Switzerland’s ambitious plan to modernize its air force with the purchase of 36 F-35A fighter jets from the United States has run headlong into a storm of controversy, bureaucratic wrangling, and political fallout. What was once touted as a watertight, fixed-price contract now appears anything but certain, leaving Swiss officials scrambling for solutions and critics demanding accountability.
The saga began in September 2022, when Switzerland’s Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) announced it had secured a fixed price of 6.035 billion Swiss francs (about $6.25 billion) for the fleet of F-35As. According to Aviation Week, this deal was supposed to shield Swiss taxpayers from the wild swings of global markets—a point the DDPS hammered home repeatedly in public statements. The jets, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, had outperformed the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in a rigorous evaluation, particularly in terms of effectiveness, support, cooperation, and cost.
Yet by the summer of 2025, the narrative had shifted dramatically. The U.S. government, citing a “sharp rise in raw material and energy prices,” informed Swiss officials that the deal was not, in fact, fixed. The Americans requested up to 1.3 billion Swiss francs ($1.6 billion) in additional payments—a figure that rattled both Swiss defense planners and politicians. During discussions that summer, the U.S. made it clear it would not budge on its position. Even a direct conversation between DDPS Minister Martin Pfister and U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth failed to yield any compromise.
“We must find ways to deal with the additional costs,” Pfister said, outlining possible solutions such as reducing the number of aircraft or seeking partial compensation through offset deals with Lockheed Martin. Switzerland, for its part, remains committed to the F-35A, but the government has ordered the DDPS to “intensify work on various options,” with recommendations due by November 2025. A special working group, led by Maj. Gen. Christian Oppliger—the future air force commander—has been tasked with critically reassessing the assumptions made at the time of the deal and reevaluating the country’s air defense needs in light of both security and financial pressures.
Legal opinions commissioned by the Swiss government muddy the waters further. The Swiss firm Homburger and the U.S.-based Arnold & Porter both argue that the contract is, indeed, fixed price. Homburger claims the U.S. government agreed to procure and resell the aircraft to Switzerland at the same fixed price, while Arnold & Porter points to “special provisions that state the aircraft will be provided for the stated firm fixed price.” Nevertheless, these legal arguments have not swayed the U.S. position, and the price hike appears inevitable.
This price dispute is not directly tied to the separate issue of the 39% tariffs imposed on Switzerland, but the timing has provided ammunition for critics. Several left-leaning lawmakers have seized on the controversy to renew calls for scrapping the F-35 program altogether. According to Aviation Week, government ministers warn that abandoning the deal would leave Switzerland unable to protect its airspace after 2032, when the current fleet of Boeing F/A-18 fighters is scheduled to retire. The older Northrop F-5 Tiger jets are already set for withdrawal by 2027.
The F-35’s selection was never a foregone conclusion. In 2020, Swiss voters approved the purchase of new fighter jets by the slimmest of margins—just 50.1%. A subsequent campaign to block the F-35 deal failed to gather enough signatures, but the public debate has remained heated and deeply polarized.
As reported by blue News and Tagesanzeiger, the DDPS’s handling of the fixed-price narrative has come under fierce scrutiny. For years, under the leadership of former Federal Councillor Viola Amherd, the DDPS dismissed warnings of potential cost overruns as “false” and published a series of corrections defending the supposed fixed price. These reassurances were featured prominently on the department’s website, particularly during the crucial period leading up to the 2020 referendum.
Now, in a twist that has left many observers shaking their heads, most of these corrections have quietly disappeared from the DDPS website. The only remnant is the original fixed price statement, which, as Tagesanzeiger notes, still claims that “Switzerland is not threatened with a price increase for the F-35”—a claim that now rings hollow. A DDPS spokesperson explained that older content is “regularly removed” because the website is not intended as an archive, but critics aren’t buying it.
In one of the last visible clarifications from 2022, the DDPS insisted the contract was fixed price and included inflation protection. Criticism from politicians such as SP Council of States member Franziska Roth and National Councillor Sarah Wyss was dismissed as unfounded. Today, both lawmakers are calling for transparency and corrections to the public record. “There is no fixed price. The DDPS must immediately correct its corrections,” Roth declared, voicing concerns about the department’s treatment of dissenting voices.
Despite mounting pressure, the DDPS and Federal Councillor Martin Pfister continue to defend the original fixed price narrative, albeit with the caveat that it cannot now be enforced. The department has indicated it does not plan to issue any apology or correction regarding the public misinformation.
As Switzerland weighs its options, the stakes are high. Reducing the number of aircraft or seeking offset deals may help soften the financial blow, but neither option is likely to satisfy all parties. The government faces the unenviable task of balancing national security, fiscal responsibility, and public trust—all under the glare of a skeptical and divided electorate.
One thing is clear: the F-35 affair has become much more than a procurement dispute. It’s a test of transparency, accountability, and the limits of international contracts in an unpredictable world. As November’s recommendations approach, all eyes will be on Bern to see how Swiss leaders navigate this high-altitude dilemma.
