F-35 dispute: Swiss government promises tighter oversight as funding falls short

Switzerland’s Federal Council has promised tighter controls on arms purchases following the dispute over the price of its F-35 fighter jets. In a response published on Friday, 23 October, the government pledged greater transparency, better risk management and a stronger legal service at Armasuisse, the federal defence procurement office. It also rejected criticism that the American contracts had barely been scrutinised. The central question remains: how many aircraft will Switzerland receive for the money approved?

The National Council’s Control Committee, which scrutinises government administration on behalf of parliament’s lower house, sharply criticised the purchase in September. Its finding was that the promised fixed price had never existed. Former defence minister Viola Amherd, by contrast, had maintained that a fixed price applied. The Federal Council has now accepted six of the committee’s seven recommendations in full and the seventh in part.

The government therefore acknowledges that major defence purchases need to be handled better. Its response is not, however, an unqualified endorsement of the parliamentary committee’s account. It pushes back particularly on the question of who read and examined the contracts.

Who actually read the contracts?

The Federal Council regrets the impression that only the project manager at the time had read the contracts in full. It says the former head of armaments and other specialists at Armasuisse also studied the complete documents. Those employees were not heard by the parliamentary committee.

The defence department and Amherd had also examined the pricing clauses and key contractual provisions in depth. The government thus draws a distinction between the specialists responsible reading the entire contract and scrutiny of its decisive provisions at departmental level.

That rebuttal addresses an important element of the criticism, but it does not settle the price question. Whether several people read a contract from beginning to end is separate from what price guarantee was legally agreed. The gap between the fixed price communicated publicly and the contractual protection secured lies at the heart of the committee’s findings.

Both issues matter for political accountability: the care taken during internal scrutiny and the conclusions subsequently presented to parliament and the public. The government is defending the examination undertaken while also promising to improve procedures for future purchases.

Greater transparency and stronger legal scrutiny

The proposed changes cover several areas. Arms purchases are to become more transparent, risk management is to improve, and Armasuisse’s legal service is to be strengthened. Alongside technical and financial assessments, that places greater emphasis on legal scrutiny and the handling of uncertainty.

For large procurement contracts, the distinction matters. An expected cost and a legally secured price do not provide the same certainty for planning. Parliament needs to understand which commitments the federal government is entering into and where financial risks remain. The changes therefore concern not only the fighter jet purchase but also oversight of other defence contracts.

The defence department has already taken a further step intended to build trust. On 1 October, it disclosed the evaluation criteria to parliament’s two security policy committees. Those committees had previously been given the opportunity to inspect the contracts.

Giving parliament more access should make scrutiny easier. It does not, however, explain why the political assurances about a fixed price differed so markedly from the Control Committee’s subsequent assessment. Better access and improved procedures are, for now, answers to the question of how similar disputes might be avoided in future.

Fewer jets despite additional funding?

The consequences for Switzerland are already tangible. Defence Minister Martin Pfister has acknowledged that the available money will probably cover only 30 fighter jets rather than the planned 36. Parliament recently approved additional funding of CHF394 million.

The dispute is therefore no longer simply about assessing past statements. The size of Switzerland’s future fighter fleet is also at stake. Six fewer aircraft would mean a smaller purchase than originally envisaged. The government’s newly published response does not establish how many jets can ultimately be financed.

For federal finances and security planning, price and aircraft numbers are directly linked. Additional spending puts pressure on the budget; fewer aircraft change the scale of the project. The consequences of the contractual dispute thus extend beyond the responsibilities of individual former office-holders.

For residents following the debate, the practical issue is whether the approved spending will deliver the planned fleet. The additional credit has not removed the uncertainty over the number of aircraft Switzerland can afford.

Delivery on the promises now matters

Accepting the recommendations does not conclude the review. The next test is how the Federal Council translates its promises of transparency, improved risk management and a stronger legal service into practice. Full acceptance of six recommendations sends a political signal, but it is not yet evidence that working practices have changed.

The financial side of the F-35 purchase remains unresolved in parallel. For parliament and the public, the issue is ultimately not just whether the contracts were read carefully. It is also what costs the federal government can reliably plan for—and how many fighter jets Switzerland will receive in return.