Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Founders Buy Fighter Jet

Posted by kdawson on Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:11 AM
from the filing-a-flight-plan-for-redmond dept.
Ponca City, We love you writes "The NY Times reports that H211 LLC, a company controlled by Google's top executives, including billionaire founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, appears to have added to its fleet a Dornier Alpha Jet, a light jet attack and advanced trainer aircraft manufactured by Dornier of Germany and Dassault-Breguet of France. The 1982 Alpha-Jet seats two and was originally used by European air forces, but is now being sold relatively cheaply to civilians. The jet has landing rights at Moffett Field, the NASA-operated airfield that is a stone's throw from the Google campus. It is not clear who exactly flies the fighter jet, although Google chief executive Eric Schmidt is an avid pilot. If the top Googlers indeed own the fighter jet, they would be following in the footsteps of Oracle chief executive Larry Ellison, who has owned several aircraft, including fighter jets."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by eclectro (227083) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:14AM (#25498079)

    Are these guys Yahoos??

  • by xs650 (741277) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:14AM (#25498085)
    In other news, Microsoft is installing anti-aircraft emplacements
    • by Vexler (127353) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:31AM (#25498339) Journal

      Fighter jet, which has been in "Beta" for years.

      AA guns, with targeting system running Vista.

      Ought to be a good show.

      • by Columcille (88542) * on Friday October 24 2008, @11:22AM (#25499231) Homepage
        The classic problem: What happens if you put Star Wars Stormtroopers - who can't hit the broadside of a planet - up against Star Trek red shirts - who get killed the moment they do anything? The question here is, which side is the storm troopers and which side the red shirts?
    • by rhyder128k (1051042) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:35AM (#25498411)

      Command And Conquer 5: Microsoft vs Google.

      Take my tip - don't buy too many shipping crate data centres at the beginning as you're better off upgrading to an IPv6 infrastructure as early as possible.

      Some people build up a massive force of tanks and try to wear MS down (the MS tanks are unreliable, they run their own software) but I prefer to create my own web browser and give away as much free email storage as I can. I don't like using too much lock-in if I'm playing as Google but it's unavoidable if you want to win.

      I hate those "novelty" missions where you've got to get Balmer across the map or something.

  • hint (Score:5, Funny)

    by kulakovich (580584) <slashdot.bonfireproductions@com> on Friday October 24 2008, @10:16AM (#25498107)
    > It is not clear who exactly flies the fighter jet,

    Hint: The Google AI
  • FYI (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24 2008, @10:18AM (#25498145)

    When fighter jets, tanks, etc. are sold to civilians, most of the fun stuff is ripped out.

    This is basically the rich fuck's version of buying a sports car when you're 50 to stroke your ego.

  • Not that unusual. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lunartik (94926) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:19AM (#25498171) Homepage Journal

    This isn't a big deal, Bob Lutz (Vice Chairman of GM, Retired Marine Aviator) owned a MiG i think, and now flies around in a Czech fighter.

    Jack Roush (NASCAR owner, head of Roush Industries) owns a bunch of WWII fighters.

    The odd part is that the Google guys seem to have bought it through some company.

    • Re:Not that unusual. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JCSoRocks (1142053) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:23AM (#25498243)
      The Governator owns a number of tanks. Including the one he drove when he was in the military.
    • Re:Not that unusual. (Score:4, Informative)

      by scubamage (727538) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:31AM (#25498337)
      Most likely they purchased it through a privately held company because companies have lessened license restrictions for purchasing any class of weapon (ie, if you want to own an RPG legally, just start a corporation and you can buy whatever you want). I'm not sure if licensure is necessary for military aircraft (even decommissioned) but who knows, maybe that's the reason? Plus if they'd bought it through google maybe they'd be concerned about a shareholder backlash? These are just guesses btw, but its what I would surmise.
      • by sorak (246725) on Friday October 24 2008, @11:05AM (#25498927)

        Most likely they purchased it through a privately held company because companies have lessened license restrictions for purchasing any class of weapon (ie, if you want to own an RPG legally, just start a corporation and you can buy whatever you want). I'm not sure if licensure is necessary for military aircraft (even decommissioned) but who knows, maybe that's the reason? Plus if they'd bought it through google maybe they'd be concerned about a shareholder backlash? These are just guesses btw, but its what I would surmise.

