2 novembre 2009<\/a>) le m\u00eame compte-rendu d’une conf\u00e9rence de presse du porte-parole du Pentagone, Geoff Morrell. On y voit alterner des moments d’une grande prudence avec d’autres, plus crisp\u00e9s et, d’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, l’id\u00e9e que la finalisation du rapport JET n’est pas achev\u00e9e et que rien de d\u00e9cisif n’est encore fait, que Robert Gates n’a pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 inform\u00e9 des r\u00e9sultats du rapport (au contraire d’un de ses ministres adjoints, Ashton Carter).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t Ces passages, o\u00f9 Morrell entend vouloir calmer le jeu \u00abAt the Pentagon late last week, Morrell refused to get into specific numbers because numbers can change since the analysis continues. However, he confirmed that Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carterbut not Defense Secretary Robert Gateshad received the first of three briefings on the latest JET work.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbMorrell called the JET analysis important to the budget process, but he also said it offered a worst-case assessment while the program office is generally much more optimistic. JSF program officials largely dismissed last year’s JET, saying it used outdated data. Morrell said Gates must ultimately figure out the sweet spot between the two views.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t Ces passages o\u00f9, au contraire, Morrell entend rappeler que Gates a lanc\u00e9 certains avertissement et que les appr\u00e9ciations de JET ne sont nullement encourageantes, et que ceci pourrait avoir un rapport avec cela, un de ces jours \u00e0 venir \u00abHe asserted, too, that during the visit Gates made to Lockheed’s Fort Worth production facility, Gates admonished company executives that he is going to hold their feet to the fire and that there are timelines and that there are budgets that are going to have to be met.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbWhen asked about the acknowledgment last week by Lockheed Martin that there is moderate risk in the cost and schedule baseline, Morrell refrained from characterizing the new JET analysis. However, he added, I think it’s fair to say that if the JET had provided some especially good news, we would be trumpeting it.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tCes diverses p\u00e9rip\u00e9ties de AFA pour la publication de ce texte, les diverses prudences et avertissements feutr\u00e9s de Morrell constituent, \u00e0 notre sens, des signes discrets mais indubitables de la tension r\u00e9gnant actuellement au Pentagone \u00e0 propos du programme JSF. Le titre que nous donne AFA pour sa nouvelle nous dit tout par son ambigu\u00eft\u00e9, voire sa prudence d’autant plus forte qu’elle est extr\u00eamement inqui\u00e8te: \u00abJET likely to offer another pessimistic view of F-35 program Pentagon not especially worried.<\/em>\u00bb Conclure du constat que le rapport qui est central dans l’\u00e9valuation du programme JSF est probablement pessimiste que le Pentagone n’est pas sp\u00e9cialement pr\u00e9occup\u00e9, comme si l’on vous offrait un rapport de cause \u00e0 effet direct, a quelque chose de surr\u00e9aliste dans la logique orwellienne qu’il nous offre. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 3 novembre 2009 \u00e0 06H25<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Devant les r\u00e9v\u00e9lations de Inside the Air Force, du 22 et du 30 octobre, concernant les r\u00e9sultats de l’enqu\u00eate JET-II sur l’\u00e9tat du programme JSF (voir notre Bloc-Notes du 24 octobre 2009 et du 31 octobre 2009), les r\u00e9actions officielles ou semi-officielles sont supr\u00eamement prudentes et extraordinairement mesur\u00e9es. C’est un signe qui ne trompe pas… <\/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":[248,5562,3984,8500,8868,250,8239],"class_list":["post-71234","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-afa","tag-ambiguite","tag-gates","tag-jet","tag-jet-ii","tag-jsf","tag-prudence"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71234","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=71234"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71234\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71234"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71234"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71234"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}