Alternatives to Swiss fighter jets purchase

Is a « light » alternative to the Swiss fighter jets purchase realistic ? Not really, as shown by a critical review of the study written by the Acamar consulting firm for opponents to the acquisition of fighter aircrafts. Their favorite option (the Leonardo M346) does not really stand out from the rest, and the ranking is sensitive to the criteria used. Nevertheless, a fundamental analysis of Swiss security policy is needed given the coming renewal of several army equipments in the years to come. It is not necessary to cancel the purchase of aircrafts to conduct this exercise, but a structuring of the order between firm purchases and options is desirable. A critical assessment of the ACAMAR study The Acamar consulting firm, specializing in ground-to-air defenses, wrote a critical report on the aircraft renewal project in November 2019. Opponents use this report as a basis for recommending the purchase of light aircraft, specifically the M346 from the firm Leonardo. This recommendation is questionable, to say the least, if one looks at the evaluation table (page 69 of the report) reproduced below. The report weighs a series of nine criteria, which I group together into flight characteristics, cost, and other aspects such as the ability to serve as a training aircraft. The study ranks aircraft from 1 to 6 according to the criteria. The weighted ranking places the M346 at the top with a rand of 2.61. Airplanes ranking from the Acamar study Criterion Weight F/A18C F/A18E Eurofighter Dassault Lockheed Leonardo (%) Hornet Super Martin M346 Hornet Typhoon Rafale F35A 3 Flight characteristics 13.9 4 2 15 6 6 Range 13.9 3 3 15 2 5 Speed 8.3 5 4 32 1 6 Detection ability 2.8 5 4 21 3 Weapons 1 16.7 5 3 42 6 1 Coûts 16.7 2 2 22 6 2 Hourly usage cost 11.1 1 3 56 4 Maintenance cost 1 Purchase cost 11.1 2 2 22 5 2 5.6 3 5 64 1 Autres 2.61 Training potential 100 3.19 2.81 2.69 3.36 4.33 4.71 Takeoff distane 38.9 3.93 2.93 1.50 4.07 3.29 1.25 44.4 2.88 2.63 3.50 3.00 5.50 1.33 Weighted rank 16.7 2.33 3.00 3.33 2.67 3.67 Total Flight characteristics Cost Cost 1

Note : the weight of each criterion is the factor indicated in table of the Acamar study divided by the sum of these factors (36). Such a ranking only allows a first pass at the issue because evaluating an aircraft is a complex process. Moreover, simply establishing a ranking does not reflect the extent of the differences: is the aircraft ranked second marginally or substantially better than the one ranked third? Despite these limitations, it is instructive to look at the table. The weighting of the criteria is strongly oriented towards cost (44.4 percent of the total), while characteristics are less weighted (38.9 percent), with notably a minimum weight on weapons. The relevance of some criteria is also questionable: why take into account the ability to serve as a training aircraft when it is not what the Swiss air force is looking for? If the M346 comes out on top overall, this result is fragile. The lower part of the table, and the figure below, shows the rankings by total, and in each of the three categories of criteria. The rank of the M346 (2.61) is almost identical to that of the Eurofighter Typhoon (2.69) and very close to the F/A18E Super Hornet (2.81). The Italian light aircraft is therefore not an obvious choice. In fact, only the F35A is clearly at the bottom of the pack. If the Dassault Rafale is also badly ranked, the scores given by Acamar is puzzling: its speed is considered to be very different from the others and its purchase cost significantly higher than that of the F35. In addition, the performance-based ranking (blue line) indicates that the Rafale is similar to the F/A18C currently equipping the Swiss air force. This is highly debatable. Ranking by categories 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 F/A-18-C F/A-18-E Eurofighter Dassault Lockheed Leonardo M- Rafale Hornet Super Hornet Typhoon Martin F35-A 346 Total Flight characteristics Cost Other 2