        But if they used Google Checkout, they could have gotten $10 dollars off.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24 2008, @10:48AM (#25498643)

      There was a former Czech air force MIG-21 for sale on Ebay a couple weeks ago with a "buy it now" price of only $45K. The aircraft was located in Ohio and was in ready-to-fly restored condition, and is actively flown in air shows. While the purchase price was cheap, it is hideously expensive to operate a MIG-21. A half-hour flight consumes almost $2000 worth of Jet-A fuel. Also a MIG-21 can only carry about two hour's worth of fuel onboard anyway. The engine in it has to be overhauled at a cost of over $100K about every 250 hours of flight time too, since Russian jet engines are built with such loose mechanical tolerances in the moving parts.

    • Re:Not that unusual. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Darth_brooks (180756) <chico@wccn[ ]org ['et.' in gap]> on Friday October 24 2008, @11:28AM (#25499331) Homepage

      Purchasing through an LLC isn't that big of a deal. It just gives an easier way to split ownership, liability, maintenance, etc.

      Bob Lutz has owned two Czech built L-39's. One was damaged in a landing accident and donated to the Yankee Air Museum. It was destroyed by fire in 2004. His current L-39 is in Marine corps livery. I don't believe he's ever owned a Mig, though the original L-39 was in Czech colors.

      Jack Roush currently owns two P-51's. "Gentleman Jim" a P-51D that is for lack of a better term, his 'daily driver.' He flies this aircraft to some of the Nascar races, when he's got time. His 2nd P-51 is a gorgeous, freshly restored B model "Old Crow." At one point he had three mustangs, the other being another D Model P-51 semi-incorrectly painted as "Old Crow", formerly "Rascal." This has since been sold to the founder of Scotts lawn care. Roush also owns a T-6, and several other non-military jets.

      These are all housed at, or are frequent visitors to, Willow Run Airport in Ypsilanti / Belleville, MI. In addition, there are a Mig-17, Mig-21, and Alpha Jet (in luftwaffe markings), and a Stinson L-2 that are based out of Willow Run, where we house our B-25, B-17, and C-47.

      Suffice to say, being the admin for Yankee Air Museum (check the homepage) affords the opportunity to see some pretty interesting day-to-day air traffic.

  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:21AM (#25498209) Homepage Journal

    Isn't it hard to live up to "do no evil" when you have a strike-capable air force? This is a slippery slope, indeed. I think the next time the Yahoo! talks escalate, things just might go a little differently.

  • Far out thought (Score:5, Interesting)

    by svendsen (1029716) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:26AM (#25498271)
    This is beyond the realm of reality so cut me some slack...

    Corporations (or their top execs) are starting to buy military hardware. Do you think we will ever see a corporation declare war on another corporation?

    Gives a whole new meaning to hostile takeover...
    • Re:Far out thought (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BlowHole666 (1152399) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:40AM (#25498497)

      This is beyond the realm of reality so cut me some slack... Corporations (or their top execs) are starting to buy military hardware. Do you think we will ever see a corporation declare war on another corporation? Gives a whole new meaning to hostile takeover...

      You mean like the East India Company [wikipedia.org]?

    • Re:Far out thought (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday October 24 2008, @11:10AM (#25499013) Journal

      Corporations (or their top execs) are starting to buy military hardware. Do you think we will ever see a corporation declare war on another corporation?

      Corporations have, relatively recently, declared war on other countries, not just other companies.

      The British & Dutch East India Trading Company is the first one that comes to mind which had an army, navy, minted money, warred with countries & companies and setup & administered governments.

      We talk about corporate influence in government, but what exists now pales in comparison to the overt control and militarism of years gone past.

  • by NobodyExpects (843016) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:27AM (#25498283)
    So... Google has added an "airforce" to complement their navy [slashdot.org]...
  • by RogueWarrior65 (678876) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:33AM (#25498383)

    They'll have to offer free rides to people who could never afford a plane of their own.

  • It's a trainer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by confused one (671304) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:48AM (#25498651)

    It's an advanced trainer. It's a toy. (albeit a rich man's toy). What's the big deal -- he already owns several aircraft. This isn't even uncommon.

