3 ao\u00fbt 2009<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abBritain’s armed forces face the prospect of deep and wide-ranging changes to meet the demands of irregular warfare in conflicts such as Afghanistan, a defence minister said today. Firing the first shots in the run-up to the defence review that will start next year, whichever party wins the general election, Bill Rammell, the armed forces minister, said there was a need to rebalance resources within the military.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbWe have to be prepared to consider deep and wide-ranging changes to our armed forces, he said in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London. We will need to rebalance our investment in technology, equipment and people to meet the challenge of irregular warfare over the next decade while still retaining our ability to respond to emerging state-led threats and other military challenges.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbDefence chiefs have made it clear in recent weeks that the MoD, which is under huge pressure, should concentrate on what General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, described as \u00ab\u00a0relevant\u00a0\u00bb equipment and projects. Rammell’s strong language today suggests ministers have got the message.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThere is a widespread view, in the army in particular, that less should be spent on jet fighters, aircraft carriers, Trident nuclear missiles and battle tanks, and more on equipment including helicopters of direct assistance to soldiers fighting with boots on the ground.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tIl est important d’observer que le d\u00e9bat officiel sur une restructuration fondamentale des forces arm\u00e9es britanniques aura lieu en 2010, quel que soit le vainqueur des \u00e9lections. On mesure combien le probl\u00e8me est effectivement un probl\u00e8me bipartisan, travaillistes ou conservateurs, c’est-\u00e0-dire un probl\u00e8me fondamental pour le pouvoir britannique et les capacit\u00e9s des forces arm\u00e9es.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tBien entendu, Rammell n’insiste que sur les aspects techniques, et pas du tout sur les aspects budg\u00e9taires (r\u00e9duction probable du budget de la d\u00e9fense). Pour lui, officiellement, il n’y a pas de r\u00e9duction pr\u00e9vue et il ne veut surtout pas mettre le probl\u00e8me sur la table; mais ces r\u00e9ductions sont in\u00e9luctables. Dans tous les cas, il est notable que, m\u00eame sans aborder cette question budg\u00e9taire, Norton-Taylor, qui est remarquablement introduit dans les milieux militaires, pose, dans son commentaire, la question absolument centrale dans les choix britanniques, pour ses cons\u00e9quences strat\u00e9giques et politiques, des avions de combat et des porte-avions, c’est-\u00e0-dire, en r\u00e9alit\u00e9, de l’engagement britannique ou pas dans le processus d’acquisition du JSF am\u00e9ricain. Nous n’\u00e9chapperons pas, au Royaume-Uni, \u00e0 un d\u00e9bat central sur cette question en 2010, et la possibilit\u00e9 de l’abandon du JSF par les Britanniques est une hypoth\u00e8se qui ne peut plus \u00eatre \u00e9cart\u00e9e. On sait \u00e9videmment les dimensions strat\u00e9giques et politiques, notamment par rapport aux relations USA-UK, d’un tel d\u00e9bat sur l’engagement britannique ou pas dans le JSF.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 4 ao\u00fbt 2009 \u00e0 10H22<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Une conf\u00e9rence du ministre de la d\u00e9fense britannique, le 3 ao\u00fbt, au RUSI, ou Royal United Service Institute (Chatham House), marque la premi\u00e8re prise de position officielle pour ce qui para\u00eet \u00eatre une entreprise in\u00e9luctable de transformation des forces arm\u00e9es britanniques. (Cet aspect de grande r\u00e9forme des forces arm\u00e9es, notamment dans le cadre de la… <\/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":[8530,3127,250,8529,3575,5334],"class_list":["post-70961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-adfghanistan","tag-budget","tag-jsf","tag-rammell","tag-royaume-uni","tag-transformation"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70961","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=70961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}