The raning of the M346 is primarily driven by costs and other factors, as shown by the green and gray lines in the figure. In terms of flight characteristics (blue line) it is clearly at the bottom of the pack. The ranking is therefore - unsurprisingly - sensitive to the weighting of the categories. The figure below shows the ranking if we change the weight of the cost category and adjust the flight characteristics weight accordingly (the weight of the other category is kept at 16.7 percent). The vertical line indicates the weighting considered in the study. We can clearly see that the M346 rapidly declines as soon as the weight placed on costs is reduced. Impact of weight on cost 4.5 4.0 3.5 F/A-18-C Hornet F/A-18-E Super Hornet Eurofighter Typhoon 3.0 Dassault Rafale Lockheed Martin F35-A 2.5 Leonardo M-346 2.0 30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% 42% 44% 46% 48% 50% Weight on cost Therefore, Acamar's own figures do not show that a light aircraft is clearly a preferable solution. Other aspects of the study are also questionable. It includes a lengthy discussion of ground-to-air defense, looking at two systems: the American Patriot and the European SAMP-T. These two systems are being evaluated by the Swiss army as part of the Bodluv project and were rigorously tested in Switzerland in the summer of 2019. However, the study makes no mention of this, which raises the question of whether its authors are aware of what is actually being done in Switzerland. Moreover, despite a focus on the needs of anti-missile warfare, the study does not discuss systems such as the American THAAD or the Israeli Arrow, which are nevertheless designed precisely for this purpose. The environmental impact is minimal One argument put forward against the purchase of aircrafts is the environmental impact. Global warming is clearly a - if not the - major problem we face. Measures are needed, such as a CO2 tax, and the Swiss Federal Council's complacency towards polluting vehicles is appalling. 3

But this is not a subject for the airplane vote. The air force emits 120'000 tons of CO2 per year. Catastrophic? No: that corresponds to one day of CO2 emissions in Switzerland. Let's take a step back While the opponents propose questionable alternatives to the aircrafts evaluated by the Swiss air force, they raise a very relevant question: what are Switzerland's defense needs in the coming decades? It is all the more important to answer this question because, in addition to aircraft, several categories of army equipment will have to be replaced. So this is clearly the time to find out what we want from the fund. The analysis published by National Councillor Pierre-Alain Fridez, one of the leaders of the opponents, is well worth reading. While I do not share all the points of view in that book, it nonetheless presents a well-documented and thoughtful vision. Other contributions also underline the need to rethink security in depth, such as Pascal Lago's analysis of Avenir Suisse and the report that Pierre Aeppli, Peter Arbenz, Christophe Keckeis and Pierre Maudet wrote nearly 10 years ago. These analyses underline the minimal risk of a classic conflict in Switzerland and the growing role of cyber and terrorist threats. I would add to this the need for quality information. The best way to win a battle is to undermine the opponent's motivation to fight it. At a time of fake news and the active use of disinformation by states, it is important to ensure that the Swiss population has access to information that is not manipulated. It is true that planning security over 30 years or more is an uncertain exercise. But simply saying that we have to buy many planes because we never know what may happen is tantamount to avoiding a necessary reflection. What to do then? Since the fundamental discussion on Swiss security needs has unfortunately not yet taken place, should we stop the aircraft purchase project, think about it, and then start all over again? A more pragmatic approach is possible. The major question for the air force format is whether Switzerland wants a force with broad capabilities, including air-to-ground attack, or a force focused on air policing and maintaining temporary exclusion zones. The latter option roughly corresponds to variant 4 of the Air 2030 report. A pragmatic approach would be to continue the current aircraft procurement process, but to structure the order between a first tranche of firm orders (say around 20 aircraft) and a second tranche in the form of options to be confirmed. Such a format is very common format for aircraft purchases. The strategic discussion about security could take place over a limited number of years. If Switzerland chooses a broad format for its air force, the options would be converted into firm orders. If, on the other hand, the sovereign prefers a smaller format, the air force would be only get the first tranche of orders. It is not necessarily the format they would prefer, but Cedant arma togae. 4