{"id":69679,"date":"2008-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-14T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2008\/02\/14\/f-22-versus-jsf-suite-precisee-et-envenimee\/"},"modified":"2008-02-14T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-02-14T00:00:00","slug":"f-22-versus-jsf-suite-precisee-et-envenimee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2008\/02\/14\/f-22-versus-jsf-suite-precisee-et-envenimee\/","title":{"rendered":"F-22 versus<\/em> JSF, suite pr\u00e9cis\u00e9e et envenim\u00e9e"},"content":{"rendered":"

Les auditions se succ\u00e8dent au Congr\u00e8s, \u00e0 Washington, pour la pr\u00e9sentation du budget de la d\u00e9fense FY2009<\/a>. Grandit parall\u00e8lement la pol\u00e9mique entre le F-22 et le F-35, dont on a d\u00e9j\u00e0 un \u00e9cho, dans cette rubrique, aujourd’hui<\/a> m\u00eame.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa chose se d\u00e9veloppe toujours autour de Gordon England, adjoint de Robert Gates au Pentagone, qui se trouve de plus en plus install\u00e9 dans une position de partisan farouche du F-35 (JSF) contre le F-22. (Il est \u00e0 noter qu’il s’agit curieusement d’une circonstance fortuite qui permet de donner une telle publicit\u00e9 au conflit. England t\u00e9moigne en remplacement de Robert Gates, qui est bless\u00e9. Gates est partisan d’une s\u00e9rie suppl\u00e9mentaire de F-22, dont il pr\u00e9f\u00e8re laisser la d\u00e9cision aux parlementaires. Si lui-m\u00eame avait t\u00e9moign\u00e9 comme pr\u00e9vu, le cas du F-22 contre le F-35 n’aurait certainement pas \u00e9clat\u00e9 si vivement puisque Gates n’aurait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 en d\u00e9saccord avec les parlementaires qui veulent une rallonge de F-22.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa suite des auditions permet d’assister \u00e0 une int\u00e9ressante mont\u00e9e aux extr\u00eames entre les partisans des deux programmes, mettant en \u00e9vidence ce qu’on avait jusqu’ici plus ou moins dissimul\u00e9, \u00e0 savoir que les deux programmes sont concurrents budg\u00e9tairement, donc qu’ils sont concurrents tout court dans l’environnement budg\u00e9taire actuel.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe 13 f\u00e9vrier, Defense News<\/em> (acc\u00e8s payant<\/a>) a publi\u00e9 un commentaire sur une audition \u00e0 la Chambre des Repr\u00e9sentants, suivant celle du S\u00e9nat la veille (dont nous rendons rapidement compte dans la note d\u00e9j\u00e0<\/a> signal\u00e9e). L’audition se fait devant la commission des appropriations pour les forces arm\u00e9es, pr\u00e9sid\u00e9e par le d\u00e9mocrate Murtha et vice-pr\u00e9sid\u00e9e par le d\u00e9mocrate Dicks. Dicks et Murtha sont \u00e9videmment sur la m\u00eame ligne, partisans du F-22.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe pointed exchange between the panel’s vice chairman, Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., and England was the latest development this week in a string of comments that spotlights a growing schism between the Bush administration’s Pentagon team and key lawmakers about whether the Air Force should buy more F-22 Raptors or F-35 Lightning IIs to replace worn-out F-15s.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbOn one side are top Pentagon officials, led by England, who remain soundly opposed to buying more than about 190 F-22s. This group would favor replacing grounded F-15s with F-35s, also known as Joint Strike Fighters, which are expected to have a lower per-plane price tag.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbOn the other side are lawmakers like Dicks and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the subcommittee chairman, who are leaning toward buying more Raptors, mainly because its production line already is humming. U.S. defense behemoth Lockheed Martin makes both warplanes.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe exchange began during a hearing on the White House’s 2009 defense budget plan, when Dicks questioned the administration’s decision to essentially take no definitive action on the F-22 program other than not paying to shutter the production line.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

