The Federal Office for Defence Procurement (armasuisse) used the AHP method (Analytic Hierarchy Process) with 79 individual criteria across four main categories for the type evaluation within the Air2030 programme for the first time. The F-35A achieved 336 points with a lead of at least 95 points over the runner-up. [1]
This page analyses the evaluation methodology, explains how the AHP method works, compares it with common evaluation methods used in defence procurement, and documents parliamentary and expert criticism of the evaluation model.
armasuisse conducted the evaluation in two separate phases -- a so-called two-envelope procedure: the technical specialists had no insight into the costs and vice versa. This was intended to ensure an unbiased assessment. [2]
Phase 1: Technical Evaluation (2019-2020)
Phase 2: Commercial Evaluation (2020-2021)
armasuisse evaluated the candidates based on four main criteria with fixed weightings: [2]
| Criterion | Weighting | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness | 55% | Operational effectiveness, mission autonomy, survivability |
| Product Support | 25% | Maintainability, support autonomy, spare parts supply |
| Cooperation | 10% | Collaboration with armed forces and procurement authorities of the manufacturer's country |
| Direct Offsets | 10% | Offset agreements for Swiss industry |
The resulting overall utility was then compared against the procurement and operating costs over 30 years (cost-benefit analysis). [2]
The F-35A achieved the best overall result with 336 points. The gap to the runner-up was at least 95 points. Notably, the F-35A won not only in effectiveness, but also in product support and cooperation. [1]
The AHP method was developed in the 1970s by Thomas L. Saaty at the University of Pittsburgh and first published in 1980 in the book "The Analytic Hierarchy Process". [4]
Core idea: AHP breaks down complex decisions into a hierarchy:
Level 0: GOAL
"Best fighter aircraft for Switzerland"
│
Level 1: MAIN CRITERIA
Effectiveness (55%) | Product Support (25%) | Cooperation (10%) | Offset (10%)
│
Level 2: SUB-CRITERIA
79 individual criteria at armasuisse
│
Level 3: ALTERNATIVES
F-35A | Rafale | Eurofighter | Super Hornet
Unlike classical scoring, AHP works with pairwise comparisons on the so-called Saaty scale: [4]
| Value | Verbal Meaning | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Equally important | Both elements contribute equally to the goal |
| 3 | Slightly more important | Experience and judgement slightly favour one element |
| 5 | Considerably more important | Experience and judgement strongly favour one element |
| 7 | Much more important | One element is very strongly preferred |
| 9 | Absolutely more important | Highest possible preference for one element |
| 2,4,6,8 | Intermediate values | Compromises between adjacent values |
A central problem of the AHP method is the contrast effect: small real differences lead to disproportionately large point differentials.
Thomas Ferber, an AHP expert, warned about this effect as early as 2021 and compared it to a "contrast slider in Photoshop". [5] His assessment: the conventional utility analysis is "fairer because it is more accurate and differentiated".
Representatives of the unsuccessful manufacturers described the AHP evaluation as a "black box". [5]
armasuisse was aware of the contrast effect and incorporated a so-called "transfer function" to dampen it. [2] However, the exact workings of this transfer function were not publicly documented -- a point of criticism that makes the evaluation difficult to verify.
With the AHP method, armasuisse used a procedure that is uncommon in international defence procurement. The following table compares AHP with established alternatives:
| Feature | NWA/MAUT | AHP |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation principle | Direct scoring (e.g. 1-10) | Pairwise comparisons (1-9) |
| Weighting | Pre-determined | Derived from pairwise comparisons |
| Consistency check | None | Yes (CR ≤ 0.10) |
| Transparency | High (anyone can verify) | Medium (matrix operations) |
| Contrast effect | Low (linear scale) | High (non-linear) |
| Defence procurement usage | Standard in DACH, UK, Australia | Rare |
PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation)
ELECTRE (ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité)
Best Value Procurement (US DoD Standard)
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
| Criterion | AHP | NWA/MAUT | PROMETHEE | ELECTRE | Best Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transparency | Medium | High | Medium | Low | Low |
| Consistency check | Yes | No | Indirect | No | No |
| Contrast effect | High | Low | Medium | Low | N/A |
| Veto option | No | No | No | Yes | Informal |
| Complexity | High | Low | High | Very high | Low |
| Defence practice | Rare | Standard | Rare | Rare | US DoD |
The AHP method is scientifically sound and offers an advantage over classical utility analysis through its consistency check. However, the contrast effect is a significant problem, which armasuisse attempted to resolve through an undocumented "transfer function".
The classical utility analysis would have been more transparent and would have provoked less criticism. In international defence procurement practice, AHP is an outlier -- Finland, Belgium, Canada, and Germany used different methods.
