not aircraft that have been mothballed for years, if at all possible. Edit: By the way, the Pilatus PC-9 airplanes shown in one of the images is the same plane that the South African acrobatics Silver Falcons use.

save_ferris 7y ago

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.

bpodgursky 7y ago
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 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 ago
  These 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.
- fock 7y ago
  1) like the article states, infact these things are not disarmed at all. and yeah federal contracts... Who else was he contracting again currently and what's the purpose of the whole endeavour then (there's definitely more money there except for fleecing the air force...). I would understand allowing such a business when it was a direct front for CIA-CAS (which it very well might be), but just to extend the private contracting business to freaking jets seems borderline crazy 2) well, the company seems to offer the whole package (see the final sections about him storing 80000 HE-rounds for his two dozen hawks). And once the US hegemony over who runs military conflicts on this world goes the way of the dodo, well... I guess you might easily fend of someone like Kenia intervening in your nice cobalt business in congo with a dozen of NATO-grade fighters... And there is definitely a private sector available to secure your bases in a "friendly" third country.
  - btgeekboy 7y ago
    I think “disarm” here was used in the sense of reloading ammo vs. making the weapon itself usable or not.
    - fock 7y ago
      as I outlined in the other answer, you don't need a lot of weapons to counter non-NATO/China/Russia-air forces. And I'm sure, a person buying state of the art fighter jets can buy some surplus Sidewinder or Maverick missiles as well...
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Unless your cobalt mine in the Congo is generating billions in revenue, fending them off with modern combat aircraft is probably going to be a net loss. It's not uncommon to have maintenance costs of $10,000 or more per flight hour (the F-35 is apparently $20,000). A fleet of 46 aircraft flying, say, 8 hours per day is going to cost $110,400,000 per month at a $10,000 flight hour cost.
    - fock 7y ago
      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 hemisphere, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_dos_Santos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_dos_Santos Now suppose, EU drops any support for the angolan government, she wants back her power: probably easy for her to start a civil war. Some neighbors (Namibia, SA) might step up (like they did in Somalia) to help the government if it holds out the initial 1,2,3 ... weeks. Normally they would have uncontested air superiority. Now Ms. dos Santos asks Mr. K.: "How about 4 of your hornets, I heard they kick ass, do you want some diamonds?" (and yeah, they can easily operate from a number of airfields there, I just counted >20 of more than 2km lengths of asphalt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Angola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Angola). And that is how private contracting basically already works for advisors/spec-ops – great to see that extended to state-of-the-art aircraft. Really great, good progress, all hail the capital!
- Tuxer 7y ago
  those aren't super hornets by the way (no civilian would get an authorization to fly a super hornet). They're the A/B, original hornet version, and any superhornet would fly circles around one.
- neurotech1 7y ago
  You would still require a lot of approvals from DoD/ATF etc. to get an A-29 Super Tucano, armed or not. See my earlier comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22837486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22837486 My understanding is a F/A-18 would probably cost Mr Kirlin $10k/hr to operate. A Super Hornet actually costs about the same in variable costs per flight hour, as they require less maintenance and are younger in age, than a legacy Hornet. Of course, depreciation on a $70m jet is not cheap, which can only be flown for 8k hours, without a major rebuild.

burlesona 7y ago

Yeah I had to follow a bunch of the links to figure this out, but in short, he runs an air combat training company, and the Air Force and Navy pay him to field a training “adversary” for the military pilots to fight in mock combat. From further reading it sounds like the idea here is to get a diverse and different field of aircraft. I guess the NATO forces can practice against each other, but it’s not realistic in the sense that any opposition they would face in a real war would theoretically be using very different equipment. So guys like Air USA are paid to conjure up a fleet of all kinds of aircraft, and pilots to fly them, which will act as more legitimate test.

ardy42 7y ago
> Yeah I had to follow a bunch of the links to figure this out, but in short, he runs an air combat training company, and the Air Force and Navy pay him to field a training “adversary” for the military pilots to fight in mock combat. The thing that I don't get is why would the US hire him to provide adversary aircraft that it already operates? I could totally understand them hiring someone who operated a bunch of ex-Russian aircraft, but if they wanted F-18s why not just call the Navy?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  "Aggressor squadrons" train very differently, to mimic potential adversaries combat doctrine. The aircraft may also be modified to perform more like the aircraft they're simulating. They're even painted differently, like this F-15 in Russian-style camo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/F-15E-80-0010-64as-nellis.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/F-15E-80...
  - ardy42 7y ago
    > "Aggressor squadrons" train very differently, to mimic potential adversaries combat doctrine. Yeah, but doesn't the US have those too, at Top Gun and Red Flag? I'd think that Top Gun would have aggressor squadron pilots qualified to fly F-18s.

