• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

Interesting I always considered Hangars for fighters as being something like this.
IMG_1555.jpeg
 
Over the last 100 years, how many airfield in Canadian soil were attacked?

Our southern neighbours don’t put their aircraft in HAS either…
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:
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.
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…
 
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…
Actually given the few locations and low numbers of airframes, I think someone could do it for a thousand dollars or less…
 
There is no defence against piano fire…
Why can’t we bring that back as “history and heritage”…

burning south africa GIF by Universal Music Africa
 
Certainly not before 120 years ago…

Not sure the “it hasn’t happened previously, so it won’t in the future…” logic is sound.
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.
 
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.
I think that is what we, in the business, call “wishful thinking”.
 
I think that is what we, in the business, call “wishful thinking”.
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.
 
Back
Top