A Royal Air Force Reaper remotely piloted aircraft has eliminated a known Daesh terrorist in north-western Syria, according to a Ministry of Defence update released on 9 July 2025.
The strike took place on Tuesday 10 June during an armed reconnaissance mission over the Sarmada area. The Reaper crew, operating as part of Operation Shader, tracked the individual riding a motorcycle and waited until the area was clear of civilians before launching a successful Hellfire missile strike.
According to the update, RAF aircraft continue to fly regular patrols over Syria to counter persistent threats from Daesh elements. The use of precision unmanned platforms has enabled the RAF to maintain pressure on terrorist networks while minimising the risk to non-combatants.
This engagement reflects the UK’s ongoing commitment to the multinational campaign against Daesh, with operations focused on intelligence-led targeting of high-value threats. The RAF’s remotely piloted aircraft are controlled by crews operating from the UK and continue to play a central role in supporting coalition efforts across the region.
The drone
The General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper, also known as the Predator B, is a combat-proven unmanned aerial vehicle used extensively by the United States Air Force and allied forces, including the United Kingdom. Unlike its predecessor, the MQ-1 Predator, the Reaper is powered by a high-performance turboprop engine that allows for greater speed, longer endurance, and a significantly increased weapons payload. Operated remotely from ground stations, it is designed for both long-duration surveillance and precision strike missions.
Primarily intended for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, the MQ-9 also functions as a highly capable strike platform. It features seven external hardpoints and can carry a wide range of munitions, including Hellfire missiles, GBU-12 laser-guided bombs, and JDAMs. Some UK-operated variants have successfully tested the Brimstone missile.
The aircraft has a cruising speed of around 194 miles per hour and a range of up to 1,200 miles. With an endurance of 27 hours and the ability to fly at altitudes up to 50,000 feet, the Reaper provides sustained presence over the battlefield.
The Royal Air Force is replacing the MQ-9 Reaper with the Protector RG Mk1, a variant of the General Atomics MQ-9B SkyGuardian. Designed to meet UK and NATO airworthiness standards, the Protector will offer significantly longer endurance of over 40 hours, along with all-weather capability and improved sensors for intelligence, surveillance and precision strike missions.
It will be certified to fly in civilian airspace, allowing for a wider range of domestic and international operations. The aircraft will carry UK-made weapons including the Brimstone missile and Paveway IV guided bomb, enabling high-precision strikes while meeting stringent rules of engagement.
Many have previously suggested keeping Reaper (rather than replacing it) in the Middle East—and it makes sense. This would free up Protector to operate closer to home, enabling it to take on a maritime role.
I’d go along with that. Good idea.
Including me.
Reaper works, why dispose of it! It has never been based in the UK, keep them out there.
I agree, protector looks like it’s going to be too useful to waste on these counter terrorists patrols. Protector is very likely to be the solution for enhanced MPA and AEW.
Great Idea, I totally agree, now how do we turn our words here in to actions where it counts ?
About 5 years ago, I asked this question and was rather taken aback to receive an actual reply, it basically said there was not enough money.
Maybe “we” can all try asking again given the SDR ?
Great site, great comments section but maybe It’s time to comment where it is heard ?
The cost of maintaining Reaper would be deemed too high even if it was thrupence (and it won’t be thrupence). We should be grateful nobody retired the capabilty five years before the Protectors arrived, which seems to be par for the course. This is the wrong way of thinking about it. Protectors should be used to support P-8s, and possibly even E-7s if the AEW variant is ever released.
However, an expensive fit out could be problematic in other use cases. Reaper variants are particularly vulnerable in state-on-state conflicts, so having an additional older capability we don’t mind losing would be a great idea in my book. Imagine if we had to monitor a ceasefire line in Ukraine; Reaper would be perfect.
impressive, protector having up to 40 hours endurance and cleared to fly in civilian airspace. basically are these the canaries in the coal mine, it tells us the picture but the first to get shot down?
Are we sure no hospitals or queues of sick children have been hit? Only saying because the IDF cannot hit a terrorist without taking out a few.
If terrorists are hiding inside and under schools and hospitals, these buildings lose their immunity according to international law law and still the IDF has the best ratio when it comes to hitting involved vs uninvolved
Not necessarily. The building would retain its immunity only until the terrorists within use the building to commit an “act harmful to the enemy”. That phrase is undefined by the original treaty, but it is clear that if the enemy is simply resting or receiving medical attention, they cannot be targeted.
And the fact that Hamas used the bases of those buildings as HQs, where they also stored weapons and ammo doesn’t count ?
It’s a very cynical strategy by Hamas – “You don’t dare bomb us here, and if you do, we will get the propaganda we need to garner the sympathy of the outside world”.
I’m not defending the terrorists, I’m attempting to explain international law. I agree, it’s an incredibly cynical and heartless strategy, and, though I’d have to do more research, I assume violates some principles associated with the usage of human shields.
As I said above, the phrase ‘act harmful to the enemy’ is vague and purposefully left undefined in the original treaty. The debate I’m outlining above is just that what qualifies as an ‘act harmful to the enemy’ is nuanced and unclear under international law.
