At first glance, Switzerland’s procurement of 36 American F 35A fighter jets seemed like a textbook example of strategic defense planning: a fixed price, a clear delivery schedule, and political consensus. Yet within just a few years, the project has unraveled into one of the most controversial military expenditures in modern Swiss history. What was billed as a reliable, affordable investment in national security has become a case study in fiscal uncertainty, opaque diplomacy, and the fragile boundaries of democratic accountability.
The Mirage of a Fixed Price
The discussion around Switzerland’s purchase of 36 F 35A fighter jets was initially framed around a “fixed price” — 6 billion Swiss francs. This was a key selling point when the U.S.-made aircraft was selected in 2021 under the Air2030 defense procurement program. But by mid-2025, it became clear that this promise was built on shaky ground. According to statements from U.S. authorities, rising production costs and domestic inflation have pushed the projected price up by 1 to 1.5 billion francs — and the final cost could go even higher.
The Swiss public was reassured time and again that the budget would not be exceeded, creating a perception of predictability and control. However, the U.S. clarified that this “fixed” price had never been contractually guaranteed. As it turns out, the so-called guarantee was more a diplomatic courtesy than a binding commitment. In a procurement system as complex as Foreign Military Sales (FMS), where cost estimates are made years in advance, volatility is the rule rather than the exception.
Political Scandal and Parliamentary Backlash
The price revision quickly turned into a full-blown political scandal. In a country where fiscal prudence is held sacred, the potential for overspending by billions has sent shockwaves through the media and public institutions. Taking into account operational, maintenance, and logistical costs, the total expense over the 30-year life cycle of the aircraft could exceed 15.5 billion francs — far beyond what was initially approved.
Former federal auditor Michel Hüsler pointed out that the “fixed price” was never legally enforceable. He emphasized that government officials were likely aware of the budgetary risks but failed to communicate them transparently to Parliament or the public. In response, the Swiss Parliament has launched an investigation into the Air2030 tender process. The goal is to assess whether internal political interests or external pressures influenced the final decision.
Transparency of the Tender Under Scrutiny
Critics argue that the selection process was biased in favor of the F 35A from the outset. Initially, the French Rafale was reportedly in pole position, seen as the best fit for Switzerland’s defense needs. Then, in a surprising shift, the American model emerged as the winner. Investigative journalists uncovered inconsistencies in scoring criteria and found that risk assessments had not been applied equally to all contenders.
Worse yet, Norwegian procurement data for similar F 35 units revealed significantly higher costs than Switzerland had anticipated. This discrepancy raises concerns about overly optimistic financial projections, if not outright manipulation of data to downplay fiscal risks. Was the Swiss government seduced by the political weight of a U.S. alliance, or simply under-informed?
Are There Viable Alternatives?
The Swiss Federal Council maintains that scrapping the F 35 deal would leave the country vulnerable, especially after 2032, when its fleet of F/A 18 Hornets is scheduled for retirement. Nonetheless, opposition voices argue that Switzerland should have considered other options more seriously — including advanced European aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale, or expanded investments in ground-based air defense systems.
In the context of modern warfare, critics ask: is air superiority alone worth such a staggering price? Especially for a country that maintains neutrality and is not a NATO member. An increasing number of analysts are pushing for a more diversified defense strategy, focusing on cyber defense, drone capabilities, and regional cooperation rather than expensive legacy platforms.
Global Implications and Trust Erosion
The implications of this procurement fiasco stretch far beyond Swiss borders. For Lockheed Martin and the U.S. defense apparatus, Switzerland’s discontent is an image problem. The F 35 program — already mired in controversies over technical delays and cost overruns — cannot afford to alienate wealthy, traditionally neutral buyers.
Other potential customers such as Canada, Portugal, and Finland are watching closely. If Switzerland, known for its thorough decision-making and fiscal conservatism, falls victim to what looks like a bait-and-switch pricing strategy, what message does that send to other nations considering F 35 purchases?
A Test of Democratic Maturity
Switzerland now finds itself in the middle of a geopolitical and democratic stress test. The Air2030 program has become a bone of contention in both public and political discourse. What started as a symbol of national security and strategic alignment has turned into a case study in procurement opacity and poor communication.
Public anger is growing not just over the cost, but also over the perceived lack of accountability. Why were risks not clearly disclosed? Why did the Swiss people have to rely on foreign audits and investigative journalism to understand the full scope of the deal? And most critically — can a democratic society tolerate such levels of uncertainty in multi-billion-franc defense contracts?
If It Can Be Changed Later, Was It Ever Real?
The ultimate concern is structural. If a procurement deal touted as “fixed” can be retroactively amended — or if that impression was allowed to circulate without correction — then trust in democratic oversight erodes. Switzerland may pride itself on direct democracy and institutional transparency, but this episode reveals weaknesses that could be exploited again.
In retrospect, the Mirage scandal of the 1960s — when Switzerland was forced to scale back a controversial fighter jet program amid budget overruns and political backlash — seems like a historical echo. The country failed that test once. Will it repeat the mistake?
Only through a candid, inclusive, and fact-based national dialogue can Switzerland ensure that this deal does not set a dangerous precedent. A nation that allows prices to be raised after the fact must ask: was this truly a contract — or just a leap of faith in red, white, and blue?
Comments