r\u00e9duction<\/a> du co\u00fbt du programme JSF, a re\u00e7u un accueil extr\u00eamement r\u00e9serv\u00e9 de la presse sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9e. Les manoeuvres de comptabilit\u00e9 portant sur des d\u00e9penses futures, surtout, soul\u00e8vent un tr\u00e8s grand scepticisme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLa nouvelle ci-dessous, parue dans Aviation Week& Space Technology<\/em> le 14 avril, et qui fait prtie d’une rubrique (The Washington Outlook<\/em>) d’habitude reprise sur le site en acc\u00e8s payant et qui pour cette fois n’y figure pas, reprend bien l’esprit de ce scepticisme. Elle montre surtout que nul ne semble capable d’expliquer d’o\u00f9 vient l’initiative qui concerne la projection sur une somme de $9 milliards, transf\u00e9r\u00e9e dans une rubrique comptable non p\u00e9nalisante pour le prix de l’avion, et qui neutralise presque \u00e0 elle seule l’augmentation en termes r\u00e9els ($11 milliards) du programme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tOn comprend par cons\u00e9quent l’entame de la petite nouvelle, qui montre que Lockheed Martin, qui semble \u00eatre mis hors de cause dans ces manoeuvres comptables, consid\u00e8re le rapport SAR comme beaucoup plus dommageable qu’avantageux. Non seulement, il n’a convaincu personne sur la comptabilit\u00e9 qu’il pr\u00e9sente, mais il a jet\u00e9 une tr\u00e8s forte suspicion sur les m\u00e9thodes de comptabilit\u00e9 du Pentagone concernant le programme JSF.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abWho Done It?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbLockheed Martin F-35 program officials are pulling their hair out over the press dismissive response to the Pentagon’s judgement in the 2007 Selected Acquisition Report that the Joint Strike Fighter program is actually going down in cost. In the report, $11 billion in actual cost growth was offset by $12 billion in estimated future savings. The mysterious item was $9billion transferred from recuring costs (which get added to the price of the aircraft) to a non-recurring cost category. Longtime acquisition experts say Lockheed Martin is innocent of skullduggery and they put the onus for juggling funds on the Defense Dept. Comptroller and\/or the Pentagon’s Cost Analysis Improvment Group. The company has been up-front in admitting to increased development costs to propulsion and electrical redesigns. Escalation is tied to the economy. Detailed negociations with subcontractors have cut costs. The only real unknows is that pesky $9 billion attributed to a cost policy change linked to diminishing manufacturing resources and technology refresh. Said a veteran USAF acquisition official, The change says you will engineer in a bunch of new equipment and, as a result of block upgrades, it will add no additional cost to the production unit. In fact, it will probably decrease cost. Changes of flim-flam get associated with cost policy because they keep changing the rules. We don’t know what the underpining is for that change. I can’t tell you if it’s flim-flam. But I can tell you it was not a Lockheed Martin decision.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t(Pour information, nous donnons les traductions suivantes: skullduggery<\/em>: maquignonnage, trafic; flim-flam<\/em>: balivernes, filouterie.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 17 avril 2008 \u00e0 08H02<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Le SAR, ou Selection Acquisition Report du Pentagone, qui annon\u00e7ait notamment une l\u00e9g\u00e8re r\u00e9duction du co\u00fbt du programme JSF, a re\u00e7u un accueil extr\u00eamement r\u00e9serv\u00e9 de la presse sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9e. Les manoeuvres de comptabilit\u00e9 portant sur des d\u00e9penses futures, surtout, soul\u00e8vent un tr\u00e8s grand scepticisme. La nouvelle ci-dessous, parue dans Aviation Week& Space Technology le 14… <\/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":[4195,250,5297,4247],"class_list":["post-69833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-aviation","tag-jsf","tag-sar","tag-week"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69833","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=69833"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69833\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}