Blackwaters Private Air Force
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Blackwaters Private Air Force
At least, at the end of the day, Air America and the other CIA organisations were owned by the tax payer. Not sure what the legal basis is for a private commercial organisation flying it's own armed aircraft around......
DefenseNews: The Penny Drops: COIN Aircraft for Blackwater?
Operating and recapitalization costs for front-line fighters are up in the stratosphere, even as a wide variety of conflicts around the world fit counterinsurgency profiles requiring affordable, persistent surveillance and rapid fire support. UAVs are filling an important niche, and their success is triggering major bureaucratic showdowns in response, but they remain expensive, are much more crash-prone than manned aircraft, and offer a limited field of view.
Under the circumstances, it isn't surprising that some nations are turning back to simpler aircraft whose speed, view, and weapons carriage are purpose-built to offer dependable counter-insurgency surveillance and fire support at lower cost. America's A-10 "Warthog" widely outclasses much more expensive aircraft, for instance, and has become the key manned fighter of the global war on terror. Even as nations like Columbia purchase dual role trainer/COIN Super Tucano planes, and Iraq holds an aircraft competition for modified trainer/COIN aircraft of its own.
Trends becomes more surprising, and interesting, when private security firms look at their options, see a solution's logic, and step on board….
Richard North notes that security contractor Blackwater bought a number of BAE OMC's mine-resistant Mamba vehicles from the British Army for use in Iraq, even as Britain was still fielding Land Rovers as their primary transport in a land mine war, and America was buying flat-bottomed Hummers. Now StrategyPage reports that Blackwater has ordered some Super Tucano aircraft of its own. One EMB-314 has been purchased for pilot training, a function to which the platform is also well suited – and more aircraft will reportedly follow.
In contrast to government air forces, buying F-16s or high end fighters wasn't really an option for Blackwater. Still, if the firm ends up using the aircraft effectively in conflict situations, the current penchant for dismissing the value of COIN aircraft will suddenly face higher hurdles, and closer scrutiny from cost-conscious taxpayers.
These sorts of incidents illustrate why the slow growth of military capabilities among private security firms, who can amass a combat record and lessons learned faster than most nation states, is an underlying defense trend worth watching. During the Cold War, this function was performed via superpower-supported proxy wars. These days, private entities that can react more nimbly than almost any government may be stepping into that vacuum.
DefenseNews: The Penny Drops: COIN Aircraft for Blackwater?
Operating and recapitalization costs for front-line fighters are up in the stratosphere, even as a wide variety of conflicts around the world fit counterinsurgency profiles requiring affordable, persistent surveillance and rapid fire support. UAVs are filling an important niche, and their success is triggering major bureaucratic showdowns in response, but they remain expensive, are much more crash-prone than manned aircraft, and offer a limited field of view.
Under the circumstances, it isn't surprising that some nations are turning back to simpler aircraft whose speed, view, and weapons carriage are purpose-built to offer dependable counter-insurgency surveillance and fire support at lower cost. America's A-10 "Warthog" widely outclasses much more expensive aircraft, for instance, and has become the key manned fighter of the global war on terror. Even as nations like Columbia purchase dual role trainer/COIN Super Tucano planes, and Iraq holds an aircraft competition for modified trainer/COIN aircraft of its own.
Trends becomes more surprising, and interesting, when private security firms look at their options, see a solution's logic, and step on board….
Richard North notes that security contractor Blackwater bought a number of BAE OMC's mine-resistant Mamba vehicles from the British Army for use in Iraq, even as Britain was still fielding Land Rovers as their primary transport in a land mine war, and America was buying flat-bottomed Hummers. Now StrategyPage reports that Blackwater has ordered some Super Tucano aircraft of its own. One EMB-314 has been purchased for pilot training, a function to which the platform is also well suited – and more aircraft will reportedly follow.
In contrast to government air forces, buying F-16s or high end fighters wasn't really an option for Blackwater. Still, if the firm ends up using the aircraft effectively in conflict situations, the current penchant for dismissing the value of COIN aircraft will suddenly face higher hurdles, and closer scrutiny from cost-conscious taxpayers.
These sorts of incidents illustrate why the slow growth of military capabilities among private security firms, who can amass a combat record and lessons learned faster than most nation states, is an underlying defense trend worth watching. During the Cold War, this function was performed via superpower-supported proxy wars. These days, private entities that can react more nimbly than almost any government may be stepping into that vacuum.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: where the streets have no IEDs. Yet.
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't help but ponder where this one will end. If Blackwater's links to the US government are as good as they're meant to be, and those contacts survive the possible change of administration next year, would there be any stopping them from trading up to retired FJs (I'm thinking A7s, early 16s on cost grounds alone) or attack helis in the future, as the PMCs become ever more central to scenarios where the First World cannot or simply will not commit forces ? I'd imagine that more than one offshore bank would set up a finance package, especially if they stand to get in with the government we install and are assured that the taxpayer is picking up the tab.
