\t1er mars 2008 La victoire de EADS (Airbus) dans l’\u00e9norme march\u00e9 des ravitailleurs en vol de l’USAF ($35-$40 milliards d’abord, pour atteindre et sans doute d\u00e9passer $100 milliards avec deux autres commandes pour pr\u00e8s de 200 ravitailleurs en vol baptis\u00e9s KC-45) est un tremblement de terre \u00e0 Washington. (\u00abThis isn’t an upset, it’s an earthquake.<\/em>\u00bb, selon notre ami Loren B. Thompson.) La surprise est compl\u00e8te, y compris pour nous-m\u00eames<\/a>, tant est inattendue la victoire des Fran\u00e7ais (pour la plupart des commentateurs US, Airbus\/EADS reste fran\u00e7ais plus qu’europ\u00e9en, ce qui est un heureux et r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur lapsus linguae<\/em>). Cela m\u00e9rite une tentative d’explication.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMais d’abord, quelques points divers que nous avons recueillis ici et l\u00e0 dans la presse US. Ils permettront de situer le contexte et, surtout, l’atmosph\u00e8re au Congr\u00e8s des Etats-Unis, en pleine ann\u00e9e \u00e9lectorale et alors que l’Am\u00e9rique entre en r\u00e9cession.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Aviation Week & space Technology<\/em> publie aujourd’hui<\/a> sur son site une analyse qui met surtout en \u00e9vidence les \u00e9volutions de situation qui ont conduit au choix absolument stup\u00e9fiant d’EADS. R\u00e9trospectivement, AW&ST met en \u00e9vidence l’excellente tactique suivie par EADS, une sorte de tactique de pression conduisant \u00e0 rendre un choix Boeing extr\u00eamement difficile. (Pour notre part, nous nous permettons de souligner une remarque que nous tenons comme essentielle, sur laquelle nous reviendrons plus loin.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abPaul Meyer, vice president of Northrop Grumman Air Mobility Systems, says the team went into the down select with a 50% expectation of a win. We are penetrating a new market, he says. Another executive adds: <\/em>I just didn’t think the political system would let us do it.<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut the fight may not be over yet. Boeing has been forming a strategy to protest a loss since the competition began, though a protest decision hasn’t yet been made. The company will be briefed on why it lost within two weeks.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe Pentagon’s choice indicates that Northrop Grumman\/EADS’s strong-arm tactics were worth the risk. The team threatened just over a year ago not to submit a proposal, which would have left the Air Force in a political quagmire without a true horse race. Since joining the competition, Northrop\/EADS officials haven’t been shy about lobbying their potential customer and the U.S. Congress for split buy of KC-767s and KC-45s. Without resources to finance separate production lines, supply chains and training regimens, however, the Air Force has held to a winner-take-all approach. And it has now paid off for the underdog.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbSole-sourcing the deal to Boeing was not an option after two former executives of the companyincluding the former top Air Force official who helped to craft the $30-billion lease while working for the governmentwere found guilty of conducting illegal job negotiations. They both wound up serving jail sentences, and Congress pushed for a competition to reduce the price and improve the design.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t De Defense News<\/em> de ce jour<\/a>, nous gardons les motifs rapides du choix de l’USAF, qui expriment d’une fa\u00e7on indubitable la sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 technique et budg\u00e9taire de l’offre d’EADS, et aussi, les commentaires d’usage des experts et boursiers parisiens habituels qui vous annoncent que la grande nouvelle est une grande nouvelle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThe modified Airbus A330 aerial refueling tanker gives us more, said Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne. More fuel to offload, more cargo, more passengers, more availability, more flexibility, more dependability and more ability to move patients.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbConsidered together, these grading criteria ensured the Air Force maximized the capability delivered to the war fighter while optimizing the taxpayers’ investment, according to an Air Force statement<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThis is a great success and an enormous challenge for Airbus, said Loic Tribot La Spiere, chief executive of the Paris-based think tank Centre d’Etude et Prospective Strat\u00e9gique. This puts Airbus under great pressure to deliver, he said. It has no room for mistakes in design or delivery.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbOlivier Brochet, an analyst at the Paris brokerage firm Natixis, said, This is truly good news for EADS. It opens access to the U.S. market, which has essentially been limited to Eurocopter.