RG-35. Why did BAE lose.

BAE's entrant in the Canadian TAPV contest seemed like a surefire winner.

It came from the S. African design house and is a clean sheet design.  It's modular, a true mine protected vehicle, boasts tremendous mobility, had a 6x6 version and is capable of carrying a wide array of weapons.

How did it lose?

I have absolutely no idea!  BAE played the domestic production card right and teamed up with several Canadian companies...it built or expanded a campus in that country and I refuse to believe that they lost due to price...especially after the institutional knowledge gained from the FMTV debacle.

So how did the Textron product beat the RG-35? 

I don't know and the Canadian Department of Defense isn't telling.  At least they aren't telling me.  Information is proprietary and they can't discuss the different bids or the criteria on which they based their decision.

You might say no problem.  I say you're wrong.  A chilling effect is creeping into the defense industry and I'm afraid that we'll simply see re-worked vehicles instead of cutting edge advancements if current trends continue.  If you take a look at the major armor vehicle makers in the west, you'll see product improved vehicles, rearmored vehicles but few NEW vehicles.  BAE is one of the very few organizations that appears to be bringing new designs to the market place.

We'll see what we'll see but it appears that the global recession has hit and we're entering a time similar to the period between WW1 and 2....minor improvements on existing hardware but no major advancements for a generation.