How much damage did Palestine Action really do at Brize Norton?

Shortly after midnight on 20 June 2025, activists from Palestine Action cut through the outer fence of Brize Norton and sped across the tarmac on electric scooters.

Undetected by guards, they proceeded to spray red paint into the turbines of two Voyager aircraft, used by the RAF for air-to-air refuelling and strategic air transport missions. Crowbars were also reportedly used.

Three days later, Britain’s home secretary Yvette Cooper told parliament that she had decided to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act.

“The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton… is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action”, she declared.

“The UK’s defence enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this government will not tolerate those that put that security at risk”, Cooper added.

The suggestion that Palestine Action posed a major threat to Britain’s national security was buttressed by media reports about the cost of the incident at Brize Norton.

On 21 June, one day after the event, LBC announced that “the attacks have cost the defence industry at least £30 million”.

It was “feared that the damage caused to the engine of one plane may render the aircraft unsafe to be used again”, the report added.

Similar figures were quoted by The Times, which cited concerns that “red paint sprayed into the turbine of the engine may mean it cannot be safely used again”.

Within weeks, those damage estimates had been revised down considerably, with police sources claiming they were actually in the region of £7m.

But information obtained by Declassified via the Freedom of Information Act now reveals the Ministry of Defence (MoD) cannot substantiate any of the reported damage figures.

Four months after the event, the department is thus unable to clarify the financial impact of an incident that was used to justify – on national security and serious property damage grounds – the proscription of a direct-action group.

Instead, the widely reported £7m figure originated with a private company named AirTanker Ltd which leases aircraft to the RAF, Declassified has learned.

Damages

In August, Declassified issued a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the MoD, asking for the costs associated with repairing or replacing aircraft engines damaged by Palestine Action at Brize Norton.

The MoD responded that the “total costs incurred by the MoD and/or suppliers to repair or replace” the engines was “not held” by the department.

“You may wish to be aware that the MoD do not yet hold the total costs requested. The final cost will not be known until after each of the damaged engines has been through a comprehensive overhaul”, it added.

The MoD did not clarify what was meant by a “comprehensive overhaul” or state how long this process might take.

In another FOI request seen by Declassified, the MoD also said it was unable to provide a “financial breakdown” for the £7m figure.

It is therefore unclear whether the £7m estimate relates only to engine repairs or other issues including maintenance, operational downtime, or security upgrades.

Downing Street said at the time that the incident “had not blocked any planned aircraft movements or stopped any operations”.

Leased fleet

The issue is further complicated by the fact that the RAF does not actually own its fleet of Voyager aircraft.

Instead, they are leased to the MoD by AirTanker Ltd through a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme.

Under this arrangement, the MoD has paid around £6 billion to AirTanker since 2008, amounting to approximately £353m per year.

Declassified understands that it was AirTanker, rather than the MoD, which quoted the £7m figure to the police following the Brize Norton incident.

The police then shared this figure with the media, creating the impression that the damage costs came from official sources rather than a private company with close links to the arms trade.

AirTanker’s shareholders include Airbus and Thales, while its subsidiary AirTanker Services Ltd, which maintains the aircraft, has “specialist” shareholders including Babcock, Rolls-Royce, and Thales.

The company did not respond to Declassified’s requests for comment about how it calculated the £7m figure, or provide any breakdown of costs.

Tail numbers

While failing to provide damage costs, the MoD has confirmed the tail numbers of the aircraft targeted by Palestine Action are ZZ338 and ZZ343.

Flight tracking data shows ZZ338 was already back in the air on 1 July, less than two weeks after the incident at Brize Norton.

It flew that day to Glasgow airport and back again, and has since conducted sorties to destinations including RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.

The MoD told Declassified on 2 July that the other aircraft, ZZ343, was undergoing routine maintenance and was not in regular service at the time of the Brize Norton incident.

This aircraft was nonetheless also back in the air by 12 July, flying to RAF Akrotiri and back again the next day.

The redeployment of both aircraft within weeks of the Brize Norton incident might indicate that the damages were, at the least, overstated within certain British media circles.

Why Brize Norton?

The choice of Brize Norton as a target for Palestine Action was also questioned in the press.

