As has already been highlighted on several occasions, the Swiss “fixed price” for the planned 36 F-35A fighter jets proved in retrospect to be less fixed than politically communicated. Years later, Washington claimed higher costs – based on inflation, post-Covid supply chain problems, the development of commodity prices and other factors. The Federal Council has now also had to admit this, as reported by SRF, and will probably result in a reduction in the number of aircraft ordered.
How high the additional costs will actually be, however, remains to be seen. This depends on what results the US government achieves in the ongoing negotiations with aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin. aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin and the suppliers – an approach that is quite common in foreign military sales (FMS) transactions with the USA.
Figures of between 650 million and up to 1.3 billion Swiss francs (695 to 1.4 billion euros) are currently circulating in Bern, in addition to the original estimate of six billion francs (around 6.4 billion euros), which the Swiss electorate approved – by a very narrow margin.
The consequence is predictable: the number of aircraft will be reduced, at least for the time being. After the National Council recently denied the DDPS (Department of Defense) an additional loan, the official line is now to procure “the maximum possible number of F-35A aircraft” within the financial framework approved in the 2020 referendum.
“We cannot yet say how many fighter aircraft could be purchased for the estimated six billion francs,” Defense Minister Martin Pfister told journalists.
The Federal Council has also rejected partial compensation for the additional costs by waiving offset transactions. Among other things, this would affect the RUAG’s planned final production of four F-35A. These offset transactions would “help to build up know-how in connection with the fighter aircraft in Switzerland and strengthen independence in maintenance”, according to the communication from Bern. However, the F-35 as a type itself will not be changed.
The Swiss media subsequently speculated that there could initially be 30 instead of 36 Lightning IIs. For the time being. Because – according to the Federal Council – “because 13 other European countries are relying on the F-35, it is not an option to do without the US fighter aircraft”. At the same time, the government points to its own military requirements: “55 to 70 modern fighter aircraft are needed for comprehensive air defense geared to the current threat situation. A further increase in air defense is being examined.”
Specifically, the DDPS is now to present an internal prioritization of requirements. Once these questions have been clarified, the Federal Council intends to decide on any additional procurement of further F-35 jets – although this will probably not be for several years, once the system has been introduced and the cost structures have been “digested” to some extent. And depending on political priorities and possible parliamentary or even referendum decisions.
A Swiss newspaper put it in a nutshell: “Defense Minister Martin Pfister’s maneuver could turn out to be a clever move. On the one hand, he is circumventing the programmed resistance from the left if he were to spend more than six billion and apply for a supplementary credit. On the other hand, by offering the option of additional procurement at a later date, he is reassuring the middle classes and military experts who are calling for a stronger air force.”
Militärakademie: Kommandoübergabe an Brigadier Ségur-Cabanac
Politicians are hardly liable themselves …
“Must former Federal Councillor Viola Amherd be held liable for the F-35 fiasco?” The conservative Swiss People’s Party (SVP) is now asking this question – and demanding consequences. The Federal Council (in Switzerland the incumbent government, not the second chamber of parliament) expressly does not rule out such consequences. Background: For years, the former defense minister had emphasized to parliament and the public that a fixed price of six billion Swiss francs applied to the 36 US fighter jets. A statement that the US side – unsurprisingly for those familiar with FMS contracts – later described as a “misunderstanding”.
“This could give rise to a question of liability in retrospect,” the Federal Council states in its response to an SVP motion. If there are indications of damage to the Confederation or of unlawful conduct by officials or third parties, the Confederation will “of course take appropriate legal action against these persons”. This also expressly applies to measures to prevent the statute of limitations from running on claims for damages and recourse. SVP National Councillor and lawyer Rémy Wyssmann puts it this way: “We don’t yet know what the outcome will be. That’s why the first thing to do now is to interrupt the limitation period, otherwise we’ll be powerless later.”
At the same time, the Federal Council does not want to take action itself for the time being. The fact that additional costs are to be expected for the purchase of the fighter jet does not necessarily mean that the Confederation has suffered damage to which the Liability Act applies. Furthermore, there are “currently not enough concrete indications of unlawful conduct on the part of federal employees or former Federal Councillor Amherd”, according to the statement. However, an investigation by the National Council’s Control Committee is still ongoing.
Déjà vu …
Austria has a similar – ultimately inconsequential – case of “tinkering around”, albeit in a different way. There, a member of the government intervened directly in an existing contract. As a reminder: Peter Pilz filed a complaint against former Austrian Defense Minister Norbert Darabos in June 2017. The accusation was of breach of trust in connection with the Eurofighter settlement concluded in 2007 for domestic political reasons, which continues to have an impact to this day and also triggered the replacement of the Tranche 1 aircraft that has now been initiated. This settlement was signed on SP hotel stationery.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office for Economic Affairs and Corruption (WKStA) opened an investigation, but discontinued it on June 29, 2020. Reason: there was no recognizable intent and “no financial loss for the Republic”.
Well, yes. The Republic is still missing the flight hours of three aircraft as well as central elements of the on-board equipment, which already now – although only about half of the airframe’s service life has been reached – have to be procured again as indispensable. Nevertheless, the WKStA came to the conclusion that although the Financial Procurator’s Office had not been sufficiently involved and powers had been exceeded, this did not constitute a criminal breach of trust.
Here for more reports about Lockheed-Martin and here to further reports on the Swiss Armed Forces.