More to the point, even if our politicos maintain an official sanction against a PMC acquiring operational FJs and attack helis, there are plenty of used Mi24s and Frogfoots out there which the less scrupulous/high-minded will upgrade and hangar. I dare say we have qualms about risking valuable blokes in potentially dodgy ex-Soviet hardware but some PMCs will be less choosy.
Worthless as it is, my two cents says we'll keep picking fights we're not prepared to win and over the next decade or so we'll end up relying on mercs with heavy hardware to fight the nastiest battles.
More to the point, even if our politicos maintain an official sanction against a PMC acquiring operational FJs and attack helis, there are plenty of used Mi24s and Frogfoots out there which the less scrupulous/high-minded will upgrade and hangar. I dare say we have qualms about risking valuable blokes in potentially dodgy ex-Soviet hardware but some PMCs will be less choosy.
Worthless as it is, my two cents says we'll keep picking fights we're not prepared to win and over the next decade or so we'll end up relying on mercs with heavy hardware to fight the nastiest battles.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least, at the end of the day, Air America and the other CIA organisations were owned by the tax payer. Not sure what the legal basis is for a private commercial organisation flying it's own armed aircraft around......
Marque [ma;k] n. 1. letters of --, authority formerly given to private persons to fit out an armed ship and use it to attack, capture, and plunder of enemy merchant ships in time of war. 2. = mark, def. 11 (esp. of cars).
The original function of a letter of marque (or Letter of Reprisal) was to right a private wrong. For example, when a Dutch merchant has his goods stolen in Germany, and he cannot gain satisfaction for his loss through legal or diplomatic means, he can be granted a Letter of Marque by the Dutch government. Such a letter allows him to "capture" a German merchant to compensate him for his loss. Since the early 18th century it was no longer in use as a means to right a private wrong. The function of the letter of Marque had changed. These letters were now used by governments, as an instrument of State, to augment the National Navy. This gave the state a naval force which could attack the commerce of the enemy at no cost to public funds. The ships captured had to be brought before an Admiralty Court and tried to ensure they were a legal prize, and not the property of a neutral state.
The privateers acted on a commission recognised under the Law of Nations. One of the principle clauses of a letter of marque is that of specifically naming the country whose vessels can be legally captured. There were heavy penalties if the property of other nations was violated.
Letters of Marque did not completely safeguard a privateer from prosecution even when ships of certain countries were excluded from attacks. When a privateer is captured by hostile nations he is often charged with being a pirate and swiftly executed. Also when countries make peace between them and a privateer fails to get the news about this in time he can be prosecuted if he continues to attack ships of the now friendly nation. Sometimes a privateer is such a long time away from home or the colonies that he only hears the news of a peace treaty when he returns home from his privateering enterprise.
The use of Letters of Marque was discontinued by many countries who signed the Declaration of Paris in 1856. The United States as well as several other countries signed the International Treaty much later. The US was at that time much more dependent on their use to increase their Maritime power because they lacked a Large Navy.
EXAMPLES
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Garden/5213/marque.htm
Marque [ma;k] n. 1. letters of --, authority formerly given to private persons to fit out an armed ship and use it to attack, capture, and plunder of enemy merchant ships in time of war. 2. = mark, def. 11 (esp. of cars).
The original function of a letter of marque (or Letter of Reprisal) was to right a private wrong. For example, when a Dutch merchant has his goods stolen in Germany, and he cannot gain satisfaction for his loss through legal or diplomatic means, he can be granted a Letter of Marque by the Dutch government. Such a letter allows him to "capture" a German merchant to compensate him for his loss. Since the early 18th century it was no longer in use as a means to right a private wrong. The function of the letter of Marque had changed. These letters were now used by governments, as an instrument of State, to augment the National Navy. This gave the state a naval force which could attack the commerce of the enemy at no cost to public funds. The ships captured had to be brought before an Admiralty Court and tried to ensure they were a legal prize, and not the property of a neutral state.
The privateers acted on a commission recognised under the Law of Nations. One of the principle clauses of a letter of marque is that of specifically naming the country whose vessels can be legally captured. There were heavy penalties if the property of other nations was violated.
Letters of Marque did not completely safeguard a privateer from prosecution even when ships of certain countries were excluded from attacks. When a privateer is captured by hostile nations he is often charged with being a pirate and swiftly executed. Also when countries make peace between them and a privateer fails to get the news about this in time he can be prosecuted if he continues to attack ships of the now friendly nation. Sometimes a privateer is such a long time away from home or the colonies that he only hears the news of a peace treaty when he returns home from his privateering enterprise.
The use of Letters of Marque was discontinued by many countries who signed the Declaration of Paris in 1856. The United States as well as several other countries signed the International Treaty much later. The US was at that time much more dependent on their use to increase their Maritime power because they lacked a Large Navy.
EXAMPLES
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Garden/5213/marque.htm
Guest
Posts: n/a
I trust these privateer aircraft will be making all the correct IFF, squawks etc and the missions will be in the ATO ..... 
