Global UFO Archive
English中文日本語PortuguêsFrançaisEspañol

United Kingdom / 2024 / DISPUTED

2024 U.S. Air Base Drone Incursions in the United Kingdom

From 20 November 2024, U.S. military authorities reported small unmanned aircraft near or over RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, RAF Feltwell and RAF Fairford. The number, size and configuration varied, and British authorities opened a criminal investigation and deployed counter-drone support. The public record confirms a real installation-security incident, not merely online rumor. It does not identify an operator, foreign sponsor or extraordinary aircraft, and it contains no released raw sensor data that would allow independent reconstruction. Later flight restrictions and an official Ministry of Defence report show that the response continued beyond the first sightings. The most careful classification is therefore a confirmed drone-incursion case with unresolved attribution, not evidence of non-human technology.

Aerial view of RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk photographed in 2022
A 2022 aerial view of RAF Lakenheath, one of the installations named in the November 2024 drone-incursion reports. This location photograph predates the event and is not evidence of an incursion.Simon Tomson / Wikimedia Commons
CredibilityB
StatusDISPUTED
Evidence types6
Official sources8
Last reviewed2026
Archive assessment

This case is disputed. The archive preserves the claims while separating evidence from interpretation.

Documentation
High documentation
Primary location
RAF Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Feltwell and Fairford
Source base
12 linked records
Research use
Comparison case

What the public record supports

Confirmed event
U.S. authorities confirmed repeated small-UAS activity around four named RAF sites from 20 November 2024.[2]
Official response
Britain opened a criminal investigation, coordinated with U.S. forces and deployed a specialist RAF counter-UAS unit.[3][4][5]
Unresolved attribution
No public final report identifies the operators, motive, launch points, foreign sponsor or technical capabilities.[2][3][4][5]
Media boundary
The hero is a 2022 context photograph of RAF Lakenheath; the embedded video is local contemporaneous footage, not authenticated sensor evidence.[9]
Best current assessment
The public record supports a genuine drone-security incident with unresolved operators, not an extraordinary or non-human aircraft conclusion.[2][3][4][5]

Case dossier

Four bases, several reporting nights

The case began as a cluster of nighttime reports rather than one continuous encounter. U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa said small unmanned aerial systems had been observed near and over RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall and RAF Feltwell between 20 and 22 November. A later update added RAF Fairford and said activity had continued since 20 November. These installations serve different U.S. Air Force functions and are separated by considerable distance, so the official language establishes repeated activity around several sites, not one object traveling along a verified route. [1] · [6]

What USAFE confirmed

The U.S. statements were specific about what was known and careful about what was not. Officials described fluctuating numbers and systems of different sizes and configurations. They said installation personnel were monitoring the airspace and coordinating with British authorities, while withholding force-protection details. As of the 26 November update, no residents, facilities or assets had been affected. The statements did not name an operator, describe recovered hardware, announce an arrest or attribute the flights to a state actor. [1]

Observer footage and its limits

Public attention grew through local observation, livestreams and news coverage. Viewers described lights above the Lakenheath area and military aircraft operating after dark. Such footage can document that lights or aircraft were visible, but most public clips do not provide original files, calibrated range, altitude, exact camera orientation or a verified link to a specific official track. The Biggsy video retained on this page is contemporaneous local aviation footage. Its title identifies drones above the base, but the public metadata does not establish the operator, aircraft type or relationship to every official report. [8] · [9]

The police helicopter and the F-15

One specific encounter now has a conventional identification. UK Airprox report 2024294 concerns an NPAS EC135 near Newmarket on 22 November at about 21:51 UTC. Its crew believed they were observing drones. After comparing pilot and controller accounts with recorded radar, the Board matched the perceived target to an F-15 and assigned risk category E: no collision risk. The recorded closest separation was 1,700 feet vertically and 0.2 nautical miles horizontally, not the crew’s initial estimate. The Board could not explain why the helicopter’s TCAS had not detected the transponding fighter; that unanswered equipment question did not overturn the radar identification. NPAS acknowledged the findings. This resolves the assessed encounter, not every light in public videos or every incursion at the four bases. [10] PDF pp. 1, 4–6 · [11]

The criminal investigation

The British response moved the episode beyond a base press statement. In the House of Lords on 27 November, the government said the Ministry of Defence was working with U.S. visiting forces, Home Office police and other partners. It described a live criminal investigation and said Ministry of Defence Police had established a Gold Command for the East Anglia sites. Ministers also emphasized that unauthorized drone flights near military sites are illegal and that counter-drone capabilities were available, but declined to disclose operational procedures. [2]

A separate aircraft-carrier report

The Lords exchange also discussed a civilian drone near HMS Queen Elizabeth on 22 November. Lord Coaker said it came no closer than 250 metres. That answer should not be silently turned into a drone directly over the carrier or folded into the East Anglia incident count. A peer’s suggestion that the events might be connected was a question, not an announced investigative finding. The debate documents concern about several security settings without establishing a common operator. [2]

