On 18 May 2014, Swiss voters decided on the law creating a fund to finance the purchase of 22 Swedish-built Gripen E combat aircraft (Saab), for 3.126 billion francs. The stated goal: to replace the ageing F-5 Tigers and reinforce the fleet alongside the F/A-18s.
The referendum was launched by the Group for a Switzerland without an Army (GSsA) and the left, who gathered 65,384 signatures. The Federal Council, a majority of Parliament (National Council 119-71, Council of States 25-17) and the centre-right parties backed the acquisition; the left, the Greens and the Green Liberals opposed it.
The campaign was marked by two events. In February 2014, the acceptance of the SVP's «against mass immigration» initiative hardened the political climate. Above all, the hijacking of an Ethiopian plane to Geneva revealed that Swiss air policing then operated only during office hours — an embarrassing admission for a campaign trumpeting security urgency.
Voters rejected the fund with 53.41 % against (46.59 % Yes), on a turnout of 56.32 %. French-speaking Switzerland voted solidly against. It was a resounding defeat for Defence Minister Ueli Maurer and for the army.
▲ Cantons that accepted Aargau, Appenzell Inner Rhodes, Appenzell Outer Rhodes, Glarus, Graubünden, Lucerne, Nidwalden, Obwalden, St. Gallen, Solothurn, Schwyz, Thurgau, Uri, Zug (14 cantons) | ▼ Cantons that rejected Bern, Basel-Landschaft, Basel-Stadt, Fribourg, Geneva, Jura, Neuchâtel, Schaffhausen, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Zurich (12 cantons) |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Ueli Maurer (SVP Federal Councillor, head of the DDPS, face of the campaign) • Federal Council (in favour) • SVP, FDP, Christian Democrats, BDP (centre-right parties in favour) • AUNS (Campaign for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland) • economiesuisse, SGV (business associations) | ▼ No camp • GSsA (Group for a Switzerland without an Army, referendum initiator) • SP, Greens, Labour Party (parties of the left) • Green Liberals (GLP) (notable centre-right opposition) • SGB, VPOD (trade unions) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) The fleet must be renewed: the F-5 Tigers are obsolete « Without a new aircraft, Switzerland will no longer be able to ensure the lasting protection of its airspace. » — Yes camp and Federal Council, 2014 voting brochure ✓ Argument confirmed The need for renewal was real. After the No, the Confederation launched the Air2030 programme; on 27 September 2020 voters approved the 6-billion-franc envelope for new aircraft, and in 2021 the Federal Council chose the American F-35A. The need to replace an ageing fleet was thus validated over time. Source: DDPS, Air2030 programme; vote of 27.09.2020. Without the Gripen, round-the-clock surveillance of the sky is no longer guaranteed « Permanent air policing cannot be ensured if the Gripen is rejected. » — Ueli Maurer, Federal Councillor (DDPS), 2014 campaign ✗ Argument refuted Air policing was maintained with the F/A-18s, then extended to permanent 24/7 coverage from late 2020 — without any Gripen. The scenario of an airspace left unprotected did not materialise. Source: Swiss Air Force, introduction of permanent air policing (2020-2021). | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) The Gripen E is a «paper plane», still under development « We are being asked to buy an aircraft that does not yet exist and whose performance is uncertain. » — GSsA and left-wing opponents, 2014 campaign ✓~ Partly confirmed The Gripen E was indeed not yet operational in 2014. In the new Air2030 tender, Saab did not even resubmit the Gripen, and the far more capable F-35A was chosen. The doubt about the aircraft's suitability was thus reinforced. Source: Air2030, selection of the F-35A (2021); Saab absent from the process. Giving up will save taxpayers billions « These 3.1 billion would be better spent elsewhere; Switzerland can do without this expense. » — No camp, 2014 campaign ✗ Argument refuted Switzerland did not save: it eventually committed a 6-billion envelope for the F-35, nearly double the Gripen fund. In 2025, a dispute over cost overruns of 650 million to 1.3 billion further inflated the bill. The 2014 refusal did not lighten air-defence spending. Source: Air2030 vote of 27.09.2020; F-35 cost-overrun controversy (2025). |
Affiches de campagne (1)
Factual record
1 Confirmed | 1 Partly confirmed | 0 Partly refuted | 2 Refuted |
| ✓ | A real need, confirmed seven years later The No did not invalidate the need to modernise military aviation. The Air2030 programme, the 6-billion envelope approved in 2020 and the choice of the F-35A in 2021 confirmed that the fleet did indeed need renewing. Source: DDPS, Air2030. |
| ~ | The right refusal, the wrong aircraft Voters did not reject the idea of a new aircraft, but that aircraft. That Saab did not resubmit the Gripen in the next round, and that the F-35 was preferred, lends retrospective weight to the doubts voiced in 2014 about the Gripen's suitability. Source: Air2030 process (2019-2021). |
| ! | A heavier bill in the end The savings argument did not hold: the F-35 programme (around 6 billion, before the contested 2025 overruns) costs markedly more than the Gripen's 3.1 billion. Refusing in 2014 did not lighten the spending — it postponed and increased it. Source: Air2030 vote (2020); F-35 cost-overrun dispute (2025). |
The rejection of the Gripen fund remains one of the army's most stinging defeats before the people. With 91 % of advertisements favouring Yes and the backing of the Federal Council, Parliament and business associations, the centre-right camp was the clear favourite. It nonetheless failed, undone by doubts about the aircraft itself and by a campaign undermined by the Geneva hijacking, which exposed the very real limits of Swiss air policing.
In hindsight, each camp was partly right. The Yes camp was right on the substance: the fleet had to be renewed, as Air2030 and the 2020 vote confirmed. The No camp was right on the object: the still-developing Gripen E was not the best choice, as the later selection of the F-35 implicitly validated.
The argument that did not withstand the test of time is the savings one. By postponing the decision, Switzerland did not spare itself an expense: it bought a more expensive aircraft, at the end of a longer process, now clouded by disputes over cost overruns.
The 2014 vote was thus less a rejection of air defence than a rejection of one aircraft and one method. The people sent the army back to the drawing board; the army returned seven years later with a different plane and a bigger bill.