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Du New York Times<\/em>, un long compte-rendu, aujourd’hui<\/a>, rend compte de divers aspects de l’affaire. Nous retiendrons la partie consacr\u00e9e aux r\u00e9actions au Congr\u00e8s et alentour, car l\u00e0 se joue la question politique centrale autour de cette d\u00e9cision de l’USAF.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abReaction from some in Congress, however, was swift.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military, the Washington State delegation said in a joint statement. Boeing planes are assembled outside of Seattle. This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America’s men and women in uniform, the statement added.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbFor its part, Boeing, which had been considered the strong favorite to retain the contract, said it was very disappointed in the outcome. But it did not say whether it would file a formal protest something that Gen. T. Michael Moseley, chief of staff of the Air Force, has said that he hoped the losing bidder would not do because it would only further delay the tanker replacement program.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIn its statement, Boeing said, We believe that we offered the Air Force the best value and lowest-risk tanker for its mission. The company added that only after a debriefing by the Pentagon would the company make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and the nation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbA Boeing victory was considered so certain that many Wall Street analysts had already factored the contract into their economic forecasts for the company. One senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, sent out a press release prematurely praising Boeing for its victory.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbRepresentative Norm Dicks, a member of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and a Democrat from Washington State, said he was attending an anticipated victory party at Boeing’s offices in Washington when the mood suddenly darkened.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbMr. Dicks added: Here we are in the middle of a recession, and we give this to Airbus? That is not going to go down well.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Sur ce m\u00eame sujet des r\u00e9actions du Congr\u00e8s, effectivement point central politique de cette affaire, l’agence Reuters donne d’autres pr\u00e9cisions dans une d\u00e9p\u00eache, \u00e9galement aujourd’hui<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab…Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt vowed to seek a review of the decision at the highest levels of the Pentagon and Congress in hopes of reversing it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abWichita’s Rep. Tiahrt said, I am deeply troubled by the Air Force’s decision to award the KC-X tanker to a French company that has never built a tanker in its history. We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers. I cannot believe we would create French jobs in place of Kansas jobs.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbTiahrt said he will seek to have the decision reviewed by both the Pentagon and Congress. At the end of this laborious process, I hope the Air Force reverses its decision.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWashington Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both Democrats, along with six other lawmakers from the state said in a joint statement: We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWe will be asking tough questions about the decision to outsource this contract. We look forward to hearing the Air Force’s justification.<\/em><\/p>\n \tPour commencer notre commentaire, comme remarque centrale, nous retenons cette remarque de Paul Meyer, vice pr\u00e9sident de Northrop Grumman Air Mobility Systems (Northrop Grumman est l’associ\u00e9 pour les USA de EADS pour le programme KC-X\/KC-45): \u00abI just didn’t think the political system would let us do it.<\/em>\u00bb C’est un aveu et un constat du syst\u00e8me lui-m\u00eame, dont Meyer fait partie comme toute l’\u00e9lite militaro-industrielle aux USA. C’est l\u00e0 la premi\u00e8re question essentielle que suscite cette formidable surprise: pourquoi<\/strong> l’USAF a-t-elle fait ce choix qui va manifestement contre les traditions, les obligations et la logique du syst\u00e8me dont l’USAF elle-m\u00eame fait \u00e9galement partie, \u00f4 combien?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tNous en sommes r\u00e9duits aux hypoth\u00e8ses et voici la n\u00f4tre. (Ecartons les arguments techniques et budg\u00e9taires. L’offre EADS \u00e9tait la meilleure, sans nul doute. Mais ce n’est pas la r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 notre pourquoi?. A ce niveau d’importance, de prestige, de symbolisme, apr\u00e8s des ann\u00e9es de pol\u00e9mique, de scandales<\/a>, etc., qui ont entour\u00e9 cet \u00e9norme contrat, le programme KC-X \u00e9tait devenu une affaire hautement politique, une affaire du syst\u00e8me lui-m\u00eame. Le pourquoi ? m\u00e9rite une autre r\u00e9ponse qu’un relev\u00e9 de quincaillerie.