    Now, if you told me he bought a couple of fully armed F22's, THAT would be news. (you may, of course, substitute your plane of choice for the F22)

  • by ghoul (157158) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:55AM (#25498755)

    Well they have the cheap geothermal power and the free cooling for the datacenters. The only hitch was how out of the way iceland is. But it does have an abandoned NATO airfield so now that the top execs can jet in and out in an hour or so at supersonic speeds goodbye Silicon Valley Hello Reykjavik. Solves all the turnover problem too as in "You want to leave Google and join Microsoft. Fine as soon as you get security clearance from the Icelandic government you can leave (never that is)" With Iceland being bankrupt they would sell their souls and change their national anthem to "Do no evil" if Google comes calling.

  • by mr_mischief (456295) on Friday October 24 2008, @11:58AM (#25499761) Journal

    The Kirlin family runs one of the world's the largest chains of Hallmark cards and gifts franchises (Kirlin's Hallmark stores, based out of Quincy, Illinois). Two sons of founder Dale Kirlin Sr. (Dale Jr. and Gary) went into the family business.

    The other son, Don Kirlin, pursued an aviation career with the US Navy and Us Airways before he started Red Air [redair.net] which is a company also based out of Quincy, IL. Don has lived in Quincy, in Boulder, Colorado [rockymountainnews.com], and also in Kyrgyzstan while working on acquiring a former Soviet fighter.

    Red Air operates a fleet of Mig, Alpha, and Vodochody fighter aircraft [wired.com] in training maneuvers with US and Canadian fighter groups. Their former USAF and US Navy flight instructors flying foreign-built fighters make for a much more realistic training scenario than simulators or flying US aircraft against other US aircraft.

    If you have the cash, the licenses, and the desire then check out his foreign fighter and trainer sales business [air-usa.com], Air USA. Weapons systems are not included, of course.

    Don's also the man behind the World Free Fall Convention, which brought visitors from every state and 70 foreign countries to Quincy, IL and Rantoul, IL for 17 years and featured during that time over 600,000 jumps. Jump platforms included everything from a B-17 bomber to the Family Channel blimp [dropzone.com]. Even a Super Constellation and a Boeing 727 have been featured.

    So if you really want to talk about privately held air power, Oracle and Google take a back seat to the black sheep son of a greeting card and gift store magnate.

  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Friday October 24 2008, @12:11PM (#25499981) Homepage

    They were going to buy a Hummer, but the fighter jet gets better gas mileage.

    • Pot, meet Kettle (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Thiez (1281866) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:15AM (#25498097)

      I see you own a computer. Surely you could have sent your money to Africa instead?

      • by turtledawn (149719) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:23AM (#25498235)

        Hmm. Using the fighter jet to take out clumps of corrupt African officials may be the single best piece of charity Sergei and Brin could ever offer them, as at least them the money us regular folks send over might have a chance of actually reaching the citizens and being used for its intended purposes. :-)

        • by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:30AM (#25498303) Journal

          Wouldn't work. What ever governments replaced the ones wiped out would become corrupt in a few, short years. Just look at Zimbabwe if you need an example.

          • Re:Pot, meet Kettle (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24 2008, @10:36AM (#25498415)
            Zimbabwe has had the same leader since the first post-independence election in 1980. Not sure how that supports your point.
            • Re:Pot, meet Kettle (Score:5, Informative)

              by Medievalist (16032) on Friday October 24 2008, @12:16PM (#25500069)

              Wouldn't work. What ever governments replaced the ones wiped out would become corrupt in a few, short years. Just look at Zimbabwe if you need an example.

              Zimbabwe has had the same leader since the first post-independence election in 1980. Not sure how that supports your point.

              Um, because said leader went from freedom fighter to corrupt entrenched establishment in a few, short years. Doesn't seem hard to understand... maybe you should ask Joshua Nkomo how he feels about it.

          • Re:Pot, meet Kettle (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Hal_Porter (817932) on Friday October 24 2008, @12:35PM (#25500365)

            That just means you need to bomb them again. Many military theologians interpret the smitings in the Old Testament as an airpower-centric and profoundly interventionist foreign policy on the part of the Almighty.

