5 ms·
It'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 exper
by hencq 7y ago
It'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? :-)
- mlyle 7y agoI guess you could call APG-73 "modernish" radar. But it was first fielded in 1993. The oldest of US Hornets moved off it a couple years ago.
- slg 7y agoDo these not have modern radar? The article said they were being purchased without any downgrades from their time flying with the RAAF. Also does this mean they can be legally outfitted with air to ground armaments? I don't know much about these aircraft, but I imagine since they are used for simulated combat that they have decent evasive capabilities even if they can't directly engaged other aircraft.
- DuskStar 7y ago> Do these not have modern radar? The article said they were being purchased without any downgrades from their time flying with the RAAF. They have something that would be considered a nice radar for a 4th gen fighter, 20 years ago. Whether that's a modern radar today... And I imagine they can legally be outfitted with all sorts of things! Getting approval to actually use those bombs would be a bit touchy though. (And it's not like these have a huge strike radius, either - without tanker support, they won't be making it much past 500 miles before having to turn for base)
- deusexepsilon 7y agoI was asked to keep a close eye on the other RAAF aircraft. They are not used for combat combat, but if you're considering buying an air-breathing stealth fighter like the WDA they could be in for an extended period. They already had a lot to gain regarding their F-16-6A Mustang if for no other reason they would be used for any ground combat. They have no ground combat capability, but maybe one will appear soon. Also there are the fact, I had a real discussion with a reporter on the topic: The RAAF has one of the highest capability in the world – they have this ability to intercept jets that would be in for a short time. Not much in this article.
- anigbrowl 7y agoA big one is that you can't buy air to air missiles. That's the sort of thing that can be easily circumvented and where the legal environment can also change rapidly. I will not be in the least bit surprised if a private military company deploys air power within the next 5 years.
- valuearb 7y agoNot this guy, unless he wants to incinerate billions in shareholder value.
- olivermarks 7y agoI did read the article. What they say they do and the regulatory oversight of what they might actually be allowed to do or prevented from doing is what concerns me.