I wonder what national markings or other forms of identifiaction, or paint scheme, they will carry. If any.
A 'winder from out of the blue won't give a monkey whose side you are (supposed) to be on. And they had better have a big gooly chit too.
I wonder what national markings or other forms of identifiaction, or paint scheme, they will carry. If any.
A 'winder from out of the blue won't give a monkey whose side you are (supposed) to be on. And they had better have a big gooly chit too.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: where the streets have no IEDs. Yet.
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall an article somewhere about EO's African adventures, which cited the purchase of Mi17s and use of Mi24s and MiG23/27s, plus an assortment of support types. I may be wrong but I'm sure they armed PC7s for FAC duties in Angola and lost a crew or two, substantial goolie chit notwithstanding.
Executive Outcomes used armed Pilatus PC-7's, and a few other types. Medics were airborne nearby in a helicopter during ops, however those guys that were downed were well and truly slaughtered by the time the rescue guys were on site - according to reports.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackwater Hughes Helos Over Baghdad
...with the usual rock track but entertaining nonetheless, particularly the rooftop work...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF2NvPMSrTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF2NvPMSrTg
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
The Iraqi government said Monday that it was pulling the license of an American security firm allegedly involved in the fatal shooting of civilians during an attack on a U.S. State Department motorcade in Baghdad.
The Interior Ministry said it would prosecute any foreign contractors found to have used excessive force in the Sunday shooting. It was latest accusation against the U.S.-contracted firms that operate with little or no supervision and are widely disliked by Iraqis who resent their speeding motorcades and forceful behavior.
Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf said eight civilians were killed and 13 were wounded when security contractors believed to be working for Blackwater USA opened fire in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood of western Baghdad.
“We have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory. We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities,” Khalaf said. Read more…
Larry Johnson:
First problem. Blackwater does not have a license to operate in Iraq and does not need one. They have a U.S. State Department contract through Diplomatic Security. Instead of using Diplomatic Security officers or hiring new Security officers or relying on U.S. military personnel, the Bush Administration has contracted with firms like Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and others for people capable of conducting personnel security details. State Department is not about to curtail the contract with Blackwater, who is tightly wired into Washington. Plus, State Department simply does not have the bodies available to carry out the security mission.
Second problem. The Iraqi government has zero power to enforce a decision to oust a firm like Blackwater. [..]This incident will enrage Iraqis and their subsequent realization that they are impotent to do anything about it will do little to support the fantasy that the surge is working. There are some Iraqis who genuinely want to run their own country. But we are not about to give them the keys to the car. Blackwater is staying.
The Interior Ministry said it would prosecute any foreign contractors found to have used excessive force in the Sunday shooting. It was latest accusation against the U.S.-contracted firms that operate with little or no supervision and are widely disliked by Iraqis who resent their speeding motorcades and forceful behavior.
Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf said eight civilians were killed and 13 were wounded when security contractors believed to be working for Blackwater USA opened fire in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood of western Baghdad.
“We have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory. We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities,” Khalaf said. Read more…
Larry Johnson:
First problem. Blackwater does not have a license to operate in Iraq and does not need one. They have a U.S. State Department contract through Diplomatic Security. Instead of using Diplomatic Security officers or hiring new Security officers or relying on U.S. military personnel, the Bush Administration has contracted with firms like Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and others for people capable of conducting personnel security details. State Department is not about to curtail the contract with Blackwater, who is tightly wired into Washington. Plus, State Department simply does not have the bodies available to carry out the security mission.
Second problem. The Iraqi government has zero power to enforce a decision to oust a firm like Blackwater. [..]This incident will enrage Iraqis and their subsequent realization that they are impotent to do anything about it will do little to support the fantasy that the surge is working. There are some Iraqis who genuinely want to run their own country. But we are not about to give them the keys to the car. Blackwater is staying.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the unlikely event that Blackwater is actually tossed out of the country, then another company will take over the contract (e.g., Triple Canopy). The individual contractors themselves currently working for Blackwater would just end up being hired by the successor.
Neither the State Dept. nor DOD has the people needed to replace the contractors, so they will end up staying.
Neither the State Dept. nor DOD has the people needed to replace the contractors, so they will end up staying.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. investigates Blackwater
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors in the United States are looking into whether private U.S. security contractor Blackwater USA has shipped unlicensed automatic weapons and military goods into Iraq, a newspaper reported on Saturday.
Two former Blackwater employees have pleaded guilty in Greenville, North Carolina, to weapons charges and are cooperating with the investigation, The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reported.
full article http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200709...ca02f96_7.html
Two former Blackwater employees have pleaded guilty in Greenville, North Carolina, to weapons charges and are cooperating with the investigation, The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reported.
full article http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/200709...ca02f96_7.html
No mate - point of information - if they are on 'our' side they are Defence or Security 'Contractors'. If they are working for a country or organisation which we are ambivalent about they are 'mercenaries' - if they are the enemy they are 'insurgents'; come on this is basic stuff you should be up to speed by now.