\t\u00abWith more than 100 of the service’s older F-15s grounded because of structural problems,<\/em> [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] allowed the Air Force to divert about $400 million initially budgeted for Raptor line-closure costs toward operations and maintenance accounts to address the F-15 situation, said England, sitting in at the session for injured Defense Secretary Robert Gates.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbDicks, however, did not appear satisfied with that explanation. Shouldn’t you have done one or other, he asked England, referring to either buying more Raptors or closing the production line.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbTo be blunt, the Air Force has spent $65 billion [on the Raptor program] and you have 183 planes, England shot back. Look, at some point, we have to buy the cheaper fighter, the F-35, he said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut after the hearing, Murtha told reporters England’s figure for how much the air service has spent to purchase its 183 Raptors is a bit misleading. That’s because, Murtha said, when major defense platforms are bought in larger quantities, their per-unit costs typically come down significantly. He said the Air Force has told him that if it is allowed to purchase the 381 Raptors it wants, the per-jet price could shrink by as much as 10 or 12 percent.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbMurtha made it clear, however, that he would only support buying more Raptors if the Air Force is convincing in describing to the subcommittee the kinds of threats the additional F-22s would be used to combat.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe department believes<\/em> [the service] has enough F-22s, Murtha told reporters after the hearing. The Air Force is trying to prove to the committee and we’ll have hearings later on to tell us, These are the threats.’<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCette pol\u00e9mique du F-22 versus<\/em> F-35 prend des allures et des dimensions \u00e9tonnantes. Les arguments \u00e9chang\u00e9s deviennent eux-m\u00eames tr\u00e8s pol\u00e9miques. D\u00e9signer, comme le fait England, le F-35 comme le successeur du F-15, donc l’\u00e9quivalent modernis\u00e9 du F-15, n’a gu\u00e8re de sens, ni technologique ni op\u00e9rationnel. (Le F-35 est con\u00e7u pour l’appui tactique, nullement pour la mission de sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 a\u00e9rienne.) L’insistance d’England sur un argument aussi contestable mesure l’\u00e2pret\u00e9 de la pol\u00e9mique. D’autre part, il a l’effet de sugg\u00e9rer que l’\u00e9valuation officielle du Pentagone est d\u00e9sormais qu’une partie importante des F-15 qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 interdits de vol suite aux accidents qui sont survenus \u00e0 la fin de l’ann\u00e9e derni\u00e8re ne seront pas r\u00e9cup\u00e9r\u00e9s en service actif et devront \u00eatre remplac\u00e9s rapidement. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t`<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tContrairement au d\u00e9compte que propose Defense News<\/em>, la position d’ England ne refl\u00e8te pas n\u00e9cessairement la position de la direction civile dans sa totalit\u00e9 (voir Gates) mais elle contribue notablement \u00e0 radicaliser le d\u00e9bat. Autre curiosit\u00e9 de cette affaire: r\u00e9publicains (dans tous les cas de l’administration Bush) et d\u00e9mocrates se retrouvent \u00e0 fronts renvers\u00e9s. Le JSF est en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme un avion d\u00e9mocrate, lanc\u00e9 sous Clinton, soutenu par les conceptions globalistes (coop\u00e9ration) des d\u00e9mocrates. Le F-22 est plut\u00f4t un avion r\u00e9publicain, con\u00e7u selon les conceptions d’un renforcement militaire massif, destin\u00e9 en principe \u00e0 rester unilat\u00e9raliste (exportations improbable), et qui fut surtout favoris\u00e9 par les administrations r\u00e9publicaines. Les positions sont invers\u00e9es. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 14 f\u00e9vrier \u00e0 13H18<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Les auditions se succ\u00e8dent au Congr\u00e8s, \u00e0 Washington, pour la pr\u00e9sentation du budget de la d\u00e9fense FY2009. Grandit parall\u00e8lement la pol\u00e9mique entre le F-22 et le F-35, dont on a d\u00e9j\u00e0 un \u00e9cho, dans cette rubrique, aujourd’hui m\u00eame. La chose se d\u00e9veloppe toujours autour de Gordon England, adjoint de Robert Gates au Pentagone, qui se… <\/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":[2],"tags":[3285,4502,249,2969,250,4376],"class_list":["post-69679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-congres","tag-dicks","tag-f-22","tag-f-35","tag-jsf","tag-murtha"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69679","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=69679"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69679\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}