Got it, a Hangar, but for Ants.
That’d be overkill in North America.Interesting I always considered Hangars for fighters as being something like this.
View attachment 87272
I think that might be an optimistic appreciation of the situation.That’d be overkill in North America.
Over the last 100 years, how many airfield in Canadian soil were attacked?I think that might be an optimistic appreciation of the situation.
Certainly not before 120 years ago…Over the last 100 years, how many airfield in Canadian soil were attacked?
How many times was Pearl Harbor attacked before 07 Dec 1941?Over the last 100 years, how many airfield in Canadian soil were attacked?
Our southern neighbours don’t put their aircraft in HAS either…
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…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.
Actually given the few locations and low numbers of airframes, I think someone could do it for a thousand dollars or less…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…
Depends on how you define "attacked" - is "brought out a piano and set it on fire" an attack?Over the last 100 years, how many airfield in Canadian soil were attacked?
There is no defence against piano fire…Depends on how you define "attacked" - is "brought out a piano and set it on fire" an attack?
Why can’t we bring that back as “history and heritage”…There is no defence against piano fire…
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.Certainly not before 120 years ago…
Not sure the “it hasn’t happened previously, so it won’t in the future…” logic is sound.
I think that is what we, in the business, call “wishful thinking”.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.
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.I think that is what we, in the business, call “wishful thinking”.