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

[Quirky]

I've heard rumint we'll be sticking with the F-35, ordering more P-8s and replacing the Cyclone with UH-60R Seahawks, and the government is trying to figure out how to announce it while still saying "elbows up".

Elbows up will believe whatever MSM tells them. If the media frame it as a win for Canada - buying more US equipment - they’ll eat it up as Carney making great decisions.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Elbows up will believe whatever MSM tells them. If the media frame it as a win for Canada - buying more US equipment - they’ll eat it up as Carney making great decisions.

The F35 and P8’s were already announced so nothing new here. The Seahawks are the only net new piece here.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I've heard rumint we'll be sticking with the F-35, ordering more P-8s and replacing the Cyclone with UH-60R Seahawks, and the government is trying to figure out how to announce it while still saying "elbows up".

I dearly hope so, it will be incredibly amusing if this whole marketing push by Saab turns out to be a move by the Govt to push LM into additional concessions lol.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I dearly hope so, it will be incredibly amusing if this whole marketing push by Saab turns out to be a move by the Govt to push LM into additional concessions lol.

It would be incredibly stupid of us to leave the Swedes high and dry with their dicks in their hands - we’ll be seen as untrustworthy and just like the Americans.

 

[Rainbow1910]

It would be incredibly stupid of us to leave the Swedes high and dry with their dicks in their hands - we’ll be seen as untrustworthy and just like the Americans.

We literally don't owe the Swedish anything here, they lost the fighter competition itself and all that is going on is discussions from Government from Carney's review of the contract. Nobody has promised anybody anything, and Saab's proposals are just that, proposals. If they want to call us untrustworthy for considering their proposal and not taking it, they are unreasonable sellers.

 

[Czech_pivo]

We literally don't owe the Swedish anything here, they lost the fighter competition itself and all that is going on is discussions from Government from Carney's review of the contract. Nobody has promised anybody anything, and Saab's proposals are just that, proposals. If they want to call us untrustworthy for considering their proposal and not taking it, they are unreasonable sellers.

You don’t just send a King and Queen off to a country to tour a place like Bombardier without our side clearing it as being appropriate and with merit.
In the world of Ceremony and Protocol this would be seen as a huge fuck up by us for allowing it to happen.

 

[ytz]

There are fantastic Swedish products.

The CV90. The Archer. The Carl G. The AT4. The NLAW. The BvS10.

The T-7 Red Hawk. The Meteor. The GLSDB.

The Giraffe radar family. The ARTHUR counter battery radar.

But from all of that we might get the two things that are unsuitable for Canada.

 

[ytz]

You don’t just send a King and Queen off to a country to tour a place like Bombardier without our side clearing it as being appropriate and with merit.
In the world of Ceremony and Protocol this would be seen as a huge fuck up by us for allowing it to happen.

Not quite. It's part of their lobbying to send the mascot. The Brits do the same. They don't always win.

They won't be bitter if they don't win. Business is business.

They'd be more upset if they actually spent money on a plant and then we nixed a deal or changed our mind.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not quite. It's part of their lobbying to send the mascot. The Brits do the same. They don't always win.

They won't be bitter if they don't win. Business is business.

They'd be more upset if they actually spent money on a plant and then we nixed a deal or changed our mind.

We’ll see.

 

[ytz]

We’ll see.

We deal with OEMs in my line of work. They lobby hard. That part is not personal. What they take a dim view of, is where they spend money on a futile effort. Like say we rig a bid and they bid anyway. Complex bids can take tens of millions. That kind of thing can attract a lawsuit. On the other hand, they don't hold grudges if the lobbying fails. Especially in a situation where their lobbying expects us to damage a substantial relationship.

 

[Nvlgzr]

I've heard rumint we'll be sticking with the F-35, ordering more P-8s and replacing the Cyclone with UH-60R Seahawks, and the government is trying to figure out how to announce it while still saying "elbows up".

Seahawks? Not Aw101? After all, the helicopter deck, hanger and Mission Bay (2 choppers in tandem) were originally laid out for the Merlin.

 

[Maxman1]

Seahawks? Not Aw101? After all, the helicopter deck, hanger and Mission Bay (2 choppers in tandem) were originally laid out for the Merlin.

I'd prefer AW101s. It's probably because of Chretien that they picked the Seahawk.

 

[Czech_pivo]

We deal with OEMs in my line of work. They lobby hard. That part is not personal. What they take a dim view of, is where they spend money on a futile effort. Like say we rig a bid and they bid anyway. Complex bids can take tens of millions. That kind of thing can attract a lawsuit. On the other hand, they don't hold grudges if the lobbying fails. Especially in a situation where their lobbying expects us to damage a substantial relationship.

From the newest batch of rumint saying we are sticking with 88 F35, the P8 (which there was no chatter of us not getting) and now us getting Seahawks, to the G&M article talking about 32-40 F35’s and the Globaleye - there is a lot of disinformation and counter information being blown about.