Search results

A HAS wouldn’t have helped.

That’s part of the risk of owning rental property. Hiking rent while interest is higher would be fine…. If a corresponding decrease in interest would result in rent reduction. We all know that when interests come back down that landlords will pocket the difference.

Small arms wont stop 2,000 lb penetrators bombs, which is what a HAS is really meant to protect against. I’m a lot more concerned about cyber attacks to the F-35’s IM infrastructure than a physical attack against our future F-35s.

It is already not. SOFCOM operated CE145s and CH146s, and other elements operate a multitude of UAS.

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.

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

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...

In Willy, I am pretty sure you’re looking at munition storage area. And I strongly suspect the ones in Darwin, Tindal and Townsville aren’t hardened but tinned-roof, with no doors. I believe they are loading areas.

Have you looked at Anchorage by any chance? Or Langley? Or Beaufort? Or Miramar? Or Tyndall?

We will be maintaining out of them and living in some of them.

Oh, I can start and launch a Hornet pretty quickly. An F-35 is even easier.

Because of many factors: 1- The design of a HAS is a lot more complex than a hangarette 2- We don’t have enough space to put them. We’d need to open a new area on the base which would require new/much expanded services (sewer, water, power, etc). 3- The construction of a HAS is a lot more...

The announcement was for the Bagotville QRA. The FSF and associated hangarette are only a Bagotville/Cold Lake thing.

We’re talking about infrastructure in Bagotville and Cold Lake.

Again, it’s assessing the risk of something actually happening vs the consequences of not accepting such a risk. Would you be willing to delay the F-35s by 10 years to put them in HAS?

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...

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...

Over the last 100 years, how many airfield in Canadian soil were attacked? Our southern neighbours don’t put their aircraft in HAS either…

That’d be overkill in North America.

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).