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

[Colin Parkinson]

Yup that’s my number 1 expected threat — second is a bunch of armed folks who will just drive in and shoot up the place.

Don't worry we have Commissionaires for that eventuality......

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's it. All Army members should now be in full battle kit at all times regardless of duties or posting because, you know, just in case.

With the vast majority of CAF bases currently unsecured, an actual gate might be a reasonable first step.

But that would interfere with traffic offbase at 4....

I remember Lahr having a bunker facing the main gate with a GPMG in it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

That's it. All Army members should now be in full battle kit at all times regardless of duties or posting because, you know, just in case.

With the vast majority of CAF bases currently unsecured, an actual gate might be a reasonable first step.

Recent observations suggest that it's unlikely you'll even find them in a recognizable uniform ...

 

[SupersonicMax]

Willly looks like it has an arming area with berms and certainly one concrete roofed aircraft hangarette.

Darwin has hangerettes with full berms. What the roofs are made of, I can’t tell.

Back to the point: build the hangerettes to get the F-35s delivered.

Have a plan to start building armoured aircraft parking areas.

They are Operational Loading Areas. The berms are meant to protect other aircraft from explosion if a loaded aircraft catches fires, explodes, etc, not to protect from attacks. The ones in which we load weapons will have equivalent protection. Their roof is made of metal, just like the hangarettes we’ll build. They do not close therefore are much more susceptible to UAVs attack than ours.

There’s gotta be something us and our allies are not doing wrong.

 

[suffolkowner]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1824113833377714587

fancy -these look more serious

 

[KevinB]

They are Operational Loading Areas. The berms are meant to protect other aircraft from explosion if a loaded aircraft catches fires, explodes, etc, not to protect from attacks. The ones in which we load weapons will have equivalent protection. Their roof is made of metal, just like the hangarettes we’ll build. They do not close therefore are much more susceptible to UAVs attack than ours.

There’s gotta be something us and our allies are not doing wrong.

Or complacency…

Every year there are security tests done on facilities, and many recommendations then ignored.

However we do have HAS for a number of platforms.

 

[armrdsoul77]

Inflatables!

 

[SupersonicMax]

Or complacency…

Every year there are security tests done on facilities, and many recommendations then ignored.

However we do have HAS for a number of platforms.

You do have HAS, in locations that require it. Otherwise, you don’t have HAS for each and every aircraft, nor should you.

 

[Good2Golf]

You do have HAS, in locations that require it. Otherwise, you don’t have HAS for each and every aircraft, nor should you.

Which doesn’t align with your perspective that we don’t need them (HAS). The fact that you previously referred to our neighbors to the South and why should we do anything differently than them rings hollow…

 

[Loachman]

I remember Lahr having a bunker facing the main gate with a GPMG in it.

A tin box with drop-down upper panels at each gate, one soldier with a C1 therein, and a single magazine containing ten rounds in his pocket for super-instantaneous-lightning response.

 

[CBH99]

A tin box with drop-down upper panels at each gate, one soldier with a C1 therein, and a single magazine containing ten rounds in his pocket for super-instantaneous-lightning response.

Loachman!! Now that's a handle I haven't seen in a few years!

Welcome back, good to see ya

 

[KevinB]

A tin box with drop-down upper panels at each gate, one soldier with a C1 therein, and a single magazine containing ten rounds in his pocket for super-instantaneous-lightning response.

Well the C1 mag at least sort of fit the pocket - the C7 mag made sure you couldn’t get it out of the pocket unless a sundial was used as a timer.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Which doesn’t align with your perspective that we don’t need them (HAS). The fact that you previously referred to our neighbors to the South and why should we do anything differently than them rings hollow…

Nope. Perfectly aligned. They don’t park fighters in HAS in CONUS/AK. Heck, their F-22s in AK are in hangars just like we’ll have. They have HAS in Japan, Korea, etc. If we had bases there, we certainly should have them as well, given the risk.

