{"id":66192,"date":"2005-01-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-14T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/01\/14\/qdr-2005-le-jsf-se-rapproche-du-collimateur\/"},"modified":"2005-01-14T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-01-14T00:00:00","slug":"qdr-2005-le-jsf-se-rapproche-du-collimateur","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/01\/14\/qdr-2005-le-jsf-se-rapproche-du-collimateur\/","title":{"rendered":"QDR-2005 : le JSF se rapproche du collimateur<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

QDR-2005 : le JSF se rapproche du collimateur<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t14 janvier 2005 La bataille de la QDR-2005<\/a> ne cesse de se pr\u00e9ciser comme un engagement fondamental sur les choix de programmes d’armement du Pentagone, en fonction des r\u00e9ductions budg\u00e9taires r\u00e9clam\u00e9es. Au cur des pol\u00e9miques qui accompagnent ces choix, le programme JSF<\/a> ne cesse d’y trouver une place de plus en plus importante, bien que l’intention initiale du Pentagone ait \u00e9t\u00e9 de le maintenir en-dehors.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn s\u00e9minaire a eu lieu le 13 janvier \u00e0 l’American Enterprise Institute (AEI)<\/a>, portant sur cette question des choix budg\u00e9taires. (L’AEI est l’institut des n\u00e9o-conservateurs am\u00e9ricains.) Des sp\u00e9cialistes des questions d’armement comme Dov Zakheim et Loren Thompson ont d\u00e9battu de la question. L’hebdomadaire Defense News<\/em> a publi\u00e9 un texte sur cette r\u00e9union<\/a> et en donne un compte-rendu ce matin.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes programmes d’avions de combat ont \u00e9t\u00e9 notamment abord\u00e9s en profondeur. On a pu voir que, \u00e0 propos de la r\u00e9duction annonc\u00e9e dans le programme F\/A-22, la concurrence de ce programme avec le JSF est de plus en plus mise en \u00e9vidence, avec l’interrogation concernant l’impunit\u00e9 dont a b\u00e9n\u00e9fici\u00e9 le JSF par rapport au F\/A-22.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab While some commentators, like panel member Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va., think tank, have assailed the Pentagon for proposing the termination of the F\/A-22 aircraft, Zakheim said the alternative scaling back the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) would have produced an international backlash from allies who participate in the program. At a time when the administration needs help from Britain and the rest of Europe in Iraq and other hotspots, reducing the number of JSFs would have been untenable, he said.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Zakheim also defended the administration’s commitment to military transformation and pointed to a slew of advanced technology programs that have been robustly provided for in the defense budgets of the past four years.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Panel member Michael O’Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said the proposed defense cuts could go further. We don’t need to buy 2,500 JSF planes to keep [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair happy. The Pentagon could buy more of the short-take-off-and-landing version of the JSF instead of the conventional version, he said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t() <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb O’Hanlon and Steve Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments agreed with Zakheim that most of the proposed cuts are unavoidable.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb But Thompson disagreed. He said the proposed budget cuts were less the result of careful analysis and more the product of the ideology of a handful of advisers to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb While these advisers, who also miscalculated the Iraq war effort, could have chosen other areas of the defense budget to save $30 billion, they picked major weapon systems for the cuts, he said. But Thompson offered no suggestions on where the money could have come from.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The Pentagon’s current philosophy of weapon development the capability-based defense posture, which calls for fielding new weapons when the underlying technology is ready rather than responding to threats is a wrong approach, Thompson said. Threats to American security dictate that 381 F\/A-22 fighter aircraft should be bought, Thompson said. The F\/A-22 should stay.