
A man owns the most advanced private air force after buying 46 F/A-18s - antman
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32869/this-man-owns-the-worlds-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets
======
blakesterz
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. "

~~~
burlesona
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
> 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?

~~~
parsimo2010
It's often more expensive to create specialized training capabilities in
house. Contractors have an advantage with both equipment and personnel costs.

A contractor can maintain their jets however they want as long as it's safe
and they can meet their contract requirements. The contract maintainers can
stay at their job as long as they want. The USN and USAF maintainers move
every few years and have pretty good retirement benefits (which used to be
better but are still better than what most private companies give), and have
to get lots of additional training and all that needs to be paid for. A
contractor is still supposed to follow all the safety regulations, but
contractors seem to be able to generate sorties at rates that military units
couldn't manage even with double the manpower.

Contractor pilots are paid strictly to fly. Naval aviators and USAF pilots are
both subject to "up or out" policies, where officers that aren't promoted are
told to leave. This means military pilots have to serve as staff officers to
keep themselves promotable. During a staff tour they either quit flying or
they fly less, which kind of wastes the money spent on training them. There
are good reasons for requiring this (and some good arguments against it), but
the bottom line is that contractors don't have to worry about it and can
operate cheaper because they aren't wasting 20% of their personnel budget with
a fighter pilot working behind a desk.

~~~
lostmsu
It might also be beneficial to have a training combatant, who is not in the
same chain of command as the trainees. Gives external perspective, and reduces
the chance of collusion to show "good results" if done right.

~~~
addicted44
That's what I was thinking initially.

However, wouldn't the same pressures that apply to someone in a chain of
command, also not apply to a contractor?

So, for example, if someone tasked with testing the current military strategy
comes up with a wargame tactic that would embarrass the military (i.e. their
bosses) they may not want to do that because embarrassing their bosses is
probably not good for them.

However, in the same vein, someone reliant on those military bosses awarding
them contracts would also not want to embarrass them, because it wouldn't be
good for their ability to get contracts in the future.

In the former scenario, you at least have the case of a conscientious
individual or team still going forward with what they think is the right thing
to do.

In the latter there is no such compulsion either, so if anything, the chain of
command argument makes things worse for contractors.

~~~
throwaway00012
As a field grade officer having just recently finished an NTC rotation, the
OPFOR has zero qualms about embarrassing BLUFOR.

------
salmo
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, 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
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 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?

~~~
DuskStar
You 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.

~~~
tootie
I know. There's a document out there somewhere with John Adams signature
telling a merchant captain it's fine to put cannons on his vessel. Privateers
were even recruited to fight the British in 1812. That's what the 2nd
amendment was actually written for. And the last time it was relevant.

And I think just saying it hasn't happened yet is like saying we haven't had a
giant pandemic yet in 2019. I'd rather not wait for a catastrophe to decide we
should do something about it.

~~~
TechBro8615
"Do something about it" like what? The 2nd amendment specifically says the
right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If some nutjob wants to hurt
people, he can figure out a way to do it with some household chemicals and
gasoline. And if we're truly worried about that, shouldn't we be addressing
the mental health problems that would cause somebody to drive a tank through a
mall? I know it's a cliche, but guns don't kill people... people do.

~~~
xnyan
Have you ever killed someone without a gun? Not trying to be metal, but I was
in a self defense situation many years ago and and something terrible
happened.

Shooting a gun vs using "household chemicals and gasoline" to attack someone,
to say nothing of knives or bare hands, are so apart from each other that I
know for a fact that you have no experience with violence or how much easier
it is to do violence with a gun vs other methods. You are just parroting
teenager-level philosophy.

Besides all that, we have huge amounts of data over more than 100 years. Turns
out, and this will shock you, when you have more guns you are more likely to
shoot people and kill overall.

I don't want people to die because Bubba finds it badass to own an AR-15 they
will never use except maybe to kill themselves or a family member
(statistically, these are the no1 and no2 most likely people an American is to
kill with their gun). Do as you will I guess but almost nobody needs to own a
gun privately.