On 27 April 2021, the DDPS under Federal Councillor Viola Amherd commissioned the law firm Homburger AG verbally to conduct a plausibility check of the evaluation result. The costs for the initial expert report amounted to CHF 550,000. [6]
Total costs of DDPS mandates to Homburger (2021-2025): approximately CHF 2.5 million for over 9 mandates. [6]
Homburger concluded that the ranking of bidders was "plausible". [7]
However, the report contained a far-reaching disclaimer: Homburger excluded any responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the results. [6]
The Control Committee-N found that Homburger had not examined essential aspects: [7]
The financial review was delegated to Gut Corporate Finance. [6]
On 18 June 2021, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) was tasked with "plausibilising" the Homburger report -- a plausibility check of the plausibility check. [6]
The Swiss Federal Audit Office (SFAO) published Audit Report No. 21410 on Air2030 risk management on 8 July 2022, with the following key criticisms: [8]
The Control Committee of the National Council (GPK-N) formulated five recommendations regarding the procurement process: [7]
Federal Council's response: One recommendation partially accepted, one rejected, three considered "already fulfilled". [7]
Weighting issue:
Cost comparability:
Unsuccessful manufacturers and critical media raised the following allegations: [9]
These allegations were rejected by armasuisse. A definitive assessment is not possible due to the classification of the evaluation report.
| Country | Methodology | Candidates | Duration | Transparency | External Review | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | AHP (79 criteria) | 4 | 2018-2021 | Low | Homburger (plausib.) | F-35A |
| Finland | MCDA + ext. review | 5 | 2015-2021 | High | VTT Research | F-35A |
| Belgium | TCO/cost-effic. | 2* | 2014-2018 | Medium | None | F-35A |
| Canada | Scored evaluation | 3 | 2010-2023 | High (after reform) | Auditor General | F-35A |
| Germany | None (sole-source) | 1 | 2022 | N/A | N/A | F-35A |
*Eurofighter withdrew its offer
It is noteworthy that all F-35 purchasing countries arrived at the same result despite using different evaluation methods. This can be interpreted as confirmation of the F-35A's technical superiority -- or as an indication that the evaluations were less open-ended than portrayed.
Pro:
Contra:
Pro:
Contra:
Pro:
Contra:
armasuisse was simultaneously the commissioning body, executor, and beneficiary of the evaluation. An independent external review -- as in Finland by VTT or in Canada by the Auditor General -- did not take place.
The high weighting of "effectiveness" (55%) favoured a technologically leading offering. The question of whether this was politically intended remains open.
FMS costs are based on estimates, while European manufacturers offered fixed prices. Whether these were made methodologically comparable is not transparent.
The classification of the evaluation report prevents independent verification and impedes democratic oversight.
The AHP contrast effect and the undocumented "transfer function" raise questions about traceability.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 2017 | Federal Council approves Air2030 programme |
| 2018 | First request for proposals to manufacturers |
| April-June 2019 | Flight tests in Payerne |
| January 2020 | Second request for proposals [3] |
| April 2020 | Departure of security policy chief Christian Catrina |
| 27 April 2021 | Verbal commissioning of Homburger AG [6] |
| May 2021 | Change of payment terms |
| 18 June 2021 | FOJ tasked with review of Homburger report |
| 30 June 2021 | Type selection: F-35A [1] |
| 27 September 2020 | Popular vote: Yes to Air2030 (50.1%) |
| 8 July 2022 | SFAO publishes Audit Report No. 21410 [8] |
| 9 September 2022 | Control Committee-N report with 5 recommendations [7] |
| 27 June 2025 | Control Committee-N resolves inspection on fixed-price question [13] |
[1] VBS Medienmitteilung: Typenentscheid F-35A (30.06.2021)
[2] armasuisse Insights: AHP-Methode
[3] armasuisse: Zweite Offertanfrage (Januar 2020)
[4] Saaty, T.L. (1980): The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill. / Saaty, T.L. (2008): Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.83-98.
[5] SRF: Juristisch heikle Bewertungsmethode beim Kampfjet-Kauf
[6] NZZ: Die Anwälte von Homburger spielten beim Kauf der Kampfjets eine umstrittene Rolle
[7] GPK-N Bericht vom 9. September 2022 (PDF)
[8] EFK Prüfbericht Nr. 21410: Air2030 Risikomanagement (PDF)
[9] Defense-Aerospace: How Switzerland Manipulated Data to Favor the F-35
[10] Finnish Ministry of Defence: HX Fighter Programme
[11] Government of Canada: Future Fighter Capability Project
[13] GPK-N Medienmitteilung: Inspektion Festpreis (01.07.2025)
| URL | Status | Verified on |
|---|---|---|
| armasuisse AHP method | Active | 06.02.2026 |
| DDPS type selection (Wayback) | Archived | 06.02.2026 |
| SFAO Audit Report 21410 | Active | 06.02.2026 |
| Control Committee-N Report 09.09.2022 | Active | 06.02.2026 |
| NZZ Homburger article | Active | 06.02.2026 |
| SRF evaluation method | Active | 06.02.2026 |
| Finland HX Programme | Active | 06.02.2026 |
| Canada FFCP | Active | 06.02.2026 |
Last updated: 6 February 2026