            Seriously I read an article in a left of centre British paper interviewing people from an Afghan village that was peaceful until the Taliban arrived and set up shop. The Taliban terrorised people, mostly women, but they also beat a few of the men to death until the villagers stopped doing anything they objected to. Which was pretty munch anything. At the start of the US invasion the house the Taliban had commandeered was suddenly blown to bits by a 2000lb laser guided bomb from a US fighter. The Taliban were all either killed or left, no one knew for sure, but in any case the village was free of their alien influence one morning and minus one house.

            The coolest part was at the end when one of the Afghans pointed to the contrails from a B52 flying overhead and said that so long as they were on the prowl, the Taliban would not come back and life would be good.

            If it carried on for long enough, maybe people would regard the aircraft overhead a bit like an awesomly powerful deity with an inexplicable fondness for womens rights. Come to think of it, the Old Testament God had inexplicable preferences too. Perhaps Gods need to be both ultra powerful and hard to understand to make people worship them and not their competitors.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 24 2008, @12:09PM (#25499963)

          Larry and Sergey have shown unquestionably that they are utterly out of touch.

          Lets see... you state a bunch of things going on in a country, then you use that as a basis to criticize how private personal funds are used by private personal people to buy something they want? Really? Who's the one out of touch? Have you bought anything recently... like say a video game, movie, or music? Then you're as much as fault as these guys, who happen to just have more spending power than you and you're jealous about it.

          I won't go into the fact that these guys probably just saved a few people their jobs by spending their money... but oh well.

      • by somersault (912633) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:40AM (#25498495) Homepage Journal

        So everyone with more money than you should give it all to charity?

        You think those starving children in Africa wouldn't go out for a meal at a fancy restaurant if they were given a billion pounds? Then perhaps buy some nice shoes? They could just use it to buy everyone in their country just the right amount of food to make sure they're not classed as 'starving' for a while, but I highly suspect they might want to enjoy themselves a little too. They might even buy a bike or a car. You know, some people like to have fun occasionally, when it is within their means?

        I'm very sure Larry and Sergey have caused more money to go to charity [bbc.co.uk] than you ever will. Just because they also want to use their money - money that they have earned by creating an excellent business - to have a bit of fun doesn't make them evil. It's easy to point the finger, but I bet you'd buy a nice car and house if you were a billionaire, rather than live in a slum. Any of us slashdotters could survive on a lot less than what we have. Why do you even have a slashdot account and access to a computer? Why aren't you out there earning as much money as you can so that you can redistribute the wealth?

        The problem is not with our "consumerist culture", it's with corrupt and moronic governments who run their countries into the ground and treat their citizens like shit. No amount of charity is going to turn a country like that around if its leaders are corrupt.

        • by Shade of Pyrrhus (992978) on Friday October 24 2008, @11:02AM (#25498867)
          So what is the jet really for, though? For fun? According to another article [gawker.com]...

          Science, of course! H211 LLC uses many of its jets for NASA-sponsored experiments, since they operate primarily out of Moffett field, a NASA-controlled airstrip that's conveniently located right next to Google's Mountain View HQ. The jet was acquired to carry scientific instruments that could not be rigged up to Boeing 757/767 and Gulfstream jets the company already operates, some of which were used to monitor the re-entry of the ESA's Jules Verne satellite.

        • by florescent_beige (608235) on Friday October 24 2008, @11:31AM (#25499369) Journal

          The construction and maintenance of a fighter jet is one of the more labour intensive things you can buy. So I look at this as a large transfer of money from the rich guys to working people.

          Our little company has done engineering work for the Canadian Forces Alpha Jets but mostly we convert super expensive large business jets. We charge a lot.

          Flying toys are one of the worlds best wealth re-distributors. Small numbers of ridiculously wealthy middle eastern princes and other "principles" keep our team of engineers and techies employed, not to mention a whole raft of suppliers. And then you have to include all the people who work for airframe OEMs.

          After they buy something from us they are quite a bit less wealthy than they were before.

          • by mr_mischief (456295) on Friday October 24 2008, @11:06AM (#25498945) Journal

            Sam Walton is dead. It's difficult to drive a pickup while afflicted with such a condition.

