{"id":67347,"date":"2006-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-13T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2006\/03\/13\/le-jsf-et-lultimatum-britannique\/"},"modified":"2006-03-13T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2006-03-13T00:00:00","slug":"le-jsf-et-lultimatum-britannique","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2006\/03\/13\/le-jsf-et-lultimatum-britannique\/","title":{"rendered":"Le JSF et l’\u201cultimatum\u201d britannique<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le JSF et l’ultimatum britannique<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\t13 Mars 2006 Les Britanniques s’engagent sur la voie d\u00e9licate de l’affrontement avec les Am\u00e9ricains, en esp\u00e9rant que les Am\u00e9ricains reculeront et c\u00e9deront. Il s’agit du JSF, bien s\u00fbr. Lord Drayson, charg\u00e9 des acquisitions au MoD britannique, part \u00e0 Washington, un ultimatum en poche selon l’interpr\u00e9tation qu’on en fait. L’annonce de la chose, par The Observer<\/a> hier, est chapeaut\u00e9e du titre provocant : \u00ab MoD sets out ultimatum to US over joint strike fighter.<\/em> \u00bb Peut-on envisager de lancer un ultimatum contre les USA?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Observer<\/em> s’explique : \u00ab Defence procurement minister Lord Drayson will tell the powerful US Senate Armed Services Committee next week that the UK must receive critical technical data about the F-35 joint strike fighter if it is to proceed with the project.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Drayson will say that the UK is committed to the $200bn programme – it has made a preliminary order for 150 of the vertical take-off variants of the aircraft – but that it must have the capability to upgrade the aircraft and be allowed operational sovereignty’.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The JSF is crucial to the Ministry of Defence’s strategy of expeditionary warfare’, based on air power from two new aircraft carriers currently being designed by a team led by BAE Systems.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The MoD is locked in a struggle with the Pentagon to secure an agreement on technology transfer that would allow UK contractors to carry out upgrades and servicing on the planes. This would mean the US revealing details of software used in the aircraft’s design that it has hitherto refused to divulge.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The MoD has submitted a list of requirements to the US Department of Defence and requires an answer before 6 December, when it aims to sign a memorandum of understanding to move from the development phase to the manufacturing phase of the project. Drayson has said the MoD is also developing a ‘Plan B’ option that would involve prolonging the life of RAF Harriers, eventually replacing them with either Eurofighter Typhoons or French Rafale aircraft. <\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’information est \u00e9galement pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e, dans des termes assez proches, dans The Sunday Telegraph<\/a>, d’hier \u00e9galement: \u00ab Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, will this week warn officials in Washington that Britain requires access to vital technology on the Joint Strike Fighter programme if it is to be able to fulfil its role as a leading partner in joint operations with the US.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n

Les Britanniques sont-ils habiles?<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’habilet\u00e9 des Britanniques semble \u00eatre de s’adresser au Congr\u00e8s au moment o\u00f9 le Congr\u00e8s est cens\u00e9 \u00eatre plut\u00f4t hostile au Pentagone. L’abandon du moteur alternatif du JSF, qui int\u00e9resse au premier chef les Britanniques puisqu’il s’agit d’un moteur Rolls Royce (avec General Electric), rencontre une opposition s\u00e9rieuse<\/a> au Congr\u00e8s. Selon la logique des alliances d’occasion, le Congr\u00e8s est l’alli\u00e9 objectif des Britanniques (les ennemis de mes ennemis sont mes amis). Il y aura une ou deux journ\u00e9es d’audition (mercredi et jeudi) sur l’abandon du moteur Rolls\/GE au S\u00e9nat. Lord Drayson sera l\u00e0. (Robert North ne lui donne pas beaucoup de chances<\/a>, d’autant qu’il le soup\u00e7onne des plus noirs desseins, essentiellement de chercher un pr\u00e9texte pour abandonner le JSF.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tHabilet\u00e9, mais risque \u00e9galement. La tactique a ses limites avec, au-del\u00e0, des possibilit\u00e9s de cons\u00e9quences perverses. Les interf\u00e9rences \u00e9trang\u00e8res dans les querelles intra-washingtoniennes ne sont pas toujours appr\u00e9ci\u00e9es, et elles le sont encore moins \u00e0 l’heure d’une extr\u00eame sensibilit\u00e9 un rien x\u00e9nophobe (au Congr\u00e8s) dans l’agitation \u00e0 propos de la crise des ports avec la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 DPW de Douba\u00ef. D’autre part, un tel jeu conduirait \u00e0 une solide hostilit\u00e9 du Pentagone \u00e0 l’encontre des Britanniques, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment dans le cadre du programme JSF. Il y aurait alors des repr\u00e9sailles bureaucratiques, notamment si les Britanniques obtenaient un certain soutien au Congr\u00e8s.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAu-dessus de tout cela, et pour rendre extr\u00eamement dramatiques ces p\u00e9rip\u00e9ties, l’enjeu est l\u00e0 Il s’agit de rien moins que les special relationships<\/em>. C’est ceci, selon l’appr\u00e9ciation de l’eurosceptique et pro-am\u00e9ricain Christopher Booker, dans The Daily Telegraph<\/a> du 5 mars : \u00ab Demise of the joint strike fighter marks the end of Anglo-US military co-operation<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

Le JSF et l’ultimatum britannique 13 Mars 2006 Les Britanniques s’engagent sur la voie d\u00e9licate de l’affrontement avec les Am\u00e9ricains, en esp\u00e9rant que les Am\u00e9ricains reculeront et c\u00e9deront. Il s’agit du JSF, bien s\u00fbr. Lord Drayson, charg\u00e9 des acquisitions au MoD britannique, part \u00e0 Washington, un ultimatum en poche selon l’interpr\u00e9tation qu’on en fait. L’annonce… <\/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":[5179,250,5178],"class_list":["post-67347","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-drayson","tag-jsf","tag-ultimatum"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67347","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=67347"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67347\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67347"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67347"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67347"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}