duxup 7y ago

Well even if it was private the rough estimates of cost per flight hour of an FA18 is something in the range of +$10k to +$20... That would seem pretty unfeasible / unlikely for a private owner, even a wealthy one to fly it much at all.

kube-system 7y ago
It would probably be accessible to ultra-high net worth folks. Something like a super yacht can cost 2 mil/yr. Back of the napkin math indicates that's about equivalent to taking an FA18 out for a few hours per week.
- duxup 7y ago
  Yeah, but I can even use a yat. Not many people can use an FA18... the accessibility of anysort of utility drops pretty fast when it is "can fly an f-18"
  - kube-system 7y ago
    Most people can't pilot a super yacht either; they hire a full crew. The FA18 can seat two. Also, anyone who has the money to buy and operate one of these vehicles has more than enough money to get someone to teach them how to fly it. But yes, this is not an hobby for the masses.
    - duxup 7y ago
      Yeah but the joy of a yacht probably has less to do with piloting it than the joy of piloting an F18.
      - kube-system 7y ago
        If you gave me the option to ride on a yacht or ride in an F18, I would 1000% choose the latter.

Giorgi 7y ago

Yes, that's exactly the "Catch" here, even though article presents it as if some random dude buying up expensive things for leisure.

tootie 7y ago
The article explains all of this really clearly from the start.

naringas 7y ago

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"

swalsh 7y ago
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 private individuals accumulate this much physical force. Just think about some of the disagreements that have occurred over scare resources for responding to the pandemic. Imagine how that picture can change.
- larrywright 7y ago
  They’re not armed jets, that’s an important distinction. Short of flying into something, how would these actually pose a threat?
  - superkuh 7y ago
    You didn't read the article? They are armed jets.
    - larrywright 7y ago
      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.
      - SiempreViernes 7y ago
        And clearly a man capable of buying fighting jets couldn't source some missiles?

stoolpigeon 7y ago

My favorite milblogger retired, hated having a "regular" job, joined ATAC and then died not too long later flying an old Israeli fighter. I'm glad if these companies are getting newer aircraft.

greedo 7y ago
Lex LeFon was a fantastic writer. He really didn't like the Kfir, and I don't blame him.

cptaj 7y ago

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

pmarreck 7y ago

In that case it's pretty brilliant. I was going to say that the maintenance cost of all those jets is probably pretty impressive

OJFord 7y ago

Alternative less interesting title: > Private security company takes over as leader in air capability after recent asset purchase

ChuckMcM 7y ago

Another way to write this might be, "This guy figured it would be fun to own fighter jets and so figured out a business he could be in that would allow him to do so with the government's blessing." I don't know if that is what he did of course, just guessing. It is a strategy I've seen employed successfully before. My daughter used this strategy by getting a research project approved for school on "studying organizing goal directed group behavior in online groups" where it was required she join several different raiding guilds in World of Warcraft to evaluate their strategies for co-operative goal seeking behavior. I thought it was pretty creative.

noad 7y ago

This is such weird phrasing. I imagine the corporate prison industry uses the same words: "She was also one of the pioneers of the fledgling private incarceration market. By creating this dynamic new industry, unlimited synergies can by unleashed within public-private partnerships".

mikorym 7y ago

As far as I know, the last operational Cheetahs were sold by the SANDF to similar contractors. If you look in the article, you'll see: > Kirlin says that he looked at all the aircraft his competitors have bought, especially the Mirage F-1s from Spain and France and Atlas Cheetahs from South Africa that his competitors ATAC and Draken USA have snapped up, and passed on them. He actually showed me the approved ATF forms for importing these jets dated years ago as proof of his claim. Three primary reasons were behind his decisions. The first was concern that they simply weren't the right plane for the job—he wanted something more advanced. Second, that working with certain foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) would be a major hassle. > Finally, he is a firm believer in buying flyers, not aircraft that have been mothballed for years, if at all possible. Edit: By the way, the Pilatus PC-9 airplanes shown in one of the images is the same plane that the South African acrobatics Silver Falcons use.