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tNotre hypoth\u00e8se tient \u00e0 la situation de l’USAF et sonne comme une confirmation du s\u00e9rieux<\/a> de cette situation (de cette crise<\/a> de l’USAF).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDans la situation de crise o\u00f9 elle se trouve, l’USAF ne peut plus sacrifier aux n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s politiques du syst\u00e8me, dans tous les cas, elle s’y refuse. Elle choisit le mat\u00e9riel qui lui donne le plus de capacit\u00e9s pour chacun de ses dollars, et tant pis si c’est du mat\u00e9riel non-US, per\u00e7u comme French<\/em> (horreur), dans un domaine pourtant si essentiel pour la puissance strat\u00e9gique US. En un sens, on pourrait aussi bien penser que l’USAF passe la main aux autorit\u00e9s civiles, notamment au Congr\u00e8s, qui r\u00e8gle les budgets militaires et qui, par-dessus tout, impose souvent \u00e0 l’USAF des d\u00e9cisions pour des mat\u00e9riels ou des bases dont elle ne veut pas mais qui avantagent certains Etats au profit des parlementaires qui forcent \u00e0 ces d\u00e9cisions. Dans ce cas, l’USAF prend la d\u00e9cision qui l’avantage, elle, du point de vue technique et op\u00e9rationnel, sans tenir compte du reste. Cela est une mesure de sa propre crise.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tSelon cette hypoth\u00e8se, c’est aussi une d\u00e9cision qui met en \u00e9vidence l’\u00e9clatement des pouvoirs et le repli de ces pouvoirs (l’USAF en l’occurrence) sur leurs propres int\u00e9r\u00eats. C’est une d\u00e9cision qui refl\u00e8te la crise du syst\u00e8me en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral en signifiant que les composants du syst\u00e8me perdent le sens de la solidarit\u00e9 syst\u00e9mique au profit de leurs propres int\u00e9r\u00eats menac\u00e9s par la situation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLa deuxi\u00e8me question va de soi: et maintenant?<\/strong> La d\u00e9bauche de r\u00e9actions furieuses fait r\u00eaver \u00e0 ce qu’auraient pu \u00eatre les r\u00e9actions en Europe, si Europe il y avait, lorsque cinq pays choisirent le JSF. A-t-on entendu une seule remarque dans le sens que celles qu’ont fait et que continueront \u00e0 faire la myriade de s\u00e9nateurs et de d\u00e9put\u00e9s du Congr\u00e8s des Etats-Unis outr\u00e9s du choix d’un syst\u00e8me \u00e9tranger par leur force a\u00e9rienne?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tBien entendu, rien n’est fini. Il va peut-\u00eatre y avoir une protestation officielle de Boeing faisant appel de la d\u00e9cision de l’USAF en la contestant. Il va y avoir des auditions au Congr\u00e8s sur cette d\u00e9cision de l’USAF. La chose va \u00eatre d\u00e9cortiqu\u00e9e, pass\u00e9e au scanner, examin\u00e9e sous toutes les coutures. Il nous appara\u00eet \u00e9vident que l’on ira bien au-del\u00e0 de la question du KC-X et que l’on abordera la crise de l’USAF elle-m\u00eame (et, au-del\u00e0, la crise des forces arm\u00e9es confront\u00e9es \u00e0 la crise de la politique ext\u00e9rieure de l’administration GW Bush ; et l’on y ajoutera les conditions \u00e9conomiques de crise qui p\u00e8sent aujourd’hui sur les USA).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLes Europ\u00e9ens, eux, c\u00e9l\u00e8brent la nouvelle. Ils y voient l’ouverture d’une nouvelle \u00e8re de coop\u00e9ration transatlantique. La seule chose que prouve cette d\u00e9cision, du point de vue europ\u00e9en, c’est que l’Europe, et la France en particulier, peut faire mieux que les USA du point de vue des syst\u00e8mes d’arme. Le constat n’est pas nouveau sauf pour les innombrables l\u00e9gions de commentateurs qui manient leur plume les oreilles bouch\u00e9es. Pour le reste, c’est-\u00e0-dire la coop\u00e9ration transatlantique, nous sugg\u00e9rerions la prudence. Plut\u00f4t qu’ouvrir une nouvelle \u00e8re de coop\u00e9ration transatlantique (\u00e0 condition qu’il y en ait d\u00e9j\u00e0 eu une), nous dirions que la commande a comme effet imm\u00e9diat de plonger encore plus profond au cur de la crise du Pentagone et du syst\u00e8me de l’am\u00e9ricanisme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Tremblement de terre au Pentagone et alentour 1er mars 2008 La victoire de EADS (Airbus) dans l’\u00e9norme march\u00e9 des ravitailleurs en vol de l’USAF ($35-$40 milliards d’abord, pour atteindre et sans doute d\u00e9passer $100 milliards avec deux autres commandes pour pr\u00e8s de 200 ravitailleurs en vol baptis\u00e9s KC-45) est un tremblement de terre \u00e0 Washington.… <\/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":[3191,3192,3285,4215,4581,7383,7310],"class_list":["post-69721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-airbus","tag-boeing","tag-congres","tag-eads","tag-kc-45","tag-kc-x","tag-tanker"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69721","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=69721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69721\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\u00abI just didn’t think<\/em><\/strong>\u00bb<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n