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tOn observe trois attitudes avec les deux programmes d’avions de combat, chacune charg\u00e9e d’ambigu\u00eft\u00e9s. L’une dans l’autre, elles nous confirment effectivement combien le cas du JSF est en train de venir en pleine lumi\u00e8re. On notera \u00e9galement combien ces trois positions rencontrent et confirment les jugements \u00e0 l’emporte-pi\u00e8ce de Frank C. Lanza<\/a>: sur la v\u00e9ritable fonction du programme international du JSF, sur la question du volume de production du JSF, sur l’indispensabilit\u00e9 du F\/A-22.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• L’intervention de Zakheim confirme combien le caract\u00e8re international du JSF est utilis\u00e9 comme protection du programme. Zakheim, qui a quitt\u00e9 l’administration il y a huit mois, peut \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme exposant la position de l’administration \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• La simple remarque d’O’Hanlon (\u00ab We don’t need to buy 2,500 JSF planes to keep Blair happy<\/em> \u00bb), pourtant partisan des r\u00e9ductions du F\/A-22, montre la fragilit\u00e9 de la position de l’administration. D\u00e9fendre un programme am\u00e9ricain, ou, dans tous les cas, une commande massive dans ce programme au nom des int\u00e9r\u00eats des participants \u00e9trangers dans ce m\u00eame programme, voil\u00e0 un argument qui ne fera pas fortune au Congr\u00e8s et qui conduira \u00e0 faire du JSF la cible de tous les vrais Am\u00e9ricains.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• La position de Thompson est int\u00e9ressante: \u00e0 100% pour le F\/A-22 (et m\u00eame 150%, si l’on songe qu’il voudrait restaurer l’ancien chiffre de 277 exemplaires r\u00e9duit \u00e0 180, en le faisant passer \u00e0 381), pas un mot des programmes o\u00f9 l’on pourrait trouver l’argent pour compenser la restauration des fonds du F\/A-22 (c’est-\u00e0-dire : pas un mot du JSF). En quelques jours, la position de Thompson a chang\u00e9 et le parcours est int\u00e9ressant \u00e0 rappeler.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDans une chronique de Defense News, le 3 janvier<\/a>, il parlait du combat perdu d’avance de l’USAF pour conserver la commande de F\/A-22 \u00e0 277 exemplaires (\u00ab During the final, gray days of December, while much of official Washington was away on vacation, the beleaguered leadership of the U.S. Air Force fought a losing battle to defend their service’s future against budget-cutters in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)<\/em> \u00bb). Au s\u00e9minaire de l’AEI, le ton a compl\u00e8tement chang\u00e9. Que s’est-il pass\u00e9?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThompson est consultant, et il travaille pour Lockheed Martin. Son commentaire traduit l’\u00e9volution de la position de son employeur, dans une bataille o\u00f9 Lockheed Martin devrait \u00eatre partag\u00e9 au d\u00e9part puisqu’il produit le F\/A-22 et le JSF. L’\u00e9volution de Thompson semble indiquer que Lockheed Martin a d\u00e9cid\u00e9 de d\u00e9fendre jusqu’au bout le F\/A-22 dans sa commande maximale; le constructeur ne ferait en cela que suivre l’USAF, qui annonce \u00e9galement son intention de lancer une contre-attaque d\u00e9cisive. (Dans Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, du 13 janvier 2005<\/a>, sous le titre \u00ab Air Force To Make Case For Restored F\/A-22 Buy<\/em> \u00bb: \u00ab The Air Force plans to make the case for restoring recent Pentagon cuts to the F\/A-22 Raptor program during the upcoming quadrennial defense review (QDR) this summer, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper.<\/em> \u00bb) Bien entendu, cette sorte d’\u00e9volution tant de Lockheed Martin que de l’USAF indique que des garanties ont \u00e9t\u00e9 prises, notamment au Congr\u00e8s. Et toujours la m\u00eame question \u00e0 laquelle Thompson n’a pas r\u00e9pondu: avec quel argent restaurer le programme F\/A-22? mais si, Thompson a d\u00e9j\u00e0 r\u00e9pondu, par avance pourrait-on dire, dans le Dallas Fort Worth Star-Telegram du 5 janvier<\/a>, lorsqu’il remarquait: \u00ab If that review <\/em>[QDR 2005] shows that more F\/A-22s would be needed, <\/em>[] the money would likely come out of F-35.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

QDR-2005 : le JSF se rapproche du collimateur 14 janvier 2005 La bataille de la QDR-2005 ne cesse de se pr\u00e9ciser comme un engagement fondamental sur les choix de programmes d’armement du Pentagone, en fonction des r\u00e9ductions budg\u00e9taires r\u00e9clam\u00e9es. Au cur des pol\u00e9miques qui accompagnent ces choix, le programme JSF ne cesse d’y trouver une… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[3979,3474,4401],"class_list":["post-66192","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-aei","tag-thompson","tag-zakheim"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66192"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66192\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}