Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

:devilish: #theSwissContract

Parliamentary report criticizes shortcomings in Switzerland’s purchase of F-35A aircraft​

September 9, 2026

In June 2021, while heading the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS), Viola Amherd announced that Switzerland would order thirty-six F-35A fighter-bombers from Lockheed Martin (via the US government) for 6 billion Swiss francs, as part of the Air 2030 program. This decision came at the expense of Dassault Aviation’s Rafale (which some French-Swiss media outlets had predicted would win), the Eurofighter consortium’s EF2000/Typhoon, and Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Although it had previously won a tender—later cancelled following a May 2014 referendum—with the Gripen E/F, the Swedish company Saab did not deem it worthwhile to participate in this process.

To justify the decision, Ms. Amherd explained that the offer submitted by US authorities on behalf of Lockheed Martin was approximately 2 billion Swiss francs lower than the runner-up bid, in terms of both acquisition and operating costs. Furthermore, she argued that, thanks to its "advanced capabilities," the F-35A would not need to fly as much as its competitors (5,000 hours versus 6,480), and that the use of simulators would allow Swiss pilots to train.
Needless to say, such an argument struck many as peculiar.


To drive the point home, Ms. Amherd asserted that the purchase of the thirty-six F-35A jets would be made at a "fixed price," in accordance with a commitment reportedly made by the US government. This was a curious claim, given that the version ordered—the Block 4—was still under development and would require a more powerful engine... the cost of which would have to be covered by Lockheed Martin’s customers.

In any event, Ms. Amherd’s assertion was quickly challenged by the newspapers *SonntagsBlick* and *SonntagsZeitung*. Citing documents from the Pentagon and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA—the body then responsible for US military equipment exports), they argued that there was no such thing as a "fixed price," but rather "estimates based on the best available data."

The DDPS immediately countered, stating that "prices and contractual terms [had been] set in a binding manner" and that, "in the event of cost overruns, the US government would therefore demand firm prices from the manufacturer on Switzerland's behalf."


However, subsequent events proved the German-language newspapers right. First, a report by the Swiss Federal Audit Office (FAO) noted that the "concept of a fixed price" mentioned in the Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) had not been "clearly defined."

And with good reason: for the United States, the concept of a "fixed price" means that a customer must pay the same amount as the Pentagon pays for its own purchases. In other words, if the cost of an F-35A rises, Switzerland must absorb the difference. This is precisely what it was forced to do; last year, in order to stay within the 6-billion-Swiss-franc budget, Martin Pfister—Ms. Amherd’s successor—had to reduce the order to thirty aircraft.


However, the matter took on a new dimension following the publication of a report by the National Council’s Control Committee (CdG-N). The committee concluded that "while Switzerland had indeed negotiated a fixed-price clause, it did not correspond to the fixed lump-sum price that had been communicated."

"The committee bases its assessment on contradictions within the contract, on the Federal Audit Office’s report regarding the US authorities' position during negotiations, and on the legal situation in the United States—which stipulates that there can be neither profit nor loss for the US in transactions under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program," the document continues.

Consequently, the CdG-N maintains that the DDPS and the Federal Council "should not have proceeded on the assumption that a fixed lump-sum price had been agreed upon," noting that "not only was this price 'inapplicable,' but it had 'never been contractually agreed to, despite a memo suggesting it was a fixed lump-sum price.'" The committee added that it "fails to understand why the Department of Defence defended this price so staunchly before Parliament."



Furthermore, the report is heavy with implications. "The closer the individuals involved were to the matter, the more one wonders to what extent this ambiguity was accepted with full knowledge of the facts," it suggests.

The CdG-N also points to the progress of the contractual negotiations, the Swiss Armaments Office [Armasuisse] having been, in a way, sidelined.

“The General Secretariat of the DDPS called on a law firm to assist Armasuisse, which had the effect that the office's internal legal department was, in fact, not involved in the negotiation of the contract. This is in contradiction with the legal mandate of Armasuisse, in its capacity as the central procurement service of the Confederation specializing in the field of armaments,” she denounces in her report.


What is more, the CdG-N criticizes the General Secretariat of the DDPS and Ms. Amherd for not having “followed the negotiations closely enough”. And added: The DDPS “was also not sufficiently informed of the key stages of the negotiations, but did not ask to be either”.

The way in which Armasuisse and the DDPS conducted the negotiations “did not live up to the importance of the contract on the political, financial and military levels”, insists the CdG-N, for which it thus lacked the “most basic form of supervision, namely the principle of double control”.

Finally, the latter also noted that certain “relevant” documents had “not been archived in accordance with regulations”, which “considerably complicated” its investigations.

In the meantime, the DDPS is not at the end of its troubles. Even after reducing the F-35A order, the envelope of 6 billion Swiss francs will still be insufficient: the Federal Council must find nearly 400 million more to finance the purchase of the thirty aircraft. /end
 
  • Like
Reactions: Picdelamirand-oil
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom