I think it's certainly a consideration. I'll break those out into a couple of cases. If we're just talking about fighters, for example, they're going to operate from paved surfaces. The Inuvik runway is 6,000 feet. Quite often when our F-18s are there, they'll take the cable with a hook. But many aircraft have, for instance, drag chutes that preclude the need for that hook, because that will allow them to stop in that distance. I don't see any infrastructure limitations, irrespective of what replacement of the F-18 is—if I imagine where your question is going.
With respect to our tanker aircraft, it should be noted—and I think Lieutenant General St-Amand will speak to you about this on Tuesday—that the majority of the time in our NORAD response there are American tankers on standby. There's one in Bangor, Maine, and another one in Oregon. When we launch our F-18s, it's quite often U.S. tanker support.
Notwithstanding the testimony you heard on Tuesday, we have five Airbus, but only two of them are air-to-air refuelling tankers. One is deployed right now, and the other one is in heavy maintenance; it's not available to support. That aircraft is coming to the end of its life as well. We have plans for replacement. We're waiting for the decision to be made on the future fighter aircraft, and that will determine the requirements of the next tanker aircraft.
So whether it is a probe-and-drogue, as we use right now, or a boom that flies into a refuelling receptacle, we will replace the tanker aircraft with whatever our front-line fighter is at the time. That's been our plan for quite some time.