Talk:Planned Canadian Forces projects

Requested move
Future Canadian Forces projects → Planned Canadian Forces procurement projects – Relisted. Favonian (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Many of the listed projects are already active with assigned staff and budgets, and many more have the staff but no budget as of yet. They are not so much "future" as they are planned. 142.166.198.226 (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

TAPV winner announced http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/06/08/textron-and-a-number-of-canadian-based-firms-emerge-the-winners-of-the-tactical-armoured-patrol-vehicle-program/ if someone would like to update it. Magu (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

CH-148 Cyclone Information
I updated the Cyclone box today however I was unsure of whether to leave the 2009 information in the box. It is quite out of date but does it serve the need to show how delayed the project is?

Orcair (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Orcair

Major Cleaning - August 2014
I've just spent a bit of time updating the page - anything that is pre-2014 has been removed, unless the project is continuing. I've also tried to update a few of the projects. Some of the pre-2014 projects I have kept as there has not been any evidence the project has been completed. --Orcair (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Planned Canadian Forces projects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090719013534/http://www.rheinmetall.ca:80/servlet/file?id=53 to http://www.rheinmetall.ca/servlet/file?id=53
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609184719/http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/vol_12/vol12_25/1225_full.pdf to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/vol_12/vol12_25/1225_full.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Planned Canadian Forces projects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517081040/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca:80/lf/english/6_1_1.asp?id=2394 to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=2394

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Planned Canadian Forces projects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208081822/http://www.casr.ca/bg-artillery-lrprs-rocket-project.htm to http://www.casr.ca/bg-artillery-lrprs-rocket-project.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090710091334/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090108/rocket_army_090108/20090108?hub=Canada to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090108/rocket_army_090108/20090108?hub=Canada
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130193209/http://www.casr.ca/doc-loi-lrprs-rocket.htm to http://www.casr.ca/doc-loi-lrprs-rocket.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130193209/http://www.casr.ca/doc-loi-lrprs-rocket.htm to http://www.casr.ca/doc-loi-lrprs-rocket.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091208081822/http://www.casr.ca/bg-artillery-lrprs-rocket-project.htm to http://www.casr.ca/bg-artillery-lrprs-rocket-project.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916074640/http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3037 to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3037
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120630005739/http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2009/12/14/canadian-army-eryx-missile-system-being-cannibalized-to-keep-it-going-until-2016.aspx to http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2009/12/14/canadian-army-eryx-missile-system-being-cannibalized-to-keep-it-going-until-2016.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603222854/http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4821 to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4821

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin CF-35 Vs. Saab Gripen E
As of writing it is March 29, 2022 EST. The government has announced that it is moving into negotiations for the CF-35. Multiple sources (mostly less reputable ones) have taken this as a guarantee of buying the CF-35, but this Global News article says it isn't. CBC is also weary of 100% calling it, using careful language like 'preferred' and "Canada is planning to buy 88 new fighter jets to replace its aging CF-18s" instead of 'Canada is planning to buy 88 new F-35s to replace...' In fact, they even made an entire section in [|the article] explaining that it wasn't "a lock for Lockheed Martin": "The decision Monday all but guarantees Lockheed Martin the $19 billion contract for 88 of the ultra-modern fighters." Finally, Reuters also takes a similar tone.

Other sources like Flight Global, Aviation International News, Postmedia and CP24 are declaring it final. The first two are laughable if you're going to cite them as credible news sources, the third is probably prematurely declaring a very, very, likely deal for political reasons, and CP24 might've just been following the others.

Basically, I don't think we should add this yet. This is bad journalism at best and politically and clickbait motivated misinformation at worst. It's likely that the negotiations will take a few weeks, so I would love to hear more input. -PoliceClarity (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)