By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On November 20th, multiple drones of varying sizes and configurations were detected near RAF Lakenheath, a base housing crucial U.S. Air Force assets including F-35A and F-15E fighter jets. While the Air Force confirmed monitoring the drones and that no critical infrastructure was affected, unconfirmed reports suggest F-15E deployment and disruption to flight operations. Authorities are investigating this incident, alongside a similar recent event at Picatinny Arsenal, as part of a concerning rise in drone incursions near sensitive military locations. The Air Force emphasized its commitment to base security and collaboration with UK authorities.
Read the original article here
Multiple unknown drone incursions over a USAF fighter base in England have sparked considerable speculation and concern. The sheer number of unidentified drones, fluctuating in size and configuration, raises questions about the capability and intent behind these actions. The fact that these incursions occurred over multiple bases, including RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, and RAF Feltwell, suggests a coordinated, rather than isolated, event.
The lack of immediate forceful response from the base’s substantial defensive capabilities is perplexing. One might expect a military installation to possess a wide array of counter-drone technologies, readily deployable to neutralize such threats. The statement from USAF Europe confirming the incursions, while acknowledging monitoring and active measures, remains vague about specific actions taken. This vagueness only fuels existing anxieties.
The timing of these events, coupled with other incidents across Europe – such as undersea cable cutting and arson attacks – suggests a broader campaign, potentially a coordinated effort to destabilize the region. This possibility prompts concerns about the effectiveness of intelligence gathering and response mechanisms across multiple nations. This situation is made all the more worrying by the parallel occurrence of numerous bomb threats in London and Chester, further adding to the sense of escalating tension.
The size and speed of the drones remain unclear, adding to the mystery. While some speculate about smaller, commercially available drones, the potential scale of the operation suggests the possibility of larger, more sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles. The comparison to previous incidents like the Gatwick Airport drone disruption, while relevant, highlights the continued challenge of effectively detecting and countering these threats. The Gatwick incident’s eventual lack of concrete evidence raises uncomfortable questions about whether similar issues could be at play here.
The suggestion that this could be a psychological operation, rather than a direct military attack, is compelling. A campaign designed to create widespread anxiety and uncertainty could be as effective, if not more so, than a direct military strike. The unsettling increase in right-wing messaging following a change in government further fuels this theory. This incident highlights the growing challenge of asymmetric warfare, in which non-state actors can leverage readily accessible technology to achieve considerable impact.
The lack of definitive identification and the ambiguity surrounding the drones’ origins only intensify the situation’s intrigue. The term “drone” itself has become too broad, encompassing everything from small hobbyist models to large, sophisticated military aircraft. This lack of precision in terminology hinders clear communication and effective analysis of the situation. The fact that even the term “Unmanned Aerial System” (UAS) feels insufficient to describe these incursions reinforces this point. Are we, as observers, dealing with sophisticated state-sponsored technologies or something else entirely?
In comparison to past incidents, such as the drone incursions over airports in Finland, Norway, and Sweden – some of which had clear links to Russia – this latest event in England demands careful consideration. The geographical spread of these activities, combined with the timing relative to geopolitical events, is undeniably noteworthy. The recurring nature of these incidents around military and civilian infrastructure also raises alarm bells, underscoring the need for upgraded security measures.
The overall situation points to a serious deficiency in current security and intelligence protocols. Whether it’s a lack of appropriate technology, inadequate training, or a flaw in strategic response, the apparent inability of multiple nations to swiftly and effectively neutralize these threats is deeply concerning. It underscores a need for international cooperation and a reassessment of existing counter-drone strategies, a need that resonates beyond the immediate concerns in England and extends across Europe and potentially globally. The apparent lack of a decisive response to these ongoing incursions calls for a more profound investigation and a determined effort to prevent future occurrences.