I was thinking about this..and its interesting that the IRA and other Northern Ireland terror groups would it seems use hospitals and churches as logistics centres.. but the British government showed something called restraint.. infact even after NI terrorists almost destroyed our sitting government by blowing up a holiday hotel.. killing almost 4000 and injuring amost 50,000 people restraint was shown and in that whole conflict under 200 civilians were killed by UK forces.. and for anyone that says Hamas have more weapons..yes they do..but the IRA were an existential to everyone who lived in the UK.. we did not level Northern Ireland in response. just a thought if we had decided to deal with the IRA in a more brutal and kinetic fashion how many people would have died ? And especially after the Brighton bombings other nations probably would have gone significantly more kinetic.
That’s why we won in the end. Going after civilians is never an answer to an insurgency unless you are prepared to totally while out the civilian population.
Israel is breeding more terrorists every day with great international support.
The IRA were much easier to understand and deal with than today’s Islamist extremists.
The IRA did not live by the doctrine of martyrdom or global religious domination.
The conflict was specifically about Ireland/Ulster. Few people outside of Ireland/UK cared about it.
In contrast,with the ME conflicts, the global Islamic community (Ummah) and the useful woke fools in the west want Israel gone with no compromises …it is naive to think that alone would bring peace.
Violent Jihad is a global threat that we cannot ignore.
The IRA wanted the end of British rule in NI, not the extinction of the UK and its people in its entirety as Hamas and the rest of the brain washed crazies want with Isreal. So no comparison whatsoever between Hamas dogs and the Provos! Also the IRA weren’t mad fundamentalist nutters, they planned an op with skill and experience, and the biggest weak spot of any plan is the extraction, which the IRA incorporated. The Islamic butt sniffers don’t have that, therefore easier and simple plans every time they go out to kill people. Cheers.
It isn’t easy to interpret law in extreme use cases. The tunnels that criss-cross under Gaza are the most extensive system ever built for war, with hundreds of miles of tunnels connecting most major building complexes. The density of tunnels per square mile under Gaza equals the average density of the UK’s surface road network! [over 400 miles of tunnels in 141 square miles, versus 260,000/94,000: numbers taken from Wiki.] The Gaza Metro as it’s known (twice the size of the London Underground) is from where Hamas prosecute their war and hide their kidnap victims. So does that mean the estimated 5,700 exits to the tunnels are all fair game or not? Israel clearly believes so.
Given that most terrorists (and non-state militias) will gladly hide amongst civilians, you can’t possibly target them without causing civilian casualties. Every civilian casualty in Gaza gives Hamas useful Propaganda against Israel.
Do you care so much about Russia doing the same in Ukraine? Because there is a much clearer distance between civilians and military targets in that war, the targeting of civilians is much more deliberate.
In contrast, the campaign against Iran militarily went hugely in favour of the IDF, and shows what they can do when the majority of targets were not shielded by civilians.
And yet the UK did manage to do exactly that in the main. The IRA were as brutal as any terror group as were the other terrorists in Northern Ireland.. they killed over 3000 people with 47,0000 injured.. they hide and used churches and hospitals and yet the British government in its fight with these groups kill only 188 innocent civilians during its fight with the terrorist cells in NI.. a set of terrorists that almost managed to blow up our entire government by blowing up a holiday spot…
Just to give a little bit of context.
47,000 injured.. sorry
Easier to penetrate/inflitrate the IRA, ops against them were based on human intelligence, no need for aerial bombing, Artillery strikes or tank charges.
No comparison whatsoever. Totally different concept of operations and warfare mate.
America along with the British always supported and groomed terrorist for their Geo political gains. They destroy democratically elected Parliament and support monarch for economic gains. They still play beautifully the old trusted divide and rule policy for this. They destroyed Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and African nations in the name of democracy and end up handing over the land to terrorist, Libya and Syria is the classical example of this.
Anil, your off on a tangent pal, no one is taking about geo political terrorism, we are discussing the IRA! But did a certain key word flag up on your Iranian bot net which required an AI intervention?
Wrong!
Quite a few MQ-9s on recon missions were shot down over Yemen this year.
Would the Protector fare any better?
No it would not..which is why we are probably better to keep using the predator Bs in the Middle East and western indian ocean littoral.. because if they get a shot down that’s fine.. Protector on the other hand is probably better used as a Northern European ISTAR asset where it’s not going to get shot down.
To echo many others I don’t really see why we’re binning Reaper when they are less that 20 years old and perfectly good for low intensity stuff like this in the Middle East.
Predator is needed to support the MPA fleet around the UK. Plus originally it was supposed to be 24 new UAV’s before only 16 options were taken up.
Sorry, Protector for the UK, Reaper for the Middle East!
Had a look at the protector website. The operation can be run from uk, the drones take off and land piloted from uk. Obviously minimal ground crew still abroad with drone.
Yet another illegal actm we deserve everything we get in return.
We created these groups we lost control of.
Oh dear!
No problem from me, terrorist is toast, feed to the dogs!