La “guerre des moteurs” (du JSF) a commencé au Congrès

Les auditions de ces derniers jours, au Sénat US, à propos de diverses questions liées au programme JSF, ont montré qu’une “guerre des moteurs” a d’ores et déjà commencé. Le thème est désormais connu : la décision du Pentagone de liquider le moteur Rolls/GE concurrent du moteur Pratt & Whitney est-elle justifiée ?

Defense News donne diverses indications sur son site, en date du 15 mars sur les circonstances de l’affrontement dans cette polémique à l’intérieur de la grande polémique du JSF.

Les extraits ci-dessous montrent que nous n’aurons pas seulement le Congrès versus le Pentagone et le Pentagone versus le MoD britannique, mais aussi un Congrès déchiré, et selon des positions qui opposeront des parlementaires à l’intérieur du même parti. (Encore la Chambre des Représentants, avec ses activistes protectionnistes, n’est-elle pas entrée en piste…)

« U.S. Sen. John Warner is not about to surrender in what is becoming “the second Great Engine War.” The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman is determined there will be two engine suppliers for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), after the U.S. Defense Department suddenly decided last fall that it wanted only one.

(...)

» “Isn’t it wise to have two” engine builders? Warner asked during the two days of hearings, which he ordered to review the Defense Department’s decision to proceed with only one. Over the 30-year life of the planes, the cost to buy and maintain thousands of engines could be as much as $100 billion, he said. Can those costs be kept under control with only one manufacturer? Warner asked.

» The new engine war pits Warner, R-Va., against Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. It also pits long-term costs against short-term savings, and the U.S. Defense Department against the British Ministry of Defence.

» While Warner worried about high costs in the future, Lieberman said canceling the GE-Rolls contract could save the military $1.8 billion immediately. That money could be spent “on a lot of other things,” he said “Competition can sometimes be good, but in a resource-constrained environment, maybe the best thing we can do is go with a single contractor” and count on close management by the Pentagon to keep costs from rising, he said.

(...)

» Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who counts GE employees among his constituents, sided with Warner. By canceling the GE contract to save $1.8 billion now, the military will forfeit savings from competition that some estimate to be “eight to 10 times” that much, Kennedy said. Besides, canceling the GE contract could mean job losses at GE’s Lynn, Mass., fighter engine plant, Kennedy noted.

» Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., sided with Lieberman. Inhofe argued that because of substantial improvements in fighter engine reliability since the 1980s, “we can do without a second” JSF engine maker. “I don’t see the risk at all,” he said. »

Mis en ligne le 15 mars 2006 à 09H34