          • by MBGMorden (803437) on Friday October 24 2008, @11:11AM (#25499033)

            Hmmmm. And Sarah Palin's $150,000 was also good fiscal prudence, too?

            I'm not voting for her either way, but I fail to see why people pounce on her for this. She's a public figure that is engaging in the mother of all popularity contests. Like it or not, appearance makes a HUGE difference to the American people. That $150,000 is an investment in her campaign plain and simple. If she stood up there in K-mart clothes people would have perceived her as less sophisticated.

            Essentially, consider it part of the advertising budget. When you're trying to sell yourself to a nation packaging is important.

            • by postbigbang (761081) on Friday October 24 2008, @11:25AM (#25499277)

              It's very easy to pounce on her for having the RNC spend $150,000 on a freaking wardrobe. This isn't Barbie we're dressing here, it's an Alaskan governor that ought to have already had a wardrobe for that office. Even the top women execs I know don't have a budget like that. It takes her from where she was to some sort of 'star' status, rather than a prudent user of political funds. I wonder aloud if they'd have paid for a boob job should she have needed one.

              It's imprudent, and grandiose.

              • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Friday October 24 2008, @12:56PM (#25500653)
                Advertising budget, yes. Personal expenditures, no. They are forbidden by the campaign laws that John McCain pushed through Congress. Clothing qualifies as personal expenditures. It appears that the RNC bought them so these purchases are exempt from those rules. However, given the state of the economy and the campaign's attempt to portray her as a "hockey mom", the amount of the purchases appear to be unwise.
    • Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)

      by gclef (96311) on Friday October 24 2008, @10:17AM (#25498121)

      Yes, Red Bull is definitely evil. You can tell by the taste.

    • by Moraelin (679338) on Friday October 24 2008, @11:52AM (#25499641) Journal

      Well, the more I hear about Google, the more they seem like everyone else. And I'm not saying it in a condemning way or anything. They're just human.

      They too need some big expensive toy as suspicious consumption. They too would rape your privacy if it helps optimize 0.01% off their average search time, and thus make an extra buck. They too will sell some Chinese babbling about "democracy" to the authorities if that's the price to make a billion dollars in business in China. They too will expose your data occasionally if it's cheaper than hiring testers. And they too apparently aren't above making a backroom deal with Yahoo or using patents keep the competition out of their little monopoly field.

      (According to at least one analysis, that's why MS wants to buy Yahoo. Some time ago Yahoo apparently bought a small company who had a blanket patent on matching ads to the text on the page. Yahoo licensed it to Google, but refuses to license it to MS or anyone else.)

      In a nutshell, they're like any other corporation. Plus a funky meaningless motto, that some people mistake for some kind of final proof that Google is the digital-age Mother Theresa. Heh.

      The thing is, no other corporation is "evil" in the sense of seeking to cause the maximum misery, pain and destruction possible. Even MS, I'd bet they never had a board meeting along the lines of, "how can we make more people miserable?" There are no super-villains cackling over doomsday device blueprints. And there are no altruistic super-heroes either. There are only greedy people trying to make a buck, and the difference is in how many corpses they feel they can get away with stepping over, on their way to the top.

      At any rate, Google "doing no evil"... well, it's technically true, but only in as much as you could say with a straight face that MS does no evil. They don't sacrifice babies to Satan or anything. But from there, both have shown repeatedly that their goal is simply to make the most money, and both don't have much consideration for whoever might get to suffer for it. As is, indeed, expected of a corporation.

      They're just human. They're just a corporation. That's it. It doesn't make them evil, it merely makes them the same as everyone else. One just has the funny motto.

      Well, I think I'll make "36 inch penis" my motto. I'm sure some people will actually believe that I live up to that ;)

    • Just a guess (Score:4, Informative)

      by Overzeetop (214511) on Friday October 24 2008, @11:17AM (#25499125) Journal

      But I suspect is has to do with a large stack of paper with pictures of presidents on them. You'd be amazed out how well such things work when the stack is large enough. The key is to make sure that your get them into the right hands. Elected officials are particularly partial to them, and hold a great deal of sway over what is and what isn't allowed.

    • Re:Controversy (Score:4, Informative)

      by ceoyoyo (59147) on Friday October 24 2008, @12:39PM (#25500399)

      They let NASA use their planes for research.