~~~
TechBro8615
And I don't want people to die because a tyrannical government decides it
needs to occupy the population. It's acceptable to me that some people will
die as a result of gun violence, if it means the citizenry keeps its right to
bear arms. Every homicide is a tragedy, but the weapons are not the problem
nor the cause.

If you want to restrict the rights afforded by the 2nd amendment, would you
like to restrict some others too? After all, the "freedom of the press" was
designed at a time when newspapers were literally printed on a printing
_press._ The founders couldn't have imagined the internet, so do people really
need access to such a powerful way of disseminating information?

~~~
tootie
I would like to restrict only the second amendment. I don't see how a slippery
slope argument is remotely relevant. There are dozens of liberal democracies
in the world that have robust personal freedom and no right to bear arms. In
fact, our right to bear arms is a direct descendent of the British Common Law
version that existed for centuries and has been almost completely removed in
the 20th century with no loss of free speech or press and no descent into
tyranny. The country whose tyranny the founders were worried about.

~~~
TechBro8615
> I would like to restrict only the second amendment.

At least you admit it.

There are ways to do this. You can get a supermajority in congress to agree
with you, or you can get 34 state legislatures to agree to call a convention
of states. Then, and only then, you can change the constitution.

Barring that, no law or executive order can restrict the second amendment and
be constitutional. Fortunately our current president has appointed justices
who will ensure this remains true.

~~~
musingsole
> Then, and only then, you can change the constitution

You can also just suspend parts at will during a pandemic.

~~~
akiselev
Or any time a state of emergency is declared. Which, according to the Supreme
Court, is pretty much whenever the executive wants it to be.

------
Spinosaurus
Air 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
Let 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
This is interesting. Anywhere I can learn more about this or if you have the
chance, would you expand?

~~~
angry_octet
[https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/air-force-in-crisis-
part-i...](https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/air-force-in-crisis-part-iii-
dear-boss-its-all-about-the-culture/)

[https://federalnewsnetwork.com/dod-personnel-
notebook/2019/0...](https://federalnewsnetwork.com/dod-personnel-
notebook/2019/04/new-study-shows-grim-outlook-for-future-of-air-force-pilot-
shortage/)

[https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-considering-
sto...](https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-considering-stop-loss-to-
keep-pilots-2017-4)

[https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-is-still-
sh...](https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-is-still-short-more-
than-2-000-pilots-1.621269)

[https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations...](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD300/RGSD397/RAND_RGSD397.pdf)

And that doesn't even touch the shitshow which is drone crew morale.

~~~
matheusmoreira
> What if you could fly the F-22, the preeminent fifth-generation air
> superiority fighter in the world? According to internal data from the
> Aircrew Crisis Task Force, last year even that community retained just 30
> percent of pilots eligible to leave.

... Wow.

Years ago I read a discussion between two people interested in USAF careers.
One of them wanted to fly the F-22. The other told him to get the credentials
and apply for the position. I remember wondering: you can just _apply_ to
pilot the world's most advanced supermaneuverable stealth fighter? Why would
any F-22 pilot want to give up their position? I assumed it was because of the
problems with the life support system:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Op...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Operational_problems)

I never thought the USAF could have morale problems...

------
SloopJon
I'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."

~~~
justaguyhere
I 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

~~~
balls187
> 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
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.

~~~
lobotryas
Also 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.

~~~
angry_octet
The munitions come from the US. They can be fitted if desired.

------
atdrummond
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.

~~~
wcfields
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 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.

~~~
cestith
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.

------
wolf550e
But 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
That'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.

~~~
wolf550e
Sigint agencies hoard 0days and know they get "burned" by using them against a
serious opponent that records traffic and can analyze and reverse engineer
malware. If the 0day is useful against your own systems, you would hesitate to
use it before your systems are patched. I think electronic warfare and ECCM
systems can have similar dynamics.

I always assumed (without any evidence) there is secret firmware or settings
for these systems that will only be used in time of war and not used during
training.

I guess Israeli Air Force knows countries like Iran have the Russian hardware
and personnel/training for dealing with the Elta gear that Israel exports, but
I also guess the Israeli Air Force has secret sauce, maybe using the same
hardware, that they don't export and use only for striking strategic targets,
knowing each strike teaches the opponent something.

