https://www.rsi.ch/news/svizzera/Decollano-i-contratti-per-F-35-e-Patriot-14894529.html

So we havent even bought them, and they are already 1 billion (from 4b to 5b) more expensive than what they said when we voted.

The link is in Italian but its short you can easily Google translate.

Also curious that we will buy 2 billions (extra of the 5) of AA missiles but nobody ever spoke about that when the vote was coming. When someone said to buy AA missiles instead of fighters they used the excuse of “AA missiles cant replace fighters” but now we are spending half of the fighters budget on them 🤔.

12 comments

  1. Dear God. I still remember when I was still in college back early 2000s, Lockheed was pitching the F 35 as this aircraft that was going to save money. More than 20 years later I am like wtf.

  2. Here’s basically the same article in english: [https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/inflation-swells-cost-of-replacing-swiss-fighter-jet-fleet/47143982](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/inflation-swells-cost-of-replacing-swiss-fighter-jet-fleet/47143982)

    And I’m not surprised at all. An investigation will be launched next year to check if the selection process was fair (or even carried out correctly). Furthermore, an initiative will be launched to cancel the F-35 in Switzerland.

    All in all, the last word has not been spoken about that plane.

    Investigation: [https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/kaufentscheid-fuer-f-35-die-kampfjet-typenwahl-wird-unter-die-lupe-genommen](https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/kaufentscheid-fuer-f-35-die-kampfjet-typenwahl-wird-unter-die-lupe-genommen) (could only find a german source).

    Initiative: [https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-group-campaigns-against-purchase-of-us-fighter-jets-/46888620](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-group-campaigns-against-purchase-of-us-fighter-jets-/46888620)

  3. Inflation is effecting everything right now. You shouldn’t be surprised with this. Look at the amount of electronics and metals that are in any aircraft. I would bet that any one of the ones that were considered are now more expensive.

  4. Buying F-35’s is an idiotic “amerikan ass kissin” idea anyway.

    There are much better alternatives better suited for Switzerland. We dont need fat Amy.

  5. For a modern hybrid war a light aircraft similar to Pilatus would be appropriate.

    Say in the Afghanistan conflict it could be a great patrol airplane capable of landing on short runways in mountains.

  6. The aim-120’s we currently have (described as F/A-18 missiles in this article) remain the main missile in the US forces and are still perfectly usable until their sheduled replacement in 2040 and would have to be replaced by then no matter which aircraft even if the F/A-18 were to remain flying until then.
    This article trys to present sheduled armament buys/replacements as additionel cost of the F35 while being dishonest about being costs of the alternatives. And no meteor is unlikely to be cheaper than the next aim-120 generation since as always numbers expected to be produced play a major role in the price of military hardware.

  7. Also the Patriot AA batteries are part of the programm to modernise swiss air defenses by replacing the severly outdated Rapier system that was already considered outdated 20-30 years ago. The procurment process of those happend in parrallel to the fighter procurement with autorisation of parlament and won the selction process in its category.

  8. With all theses clearly biased articles against the F-35 I start to wonder if these journalists are getting paid by the (European) competition? Maybe that’s just me being a bit paranoid. But in particular in light of a potential vote on the topic and the general rather shady business practices in these huge arms deals I wouldn’t be surprised.

  9. The Budget was 6B anyway, **we voted on a budget of 6B**. While the budget for the Air Defense (which was ALWAYS for Air Defense and was never part of the budget for the fighters, as those too need to be replaced) was of 2B, that one is slightly under the projected budget. So we are slightly overbudget with one and under with the other, and those few millions can be wiped out any day due to currency change during the lifetime of the systems, projected at 30 years, of course there is going to be inflation.

    Originally the Fighters and Air Defense programs were separate, than for many reasons the Air Defense one was cancelled and started over and it was decided to fuse it together with the fighter one as both needed replacement around the same time and it was easier to just do one program together, than it was divided again as nobody opposed the Air Defense system replacement but there was opposition for the new fighter jets, it would be dumb ending up without Air Defense Systems nobody opposed because of the fighters vote.

    >Also curious that we will buy 2 billions (extra of the 5) of AA missiles but nobody ever spoke about that when the vote was coming.

    That’s because they were not part of the vote, the vote pertained to the Fighters only.

    >When someone said to buy AA missiles instead of fighters they used the excuse of “AA missiles cant replace fighters” but now we are spending half of the fighters budget on them

    We are not, both needed replacement, we have no medium to high altitude SAM systems right now, as a matter of fact, not even **low** altitude SAM system right now, with the obsolete Rapier being retired this year, and the Bloodhound having being retired for more than 20.

    The only AA systems we still have are the 35mm Oerlikon cannons with Skyguard radar guided fire control systems, which are low altitude, and MANPAD Stinger missiles, also low altitude and also obsolete, th 35mm will also be obsolete soon, even tho they have been modernized this last decade, but there is only so much an ADA system can do, especially one developed during the 60s.

  10. Netto vs Brutto

    It doesn’t matter which one they selected, the gross (brutto) price is always goung to be higher.

Leave a Reply