Switzerland selects F-35A

Switzerland has selected the F-35A for their Future Air Defense Program. The F-35 was 2 billion Swiss Francs below other bids from Boeing, Dassault, and the Eurofighter. Total procurement cost for 36 F-35As was bid at 5.07 billion Swiss Francs, which is below the cap of 6 billion that was approved by a referendum. Operating costs are estimated at 15.5 billion Francs over 30 years. ​A second referendum will likely be set by the contract award. The next big decisions will be by Canada and Finland.

ZURICH, June 30 (Reuters) - Switzerland's government has chosen Lockheed Martin's LMT.N F-35A Lightning II as its next-generation fighter plane, it said on Wednesday, a move that will likely trigger another referendum over the contract.

Neutral Switzerland will buy 36 F-35As after an evaluation found it to have "the highest overall benefit at the lowest overall cost".

www.nasdaq.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

You know as a neutral country that does not get involved in armed conflicts abroad, we really need fighter jets that can't reach full-speed without leaving national airspace... LOL

a reply to: Terpene

They need something. Their F-18s are old and wearing out, and their F-5s are even worse. Just because they're neutral doesn't mean that they don't need a military.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Swiss are dead serious what comes to defense. And dead serious when it comes to spending hard earned tax payer money. F35 scoring high there is a proof there is something excellent in F35.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree on a solid defense but aren't these offensive weapons systems?

I can't find the right position in this mental gymnastic, to be neutral.

The F35 is great though.
It was the first plane after the SR71, where I said nice looking plane. I know too little about the Technologie...

a reply to: Terpene

All the aircraft they can get are also offensive. The F-35 significantly multiplies combat ability of everything around it, either offensive or defensive and makes them far more effective than they would be on their own.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't doubt the superior effectiveness, compared to the other planes.

It surely was the best choice. But it is only an accessory, only necessary in a few scenarios, for such a tiny airspace, without offensive endeavours.
It is true the FA18 are old, they were just getting old when we bought them.
the F35 is also there right now.

I wonder if they are a little cheaper just before the next generation of fighter jets gets released?

a reply to: Terpene

The F-18, F-16, and F-15EX are far more expensive now than they have been before. They've added more to them, and gone from analog to digital, so the prices have gone way up. The F-35 cost is still dropping, and is expected to drop to the mid to low $70M range before it stops.

The F-35 ties into air defense networks and can extend their range far beyond what they normally would be able to reach. It can target cruise missiles and aircraft for the defense systems and guide the missile for them. It can act as an AWACS, and all sorts of other things.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I usually love your posts and info, but be real. Its a #ty stop gap plane for what we have. And selling keeps that money coming in that we know isd outdated. I expect better of you

a reply to: boredhere74

I see you haven't bothered to branch out from the hate information out there. There's plenty of information out there proving it's anything but. And it's certainly not a stopgap anything.

I honestly don’t see the logic behind this choice. They only need to protect their airspace, so an interceptor or at least a primary air to air aircraft would have been logical. The choice of an eurofighter or a Rafale would gave made more sense I think for a small country like that. Especially when we know the F-35 is not the best in air to air and has air to ground as primary mission.
I know politics always gets involved but I don’t really get this choice.

a reply to: Ghoul

The F-35 has dominated air to air in recent exercises, including WVR, and has the ability to guide ground defenses at ranges far beyond what they're normally capable of. It's only going to get more capable with the Block 4 software update when that comes online. In addition it was cheaper than the other aircraft offered, and is coming down to equivalent cost per flight hour. The total life cycle cost will be roughly the same or better than the others as well.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This is bizarre. The voters decided against the much cheaper Gripen in 2014, which would have been good enough for such a small and neutral country. And now they think they can get them to vote for a much more expensive jet?

a reply to: moebius

The 2014 attempt had a lot of controversy. The CVP dropped out of leading the "yes" vote after the selection was made, and Saab was accused of financing campaigns in favor of the vote, and one of the parties returned a fairly large amount of money that was donated in favor of the yes vote. This time there hasn't been any of that seen.

A little bit surprising. Personally I think Gripen E would have been a better choice consider it is from a fellow EU country and operational cost is significantly less.

a reply to: joseluer24

The Gripen wasn't offered. It was the Rafale, Typhoon, Super Hornet, and F-35.

I don’t understand those nay-saying the F-35 choice, surely the survivability increases with a stealthier platform?

I love the Typhoon to bits and am glad we (the UK) have it in our arsenal but if I could only have one front line jet I would rather have the F-35.

Hence the QE2 carrier only operates F-35 by choice because it’s a great option.