LBC host Tom Swarbrick told listeners on 20 June that RAF aircraft stationed at Brize Norton had “dropped ten tonnes of aid [into Gaza] in just one drop. They’ve dropped 53 tonnes of aid over the course of six flights”.

He added: “So it’s not the case that the RAF is just there entirely in the support of a… criminal war effort. They are there to help the people of Gaza by dropping aid”.

UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese contested this narrative in a recent report on third-state complicity in the Gaza genocide.

She noted how “instead of opposing this man-made humanitarian catastrope…, the UK, among others, parachuted aid into Gaza – an expensive, inadequate and dangerous response”.

At least one of the Voyager aircraft targeted by Palestine Action, moreover, had been involved in military operations in support of Israel.

ZZ338 was used to facilitate airstrikes on Yemen in February 2024, which were conducted in no small part to shield Israel from the consequences of its genocide in Gaza.

In addition, at least nine Israeli air force (IAF) planes landed at Brize Norton between September 2024 and June 2025.

Some of those aircraft would go on to provide air-to-air refuelling services to Israeli fighter jets bombing Gaza, according to Drop Site News.

The UK government has refused to disclose the total number of IAF planes which have transited British territory since February 2024.

Defence minister Luke Pollard said earlier this year: “For operational security reasons and as a matter of policy, the Ministry of Defence will neither confirm, deny, nor comment on any foreign nations’ military aircraft movement”.

Brize Norton thus appears to have served as a base for Israeli airforce movements amid the Gaza genocide, while a Voyager aircraft has been used to support Israel’s regional objectives through attacks on Yemen.

Misleading parliament

The UK government has come under pressure to reveal the extent of damage caused to the Voyager aircraft as well as the intelligence used to justify the proscription of Palestine Action.

When asked about why she voted to proscribe the group earlier this year, Labour’s safeguarding minister Jess Phillips declared: “Well, because of the intelligence”.

Phillips was then pressed by Novara Media’s Rivkah Brown about whether she had seen this intelligence.

“I’m not going to talk about that sort of thing,” she responded. “Well look, that’s the thing about being in government”.

It remains unclear what intelligence Phillips referred to.

The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), which is based within MI5, internally noted how “the majority of direct action by Palestine Action would not be classified as terrorism… but does often involve criminality”.

The JTAC assessment continued: “PA media channels highly likely will only share footage, or encourage, instances of property damage. PA branded media will highly unlikely explicitly advocate for violence against persons.”

Official documents from the government’s Proscription Review Group (PRG) also indicate that national security concerns were not a central factor in the Home Office’s decision to proscribe. Indeed, they barely featured in government evidence submitted to court in July.

According to documents seen by Declassified, the PRG confidentially observed how the “overall impact” of Palestine Action “on the UK Defence industry is low by proportion, but impact on individual companies has been large”.

The assessment appears to run contrary to Cooper’s statement to parliament, in which she emphasised threats to national security posed by Palestine Action.

‘Iran links’

Once the ban had been announced, moreover, Britain became engulfed in a media firestorm of allegations that Palestine Action might be funded by Iran.

The Times published a report on 23 June saying “Iran could be funding Palestine Action, Home Office officials claimed”.

It added: “Officials are understood to be investigating its source of donations amid concerns that the Iranian regime, via proxies, is funding the group’s activities given that their objectives are aligned”.

Shortly afterwards, the Daily Mail asked: “Does Palestine Action’s cash trail lead all the way to Iran?”, with GB News, the Spectator, and the Telegraph also picking up on the story.

Yet the JTAC assessment of Palestine Action’s sources of funding makes no mention of Iran, nor does the Intelligence and Security Committee’s recent report on Iranian state threats to Britain.

The JTAC report simply notes that Palestine Action “is primarily funded by donations, which can be made directly through their website or via crowdfunding. Other forms of revenue include the sale of merchandise”.

It was subsequently reported in Private Eye that CMS Strategic, a public relations firm working for Elbit Systems, had helped to place the article about Palestine Action’s funding in The Times. CMS Strategic denies the allegation.

Palestine Action’s proscription will be subject to a judicial review starting on 25 November.

Thames Valley police, the Ministry of Defence and Counter Terrorism Command were asked to comment.