- Reaction score
- 20,341
- Points
- 1,360
The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 19,928
- Points
- 1,260
Got it, a Hangar, but for Ants.
- Reaction score
- 1,633
- Points
- 1,140
Hangars for single aircraft that are drive-in, drive-out. In warm climates, they are opened. Ours will be closed, like those in the middle on the picture (6, 7, 8 and 9).
AmmoTech90
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 981
- Points
- 1,010
Has HAS?
- Reaction score
- 1,633
- Points
- 1,140
That’d be overkill in North America.
- Reaction score
- 15,317
- Points
- 1,010
I think that might be an optimistic appreciation of the situation.
- Reaction score
- 1,633
- Points
- 1,140
Over the last 100 years, how many airfield in Canadian soil were attacked?
Our southern neighbours don’t put their aircraft in HAS either…
- Reaction score
- 20,341
- Points
- 1,360
Certainly not before 120 years ago…
Not sure the “it hasn’t happened previously, so it won’t in the future…” logic is sound.
- Reaction score
- 15,317
- Points
- 1,010
How many times was Pearl Harbor attacked before 07 Dec 1941?
By your logic, 07 Dec 1941 was impossible- no point in planning for it, right?
Tell me- with precision, how many aircraft you have personally shot down while standing Q?
If your answer is “0”, then what was the point of all those years of standing Q? An attack did not happen in the past, therefore it is impossible in the future, right?
IMHO, as a minimum, the QRA facilities should be HAS.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 3,827
- Points
- 1,120
With the advent of drones, and the current lack of effective means within some military organizations to stop UAS beyond geo-fencing, I'd suggest that the 'it won't happen here' is a bit optimistic.
- Reaction score
- 15,317
- Points
- 1,010
Exactly. I don’t want to see our multi-billion dollar fleet of CF-35s defeated by a multi-thousand dollar attack of UAS, that could be mitigated by want of some concrete and steel structures…
- Reaction score
- 19,928
- Points
- 1,260
Actually given the few locations and low numbers of airframes, I think someone could do it for a thousand dollars or less…
armrdsoul77
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 408
- Points
- 930
I'd think software security being just as important as what you park it in.
- Reaction score
- 25,347
- Points
- 1,090
Depends on how you define "attacked" - is "brought out a piano and set it on fire" an attack?
- Reaction score
- 15,317
- Points
- 1,010
There is no defence against piano fire…
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Points
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 1,633
- Points
- 1,140
As you’re aware, it’s risk management. Probability is always a factor in the assessment of risk, as is severity. When you look at constructing HAS for individual aircraft, it blows up cost and timeline. Is it worth delaying the capability for that extra protection? Me think not.
UAVs is a threat but it is the same for HAS or Hangarette. A UAV can only really inflict damage if the doors are opened. That would happen in the same conditions for both a HAS and a hangarette. That leaves conventional attacks as being the biggest threat. We will have enough I&W to disperse if that materializes. Seems like our allies to the south share the same assessment for their F-35s.
- Reaction score
- 15,317
- Points
- 1,010
I think that is what we, in the business, call “wishful thinking”.
- Reaction score
- 1,633
- Points
- 1,140
Dude, Bagotville and Cold Lake are at least 700 nm from any approach, which is 70 minutes at M1.0, assuming the platforms are undetected prior to being overland. We’d know.
And if we get to a point that is close to war, we’d have a heightened posture through NORAD. A HAS wouldn’t make a difference in our fleet survival.
Risk assessment and « accepting a risk » is always wishful thinking.
