Talk:Planned Canadian Forces projects

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Canadian / North America C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force

Canada: Governments / Military List‑class Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
List	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as move. I've gone for Planned Canadian Forces projects as that's shorter and clearer

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Planned Canadian Forces projects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Planned Canadian Forces projects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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 [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)[reply]