Royal Air Force aircraft continue to conduct armed reconnaissance patrols over Syria, providing ongoing support to the global fight against Daesh.
These operations, say the Ministry of Defence, remain crucial in countering terrorist threats, ensuring that identified targets can be engaged when necessary.
On Tuesday, 25 February, a remotely piloted RAF Reaper successfully tracked a known Daesh terrorist in the Aleppo Governorate of north-west Syria. The Reaper crew, say the MOD, maintained close surveillance on the individual, assessing the situation to ensure minimal risk to civilians.
When the terrorist was observed alone on foot, presenting an opportunity for a precise strike, the Reaper engaged using its Hellfire missile system, successfully eliminating the target.
This latest strike underscores the RAF’s commitment to degrading Daesh’s operational capacity, as part of the UK’s wider efforts to ensure regional stability and security.
MQ-9A Reaper
The MQ-9A Reaper is a remotely piloted air system (RPAS) operated by the Royal Air Force’s 13 and 39 Squadrons, based at RAF Waddington. Capable of long-endurance intelligence gathering and precision strikes, the Reaper is an essential asset in counterterrorism and reconnaissance missions.
It carries a variety of sensor systems, including electro-optical and infrared cameras, radar, and laser target designators, allowing for real-time battlefield awareness. Armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and GBU-12 Paveway II bombs, it provides highly accurate, low-collateral damage strike capability. It’s being replaced by Protector.
Operation Shader
This mission was conducted under Operation Shader, the UK’s contribution to the Global Coalition against Daesh. Since 2014, RAF aircraft, including Typhoon and Reaper drones, have played a vital role in supporting Iraqi and coalition forces, providing precision airstrikes, reconnaissance, and intelligence gathering to disrupt terrorist activities. Despite Daesh’s territorial defeat, the group continues to pose a serious insurgent threat, necessitating ongoing UK and coalition operations to prevent its resurgence.
I think we should keep our older MQ9 in the gulf to support anti terror raids and convert our new MQ 9 protectors to sea guardian for an MPA role in support of our P8 fleet.
Probably not enough remote Pilots.
The RAF need to increase its training capacity or even outsource some of it. Would it kill them to stick people on commercial pilot courses to get a vital 100 hours of flying under their belt and maybe some nightwork before they even trouble the RAF’s own training programmes? They would get through the current training bottlenecks a lot faster.
Not a bad idea. One of the reasons we bought a derivative of MQ-9B was because it could fly in civilian controlled airspaces in Europe. Getting a decent radar on the Protectors was also something that came up as under discussion within the RAF a month or two back. Seaspray 7500E v2 is made in the UK and is already an integrated option for Sea Guardian, so it shouldn’t be too difficult.
It could be an immediate increase in capacity.
I wonder will we be buying any of the ninla bladed hellfires
“Ninja”.
Another capability that could be turned off.
We get a lot of stuff turned off by the Treasury, like the 45 Watchkeeper drones going this month. Perhaps you can tell us what UK equipment the US has turned off. I’m still more worried about what the lack of budget will do/cause next than the US. A £6bn increase in 2027 is a long time away.
The US hasn’t turned off anything, but the UK isn’t in tense negotiations for it’s very survival with the US. Don’t get me wrong the MQ9 is an excellent piece of kit. However, the US has fundematally shown it cannot be trusted even to it’s closest ally.
This whole international upset is a massive conumdrum for the British Military. As US kit is often excellent and well priced compared to home developed alternatives.
In the end a nation must look to its own industrial capacity. Nations live and die in wars on 4 things
1) industrial capacity
2) economic wealth
3) size of its military useful population
4) it’s political will to fight ( and that’s the population and government).
We must remember when we look at the shining slightly cheaper foreign kit of our armed forces that’s there is one brutal truth, your peace time armed forces don’t win the wars that really matter, they are simply there to act as first a deterrent and then as a speed bump to allow the nation to use its industrial capacity, wealth and population to fight the long war.
Absolutely. The other brutal truth that goes along with this is that during an existential war, your allies will probably be fighting for their lives too, and you won’t be first in line for any orders you want filled from their industry. So anything you don’t make, order early in the run up years and stockpile those spares. Otherwise you won’t be around long enough to gear up your industrial capacity for the long fight.
Does that defeat the point of buying cheaply? If it does, it does.
They don’t turn things off. They reach technology transfer agreements that restrict the further sale or transfer of kit with their IP in it to third countries. So do We. So do the French and Germans. If you won’t accept that level of risk in procurement then all multinational R&D projects need to be binned.