Ces derniers jours, particuli\u00e8rement, bien s\u00fbr, depuis la publication le 19 juin du rapport du GAO<\/a> mettant gravement en cause le processus de s\u00e9lection de l’USAF dans le programme KC-45, la direction civile du Pentagone a tent\u00e9 avec une certaine brusquerie de maintenir cette crise du KC-45 cantonn\u00e9e \u00e0 l’USAF. L’article central d’Aviation Week & Space Technology<\/em> du 23 juin<\/a> sur la position du GAO dans cette affaire mettait notamment en \u00e9vidence combien l’USAF avait \u00e9t\u00e9 laiss\u00e9e seule dans cette crise, lors de l’annonce, le 19 juin, que le GAO condamnait la proc\u00e9dure suivie. L’extrait suivant de l’article montre m\u00eame le d\u00e9sarroi des chefs de l’USAF \u00e0 cette occasion.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abDespite a chorus of recent support from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including public backing from Pentagon acquisition czar John Young and Pentagon representative Geoff Morrell, those officials did not run to the Air Force’s aid following the GAO’s findings. Only a day before the GAO announced its recommendations, Morrell said: We believe that the acquisition, the contracting process, that eventually produced Northrop Grumman and EADS as the winner of this deal was a fair and transparent one. After the GAO’s recommendations were made public, however, Chris Islieb, Young’s aide, simply referred questions to the service, saying it was an Air Force matter.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWhen the review came out last week, Air Force officials stood in the corridor near the office of Sue Payton, Air Force acquisition chief, reading the findings and exchanging looks of disbelief<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tBien entendu, cette attitude de la direction du Pentagone (le secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense Gates et ses services, regroup\u00e9s au sein de l’Office of Secretary of Defense [OSD]) a \u00e9galement directement \u00e0 voir avec la crise de l’USAF<\/a> et le conflit<\/a> entre l’USAF et Gates. Mais une intervention du Congr\u00e8s, en la personne de la s\u00e9natrice Patty Murray, d\u00e9mocrate de l’Etat de Washington (o\u00f9 se trouvent les usines Boeing, concurrent d’EADS\/Northrop), montre la direction nouvelle que devrait prendre l’affaire. L’intervention est rapport\u00e9e par Defense News<\/em> le 26 juin<\/a>:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abSpeaking this morning on the Senate floor, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she has requested a one-on-one meeting with Gates to discuss what the Government Accountability Office (GAO) last week dubbed a highly flawed platform-selection process. Murray accused service officials of having their thumbs on the scales in favor of Northrop-EADS since the onset of the competition.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIt is likely Murray, a senior member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, will urge Gates to order the service to, as she said on the floor, start with a clean slate, meaning conduct another years-long aerial tanker competition. The Air Force cannot go forward with this contract [because of] the differences between what the Air Force said and what the GAO found is startling, Murray said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbMurray’s meeting with the defense secretary could be a key point for internal Pentagon discussions about how the Air Force should proceed because of her clout on Capitol Hill – she is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the chamber. A Gates spokesman said yesterday the defense secretary will be heavily involved in such deliberations.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tMalgr\u00e9 ses pr\u00e9cautions, la situation de Gates est effectivement d\u00e9licate. Si la direction civile du Pentagone a pris ses distances r\u00e9cemment, elle n’en a pas moins couvert et m\u00eame chaleureusement approuv\u00e9 la d\u00e9cision initiale de s\u00e9lection d’EADS\/Northrop et, surtout<\/strong>, du processus de s\u00e9lection. Le m\u00eame article de Defense News<\/em> le rappelle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abI believe, based on the briefings that I’ve received, that it was a fair competition and a merit-based decision, Gates said during a March 5 Pentagon briefing.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbPentagon acquisition chief John Young also has repeatedly defended the decision and the process the service used to make it. Everything I have seen is, this was a very well-run source selection, by-the-books and in accordance with the law, Young told reporters in mid-April. We had an excellent competition, two great proposals, and one proposal clearly delivered better value and better capability.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’intervention de Murray tend nettement \u00e0 impliquer la direction civile, y compris Gates. Ce n’est certainement pas pour venir au secours de l’USAF mais, bien s\u00fbr, pour contester l’ensemble du processus de s\u00e9lection, y compris<\/strong> le choix lui-m\u00eame (de EADS\/Northrop) que le GAO n’a pas mis en cause. Il s’agit l\u00e0, bien s\u00fbr, d’une manuvre en faveur de Boeing. Mais en demandant une enqu\u00eate sur un choix initialement approuv\u00e9 par Gates, Murray force Gates \u00e0 monter en premi\u00e8re ligne. Le secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense tentera de rejeter la faute sur l’USAF, ce qui est \u00e9vident pour tout le monde, mais il ne pourra pas \u00e9viter de se trouver en position d’accus\u00e9 puisqu’il a couvert la d\u00e9cision. L’affaire devient sa propre responsabilit\u00e9, et il ne suffira plus de dire que le processus de s\u00e9lection de l’USAF est catastrophique, tout le monde le sait. Il devra r\u00e9pondre d’une situation de d\u00e9sordre, \u00e9ventuellement d’accusations de corruption (l’id\u00e9e est dans la t\u00eate de Murray, \u00e0 l’avantage de Boeing), qui r\u00e8gne dans les services dont il a la responsabilit\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tQue faire? Punir l’USAF? C’est d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait m\u00eame si pour d’autres raisons, et si l’affaire GAO-KC-45 conduisait \u00e0 une nouvelle enqu\u00eate et de nouvelles mesures contre l’USAF, on ne fera qu’accro\u00eetre jusqu’\u00e0 des situations dangereuses la crise de ce service. Mais l’essentiel est qu’il semble qu’on aille vers un \u00e9largissement de l’affaire. En \u00e9tant impliqu\u00e9 de la sorte, il est probable que Gates ne pourra pas \u00e9viter que cette crise de l’USAF avec la s\u00e9lection du KC-45 entre dans le cadre plus large de la crise du Pentagone. Ce ne serait que pure logique, sinon justice. Ce serait \u00e9galement un prolongement important, dans le sens de l’aggravation, dans le processus de pourrissement de la situation du Pentagone.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 27 juin 2008 \u00e0 05H31<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ces derniers jours, particuli\u00e8rement, bien s\u00fbr, depuis la publication le 19 juin du rapport du GAO mettant gravement en cause le processus de s\u00e9lection de l’USAF dans le programme KC-45, la direction civile du Pentagone a tent\u00e9 avec une certaine brusquerie de maintenir cette crise du KC-45 cantonn\u00e9e \u00e0 l’USAF. L’article central d’Aviation Week &… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3192,3228,4215,3984,4581,7654,3194],"class_list":["post-69999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-boeing","tag-crise","tag-eads","tag-gates","tag-kc-45","tag-murray","tag-pentagone"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69999","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=69999"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69999\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}