Britain’s long-standing investment in the American-led F-35 stealth fighter programme is failing to deliver financial returns for the public purse, despite repeated government claims that the project is an economic success. An investigation by UK Declassified has revealed that the UK Ministry of Defence has recouped less than half of its original investment from foreign sales of the jet, raising fresh questions about accountability, transparency and the true beneficiaries of Britain’s defence spending.
The findings emerge at a moment of heightened political tension between London and Washington, as US president Donald Trump threatens to impose tariffs on the British economy following criticism by prime minister Keir Starmer over Trump’s stated ambitions regarding Greenland. Against this backdrop, the financial imbalance in one of the UK’s most significant military partnerships underscores how closely Britain’s defence strategy remains tied to US industrial and geopolitical priorities.
The MoD initially committed around $200 million to the development of the F-35 in the late 1990s, viewing the programme as central to Nato’s future air power and a bulwark against Russia. Officials expected that these early costs would be recovered through foreign military sales of the aircraft to allied nations. However, more than 25 years later, only $94 million has been returned, a sum that falls far short not only of the initial outlay but also of the roughly $2 billion invested in subsequent phases of the programme.
While ministers have repeatedly touted the F-35 as a major economic boon, claiming that it will contribute around £35 billion to the UK economy, UK Declassified’s reporting suggests that these benefits have flowed primarily to arms manufacturers rather than back to taxpayers. British and US defence firms have profited from production contracts and export opportunities, while the state has absorbed the upfront research and development costs with limited financial return.
The recovered $94 million also sheds light, for the first time, on the UK’s financial relationship with controversial arms exports. With 579 F-35s sold to foreign customers, including 75 to Israel, the figures imply that Britain may have earned around $12 million from Israeli purchases alone, assuming equal pricing across sales. The MoD declined to provide a detailed breakdown when questioned, stating only that partner nations can recoup elements of their development costs from foreign sales.
Campaigners argue that this arrangement highlights a system skewed heavily in favour of the arms industry. The Campaign Against Arms Trade told UK Declassified that such programmes amount to an “enormously cushy deal” for defence companies, with governments footing the bill for development, facilitating exports and receiving only minimal repayments through export levies.
Concerns about cost and oversight have also been raised by Britain’s National Audit Office, which reported last July that the F-35’s total lifetime costs are significantly higher than publicly acknowledged. The NAO called on the MoD to calculate and disclose all costs to date, including sunk costs, in order to enable proper scrutiny of the programme.
The controversy surrounding the F-35 extends beyond finances to its use in conflicts that have caused widespread civilian harm. Israel and Saudi Arabia, both F-35 customers or prospective buyers, have been accused of using fighter jets in operations that killed civilians in Gaza and Yemen. Over the past two years, MPs and campaigners have pressed the UK government to halt exports of F-35 components that could be used in Israeli aircraft during the war on Gaza.
In September 2024, the newly elected Labour government suspended licences for the direct export of F-35 parts to Israel but allowed exports to a global spare parts pool to continue. Ministers argued that it would be impossible to stop UK-made components reaching Israel without disrupting the entire global F-35 fleet, as the programme does not track individual parts once they enter the shared pool.
That system is overseen by the Joint Program Office in Washington, where, according to the NAO, 38 MoD staff are embedded, more than from any other partner nation. Despite this substantial presence, the MoD has declined to confirm whether British personnel are able to trace components within the system, leaving unresolved questions about the UK’s capacity to control the end use of equipment it helps to produce and export.
As UK Declassified’s reporting makes clear, the F-35 programme stands as a stark example of how strategic military partnerships can obscure financial losses, ethical dilemmas and democratic oversight, even as they are promoted as cornerstones of national security and economic gain.
