Numerous unidentified drones have been spotted violating the airspace of five airbases in the United Kingdom since November 20, including two Royal Air Force and three United States Air Force (USAF) bases. Although witnesses report the mysterious craft as being “small quadcopters and octocopters,” they “do not appear to be the work of hobbyists,” according to officials, but may be more sophisticated vehicles being deployed by adversarial governments.
Starting with a drone incursion over RAF Lakenheath on November 20 that involved a varying number of different types of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), the unidentified craft “were actively monitored,” according to a U.S. Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa (USAFE) spokesperson, who added that the base “leaders determined that none of the incursions impacted base residents or critical infrastructure.”
There were unconfirmed reports that F-15E fighter jets were scrambled to confront the UASs and that their presence impacted flight operations, although the USAFE spokesperson stated that “to protect operational security, we do not discuss our specific force protection measures but retain the right to protect the installation.” RAF Lakenheath is home to USAF wings that fly F-35A & F-15E fighter jets, including the 494th Fighter Squadron and 494th Fighter Generation Squadron whose members were recently decorated for their efforts in successfully repelling an Iranian mass drone attack launched against Israel on April 13-14, 2024.
Subsequent incursions at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Feltwell “appear to be connected,” according to an anonymous official, although it is unclear as to whether the drones spotted over RAF Fairford are part the same operation: while Feltwell, Lakenheath and Mildenhall are all within a handful of miles of one-another in eastern England, Fairford is located 180 kilometers (112 miles) to the southwest.
“Small unmanned aerial systems continue to be spotted in the vicinity of and over Royal Air Force Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, RAF Feltwell and RAF Fairford since Nov. 20,” according to a November 27 statement made by 48th Fighter Wing spokesperson Captain Ryan Walsh, echoing the earlier USAFE statement. “To date, installation leaders have determined that none of the incursions impacted base residents, facilities or assets. The Air Force is taking all appropriate measures to safeguard the aforementioned installations and their residents.”
Captain Walsh also stated that the number of systems “has fluctuated, and they have ranged in sizes and configurations. Our units continue to monitor the airspace and are working with host-nation authorities and mission partners to ensure the safety of base personnel, facilities and assets.” Walsh also urged civilians in the vicinity “to contact either local police or Security Forces if they see anything suspicious, to include UAS’s or drone activity.”
The Washington Examiner reported that the British Army’s 22 Special Air Service unit and the Royal Navy’s Special Boat Service unit appear to have been deployed on December 2 at RAF Lakenheath, presumably in response to the UAS incursions, and confirmed by the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations as a move to “actively work alongside our U.K. counterparts to protect our people, facilities, and equipment.”
There is speculation that whomever is operating the drones is curious about Lakenheath being prepared to receive an arsenal of nuclear warheads, the first time in sixteen years that the devices have been present in England; although nothing has been directly confirmed by authorities, a US Department of Defense document outlining “a contract awarded to build defensive shelters for RAF Lakenheath’s ‘upcoming nuclear mission'” was briefly available in early 2024, according to the BBC.
“I don’t rule out the activity being connected with nuclear weapons,” former UK Ministry of Defence official Nick Pope said in an interview with The Guardian. Although the drones in question have given no indication that they are powered by exotic technology, the former head of the UK’s UFO desk was able to offer some insight into the matter.
“Adversaries (probably Russia or China) might use drones to gather data on this, in parallel with using other intelligence-gathering strategies. But they’d be unlikely to risk an intelligence officer (either declared, let alone a highly prized illegal) on something like this.” Pope said that instead they might employ unwitting local drone hobbyists for the task, “convincing them they’d be working for an independent news agency” and supplying them with more advanced equipment designed to evade electronic interference or tracking efforts made by their targets.
“Anti-nuclear groups or individual activists might also be potential culprits in this scenario,” Pope added, pointing out that adversarial governments aren’t the only parties interested in the subject of nuclear weapons.
Subscribers, to watch the subscriber version of the video, first log in then click on Dreamland Subscriber-Only Video Podcast link.
CORRECTION: There are only four bases that appear to be the target of the drones; for some reason I was under the impression that there were five when I started writing this, and forgot to correct it before I sent the article in.
I would also like to address a few of the questions regarding the drones, and although this is just speculation, these are a number of points to keep in mind as these events unfold:
There have been numerous calls to simply shoot the drones down, however this is coming from individuals that forget that that involves initiating open combat in the skies over a well-populated area of England. Although it would be a one-sided conflict–Lakenheath’s 494th has extensive experience intercepting combat drones–there is not only the risk of the downed aircraft causing substantial property damage/injury/death (these drones are substantial aerial vehicles with highly-flammable power sources, not toys), but the missiles being fired by the defenders also present similar risks. Remember that an F-15’s backup weapon spews out nearly 200 lbs of steel-jacketed explosive shells per second, and all of that destructive firepower has to rain down somewhere.
This appears to be why officials keep stressing that the drones don’t appear to pose a threat: none of them want to be responsible for initiating an action that could have serious repercussions for the civilian population, especially if the drones haven’t taken any offensive action.
I suspect that the operators of the drones know this, and that might explain why the vehicles are using proper navigation and anti-collision lights: despite being used for what might very well be espionage purposes, the operators may want their craft to be as visible as possible to avoid collisions with normal air traffic along their route. Accidentally bringing down an aircraft with people on board would prompt authorities to begin treating the situation as a public safety issue, and might bring the option of shooting drones down to the table.
The US military also appears to have EM-based anti-drone measures, such as those employed by the Navy’s Ghostbuster units, but if the drones are autonomous, flying a pre-determined route without the need to transmit or receive input from an external operator, then the options of hijacking the signal to co-opt the drone, or triangulating the signal to locate the operator, are both off the table.
In regards to tracking the drones, deactivating the device’s lights can make them extremely difficult to track visually, and radar can be avoided by flying at low altitude, provided the sensors can detect the drone to begin with.
Additionally, if the operator has the resources available, they may have the device fly to a pre-determined location to transmit its data to a waiting receiver, then dispose of itself by crashing into the ocean far from where it was launched. Of course, measures like these are far from foolproof, although they may hamper authorities’ attempts to locate the source long enough to complete the task–assuming that this is about surveilling military bases and other sensitive infrastructure, of course.
Excellent points.
Those in authority should be louder and more public about the reasons not to shoot these things down.
Just like there were good reasons not to shoot down the Chinese spy balloons. People at large didn’t understand very well, but at least there was more of an effort to explain at that time, if I remember correctly.
Good information! Be sure and see my comments here:
https://www.unknowncountry.com/headline-news/the-drone-invasion-continues-drone-swarms-haunt-the-skies-over-northern-new-jersey/
More on the message board too…
As usual, things may not be what they seem. Regarding the lights: There may be technology involved with that. The lights may appear to simply turn off, but…What if they are blinking out, appearing to disappear? Playing Devil’s advocate here…What if they are sophisticated enough to travel from one place to another, in the blink of an eye?