~~~
closeparen
>I always assumed (without any evidence) there is secret firmware or settings
for these systems that will only be used in time of war and not used during
training.

I believe the military takes training realism incredibly seriously, and
wouldn't dream of "testing in production" with a weapons system.

------
brenden2
It'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
On 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
I stand corrected.

------
wazoox
I 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.

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

~~~
valuearb
The US government significantly overpays most of its employees.

~~~
patentatt
By what metric?

------
justin66
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.

~~~
flashman
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 our hands before they became
even more of a liability. We've got enough on our plate dealing with the
F-35's corrosion issues (most of the fleet will be kept in moist salt air at
Williamtown and be plugged into big dehumidifiers when not flying) and other
things like its limited range.[2]

Which, now I put it that way, makes me wonder if maybe we should have kept a
few Hornets.

[1] "43\. The F/A-18A/B Hornet was designed for a safe life of 6000 airframe
hours. At the current fleet flying rate of 13 000 hours per year, reducing to
12 000 from 2013–14, there is capacity on that basis for the Hornet fleet to
continue flying until the end of 2020."
[https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/management-
au...](https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/management-australias-
air-combat-capability-%E2%80%94-fa-18-hornet-and-super-hornet)

[2][https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/projecting-power-with-
the-...](https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/projecting-power-with-
the-f-35-part-1-how-far-can-it-go/)

~~~
justin66
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

------
haberman
> 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
Just 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.

------
samizdis
The temptation to become a Bond villain must be strong.

~~~
mindtricks
It 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
Oh, it's still unimaginably expensive. Some people just have that much money.

------
for_i_in_range
> He also mentioned that a jet-black Hornet would be fun to have, just for the
> heck of it.

What a boss.

~~~
cyberferret
A 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
Gotta love South Africa. A land where they let civilians own and fly a nuclear
bomber

------
cyberferret
Interesting. 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.

------
Wald76
This 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.

------
Tade0
This fleet, if armed, would stand a chance against my country's air force.

~~~
cmauniada
are you a fellow Canadian?

~~~
Tade0
Nope, 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.

------
okareaman
This man is an inspiration. He has a clear purpose for doing this incredibly
fun thing. Living the dream!

------
ryanmarsh
F/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
They 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.

------
bawana
I 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.

------
inamberclad
Any 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?

------
jariel
This 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.

------
phyzome
Kind 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?

------
rkagerer
Did 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?

------
jb775
I 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
You typically can't get insurance on race cars either, but that doesn't seem
to stop anyone.

------
ggm
Doesn'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?

------
harikb
Appropriate, albeit cheesy, Netflix movie to watch along with this - Angel has
fallen

------
RobRivera
Red team contracts are fun and pay well. Even moreso when you run a red team
company

------
29athrowaway
He may own fighter jets, but actual weapons are sold separately.

------
MarlonPro
Dang! This guy can wage wars against small countries!

------
Ericson2314
Why the hell does the pentagon outsource this?

~~~
riazrizvi
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 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
not 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

------
sg47
Air King

------
olivermarks
It'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
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
Just 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
A 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).

~~~
slg
Do 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
> 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)

------
tomcam
> 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
Right? How does one "contractor" obtain so much power?

~~~
ectospheno
You 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.

------
0xff00ffee
I 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,

~~~
jakear
It'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

~~~
xxpor
Do you want every police encounter to turn into Ruby Ridge?

A non-insignificant number of people would consider criminalizing drugs
criminalizing wrongthink.

~~~
jakear
The criminalization of drugs was put in place to target hippies and
minorities. So... yes.

"We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black,
but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks
with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those
communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their
meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know
we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

\- John Ehrlichman, Nixon's Aide during time of the war on drugs.

[https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-
all/](https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/)

Aside:

Liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions
imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

What the hell ever happened to "give me liberty or give me death"?

~~~
xxpor
The key word is oppressive. I don't believe not allowing people to own weapons
of war is oppressive. Especially so to their (non-)victims.

~~~
jakear
The "oppressive restrictions" was actually regarding drugs, not guns.