The December restrictions

Later records show that the response was sustained. Regulations made on 20 December and effective on 23 December restricted unmanned-aircraft flights around eleven Ministry of Defence locations for national-security reasons, including Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Feltwell and Fairford. The instrument is broader than this one incident and should not be read as a finding about who flew the November systems. It does show that the government converted concern around military airspace into a formal, enforceable restriction. [5] PDF pp. 1–2

A legal boundary is not an incident count

The original December instrument defines a policy area, not eleven observed incidents. Its schedule uses two-nautical-mile circles, with different vertical limits measured above mean sea level: 2,200 feet at Lakenheath and Feltwell, 2,100 at Mildenhall and 2,400 at Fairford. These are legal limits, not measured drone altitudes or heights above the ground. The text also makes exceptions for specified police and emergency operations and flights permitted by Ministry of Defence Police. Its wider eleven-site coverage cannot establish eleven affected bases or retrospectively locate a November sighting inside a particular boundary. [5] PDF pp. 1–2

The later parliamentary and MOD record

A written parliamentary answer on 5 March 2025 said Ministry of Defence Police remained the lead investigative body for the November activity over Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell. The Ministry's Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25 later recorded that the Royal Air Force's No. 2 Counter-Uncrewed Air Systems Wing had deployed in November to detect and track unauthorized incursions at Defence and U.S. Visiting Forces bases. These records confirm investigation and detection work; neither publishes the raw tracks, device identifications, case outcome or an attribution. A further answer on 12 June 2025, to question 58165 about whether the source had been determined, again named Ministry of Defence Police as investigator but withheld information on the ongoing criminal inquiry and operational security. That is a dated disclosure limit, not a public declaration that investigators had no leads or that every object remained unidentified. [4] PDF p. 31 (printed p. 25) · [3] · [12]

What remains missing across the wave

The evidence is strongest for institutional response and weakest for technical attribution. Official U.S. and British records independently confirm reports, monitoring, a criminal investigation, a specialist deployment and later airspace controls. Publicly available material does not include the sensor logs, radio traffic, recovered aircraft, serial numbers or a completed investigation of the entire multi-base wave that could determine who operated all the systems. News reports of troop numbers or specific equipment add context but remain secondary unless repeated in an official release. [1] · [2] · [3] · [10]

Attribution and classification

Ordinary commercial or hobby drones, deliberate surveillance, testing, nuisance flights and more than one unrelated operator all remain possible at the level allowed by the public evidence. Misidentified aircraft or stars may explain some public videos, but they do not erase the official acknowledgements of small UAS near the bases. Conversely, the inability to identify every operator does not imply exotic technology. The case belongs in the archive because it shows how an unresolved airspace-security event can acquire UAP language while remaining firmly within a drone-investigation framework. [1] · [2] · [10]

Related video

Related checks and records

Timeline

  • USAFE-AFAFRICA later identifies this date as the start of continuing small-UAS activity around U.S.-used RAF sites.
  • Small systems are reported near or over RAF Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell.
  • U.S. military confirmation brings the three-base reports into the public record.
  • An official update adds RAF Fairford, describes varying numbers and configurations, and reports no impact to residents or assets.
  • The government tells Parliament that a criminal investigation is active and a Gold Command has been established for the East Anglia sites.
  • The government makes national-security regulations restricting unmanned-aircraft flights around eleven defence sites.
  • The permanent restricted-airspace regulations enter into force.
  • A written parliamentary answer says Ministry of Defence Police is leading the investigation into the November activity over three East Anglia bases.
  • The MOD Annual Report is presented to Parliament and confirms the November deployment of No. 2 Counter-Uncrewed Air Systems Wing.
  • This archive review finds no public final attribution, released raw sensor package or completed investigation of the whole multi-base wave.

Frequently asked questions

What happened over the U.S.-used RAF bases in November 2024?

Authorities confirmed repeated small-drone activity near four bases, monitored it, opened a criminal investigation and deployed counter-drone support.

Which bases were involved?

The official update named RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, RAF Feltwell and RAF Fairford.

Did the drones damage a base or stop operations?

The 26 November U.S. update said no residents, facilities or assets had been affected. Operational security details were not released.

Who operated the drones?

No public completed investigation has identified the operators, launch sites, motive or state sponsor.

Is the embedded YouTube video original evidence?

It is contemporaneous local aviation footage and preserves public observation context. It is not an official sensor recording and does not identify an operator or prove that every light was a drone.

Were the objects UFOs or UAP?

They were initially unidentified to the public, but official records consistently describe small unmanned aircraft or UAS. Unresolved attribution does not make them extraordinary craft.

Why is this case in a UFO/UAP archive?

It is a well-documented example of an unresolved airspace event being discussed in UAP terms even though the official investigation remained focused on drones and installation security.

Sources

The main image is a 2022 aerial photograph of RAF Lakenheath by Simon Tomson, licensed CC BY-SA 2.0. It identifies one of the installations but predates the 2024 incursions and shows no reported drone. The embedded Biggsy video is contemporaneous local aviation footage hosted by YouTube; its public metadata and images do not establish an operator, origin or extraordinary performance.