Comme on le sait, les publications InsideDefense.com<\/em> jouent un r\u00f4le important<\/a> dans l’information sur l’\u00e9volution du programme JSF. D’o\u00f9 l’importance effectivement qu’on doit apporter \u00e0 la nouvelle publi\u00e9e par ce groupe, en date du 9 d\u00e9cembre 2009<\/a>. Elle semble indiquer que le programme JSF entre dans ce que nous pourrions nommer sa crise de rupture.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLa nouvelle, reprise aussit\u00f4t par divers sites (voir par exemple le site de E.P. Palmer, ce 11 d\u00e9cembre 2009<\/a>), indique essentiellement ceci (le deuxi\u00e8me paragraphe est en acc\u00e8s payant sur InsideDefense.com<\/em> mais en acc\u00e8s libre sur le site de Palmer):<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThe Office of the Secretary of Defense has issued a draft directive that would require the services to fund the F-35 fighter program in accordance with the recommendations of recent independent reviews, a move that would extend development by at least a year, reduce production by approximately 100 aircraft and require the addition of billions of dollars to the effort through 2015, according to defense officials.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThis previously unreported development, spelled out in a draft fiscal year 2011 resource management decision and confirmed by four Defense Department officials, amounts to a repudiation of the cost estimate advanced by the Joint Strike Fighter program office and prime contractor Lockheed Martin and sets the Pentagon’s costliest acquisition program on course to immediately breach so-called critical Nunn-McCurdy cost-growth thresholds, these officials said.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIl est inutile de dire de fa\u00e7on d\u00e9taill\u00e9e qu’il s’agit l\u00e0 d’une nouvelle tr\u00e8s importante. Elle indique que le secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense, rompant avec les diverses nuances d’appr\u00e9ciation de ces derni\u00e8res semaines sur l’importance des probl\u00e8mes, sur les mesures diversifi\u00e9es ou demi-mesures \u00e0 prendre, est conduit d\u00e9sormais \u00e0 trancher dans le vif. Elle constitue une proclamation que le programme JSF est r\u00e9ellement dans un \u00e9tat catastrophique et qu’il demande des mesures radicales de restructuration.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPar ailleurs, l’observation selon laquelle de telles mesures conduisent au constat que le programme JSF va tr\u00e8s rapidement tomber sous le coup de la loi Nunn-McCurdy<\/a> implique effectivement une obligation l\u00e9gale, au mieux, d’une compl\u00e8te restructuration du programme (le pire \u00e9tant l’abandon du programme). Le programme JSF est d\u00e9sormais en proc\u00e8s, avec \u00e0 la clef un verdict radical possible. L’issue de la phase nouvelle o\u00f9 est entr\u00e9e le JSF (voir le 24 novembre 2009<\/a>) est totalement<\/strong> incertaine et toutes les possibilit\u00e9s de son avenir sont radicale, jusqu’\u00e0 la plus radicale de toutes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 11 d\u00e9cembre 2009 \u00e0 07H04<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Comme on le sait, les publications InsideDefense.com jouent un r\u00f4le important dans l’information sur l’\u00e9volution du programme JSF. D’o\u00f9 l’importance effectivement qu’on doit apporter \u00e0 la nouvelle publi\u00e9e par ce groupe, en date du 9 d\u00e9cembre 2009. Elle semble indiquer que le programme JSF entre dans ce que nous pourrions nommer sa crise de rupture.… <\/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":[3228,2631,3019,4931,250,8994,7333,7689,2789],"class_list":["post-71329","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-crise","tag-de","tag-defense","tag-inside","tag-jsf","tag-mccurdy","tag-nunn","tag-restructuration","tag-rupture"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71329","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=71329"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71329\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}