The United States has agreed to sell advanced F-35 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia, a transaction that will necessarily include critical components manufactured in Australia. The arrangement has prompted defense analysts and policy experts to raise questions about Australia’s ability to control how its military technology is ultimately deployed.
President Trump announced the agreement during meetings with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman this week. The deal involves the sale of up to 48 F-35 joint strike fighters to the Saudi government, despite longstanding concerns regarding the kingdom’s human rights record and its military conduct in regional conflicts.
Australia maintains a substantial role in F-35 production. More than 70 Australian companies hold production and sustainment contracts within the F-35 program. The Victorian government reports that in excess of 700 critical components for the aircraft are manufactured within that state alone. Additionally, New South Wales hosts a regional distribution hub for F-35 parts.
The structure of the international F-35 supply chain presents a fundamental challenge: Australia has no authority to determine where components manufactured on Australian soil are ultimately shipped or which nations receive them.
Duncan Frewin of Quakers Australia, an organization that monitors arms exports, stated that every F-35 contains crucial parts made in Australia. He characterized the arrangement as providing manufacturers with unrestricted access to Australian-made components without human rights conditions or oversight mechanisms.
Dr. Sue Wareham, national president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War, pointed to Saudi Arabia’s military operations in Yemen as evidence of concerning patterns in how the kingdom employs advanced weaponry. She expressed skepticism that such equipment would be used exclusively within lawful parameters.
Michael Shoebridge, founder of Strategic Analysis Australia and a former senior defense policy official at the Australian embassy in Washington, offered a perspective from within the defense establishment. He suggested that the Saudi sale presents challenges for Australia similar to those the nation has attempted to avoid addressing in relation to Israel.
Shoebridge noted that Australia will effectively be supporting Saudi use of the aircraft regardless of how the kingdom chooses to deploy them. He emphasized that Saudi involvement in the Yemeni conflict demonstrates this is not a theoretical concern.
The complexity of the F-35 supply chain appears to provide participating governments with a degree of plausible deniability regarding direct support for foreign military operations. At recent Senate estimates hearings, defense department deputy secretary Hugh Jeffrey described the global F-35 supply chain as a unique arrangement.
The fundamental question facing Australian policymakers is whether the economic benefits and strategic partnerships derived from F-35 participation justify the loss of sovereign control over how Australian-made military technology is employed globally. As more nations acquire these advanced aircraft, that question will only become more pressing.
The matter represents a broader challenge for middle powers in an interconnected defense industrial base: how to maintain meaningful sovereignty over military exports while participating in multinational production programs that drive economic growth and strategic relationships.
Related: Parkland Survivor Cameron Kasky Enters Crowded New York Congressional Race