 

[KevinB]

Nope. Perfectly aligned. They don’t park fighters in HAS in CONUS/AK. Heck, their F-22s in AK are in hangars just like we’ll have. They have HAS in Japan, Korea, etc. If we had bases there, we certainly should have them as well, given the risk.

We do have some domestic HAS FWIW.

But we also have a fairly robust base security system, so it’s not a commissionaire sitting at the gate, and 1-3 MP’s trying to peg folks for speeding on base available to respond.

 

[markppcli]

Or complacency…

Every year there are security tests done on facilities, and many recommendations then ignored.

However we do have HAS for a number of platforms.

I haven’t seen one, maybe it’s different for the ready air craft but most US flight lines I’ve seen have been just canvas overtop.


Honestly we’ve argued this before on the GBAD, the thread of a UAS attack is either

a) a high level asset being flown into our air space which we will identify, intercept, and destroy via NORAD or

b) a team of en SOF have infiltrated Canada and have decided to target a fighter base, they’ve some how managed to evade all our security apparatus’s - so they’re pretty good clearly, and have chosen to destroy these jets via a bunch of modified commercial drones? Seems like the worst of a bunch of options to me.

Does the CAF need better force protection measures ? Most probably yes. The measures we take though should be based around likelihood of threats.

 

[KevinB]

I haven’t seen one, maybe it’s different for the ready air craft but most US flight lines I’ve seen have been just canvas overtop.


Honestly we’ve argued this before on the GBAD, the thread of a UAS attack is either

a) a high level asset being flown into our air space which we will identify, intercept, and destroy via NORAD or

b) a team of en SOF have infiltrated Canada and have decided to target a fighter base, they’ve some how managed to evade all our security apparatus’s - so they’re pretty good clearly, and have chosen to destroy these jets via a bunch of modified commercial drones? Seems like the worst of a bunch of options to me.

Does the CAF need better force protection measures ? Most probably yes. The measures we take though should be based around likelihood of threats.

C) disgruntled former RCAF NCO from Cold Lake who’s morals where eroded from being in Cold Lake

 

[Good2Golf]

b) a team of en SOF have infiltrated Canada and have decided to target a fighter base, they’ve some how managed to evade all our security apparatus’s - so they’re pretty good clearly, and have chosen to destroy these jets via a bunch of modified commercial drones? Seems like the worst of a bunch of options to me.

Prepare tinfoil hat…maybe it wouldn’t be the first time?

Site: PIN-3 | The DEWLine

lswilson.dewlineadventures.com

 

[ytz]

Nope. Perfectly aligned. They don’t park fighters in HAS in CONUS/AK. Heck, their F-22s in AK are in hangars just like we’ll have. They have HAS in Japan, Korea, etc. If we had bases there, we certainly should have them as well, given the risk.

Yep. CL and Bag are also more remote than most American fighter bases. Notice how nobody here is talking about Nellis here, like a 20 min Uber from the strip. I was here a few years ago. I don't remember HAS on the Weapons School flight lines. And think of the types and numbers of aircraft that base sees. Also, no talk of all the ANG bases that are basically hangars at some regional airport.

Also, interesting to me how people only think of protecting fighters and now say a C-17 that costs more and is impossible to replace.

 

[Good2Golf]

Also, interesting to me how people only think of protecting fighters and now say a C-17 that costs more and is impossible to replace.

…or CT-114s on the ramp in Moose Jaw. Destroy a national treasure, and a nation will drop into despair and be much more easily influenced.

 

[ytz]

Or complacency…

Every year there are security tests done on facilities, and many recommendations then ignored.

However we do have HAS for a number of platforms.

There's a lot of threats to defend against. Protecting military assets are one among many concerns. All kinds of critical infrastructure and personnel have to be protected. Not just the aircraft on the ramp. I notice how none of you guys are talking about say the water supply, POL or power to the bases. Or protecting personnel and their families. We could spend entire budgets just on force protection. Doesn't deliver extra capability. Investment on force protection has to be reasonably balanced.