The Ministry of Defence stress that this was the first operational air-to-air engagement conducted by a British Typhoon jet and also the first RAF air-to-air missile firing during Operation SHADER.

A British Typhoon jet has shot down a hostile drone over Syria after the aircraft was deemed to “pose a threat to Coalition forces in the area”.

According to a Ministry of Defence news release:

“This unprecedented event was the first operational air-to-air engagement conducted by an RAF Typhoon, and also the first RAF air-to-air missile firing during Operation SHADER – the UK’s contribution to the Global Coalition against Daesh.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was quoted as saying:

“This strike is an impressive demonstration of the RAF’s ability to take out hostile targets in the air which pose a threat to our forces. We continue to do everything we can alongside our Coalition partners to stamp out the terrorist threat and protect our personnel and our partners.”

The Ministry of Defence say that the engagement took place when drone activity was detected above the At Tanf Coalition base in Syria.

“As the drone continued on its track, it became clear it posed a threat to Coalition forces. RAF Typhoons conducting routine patrols in the area were tasked to investigate. Despite the small size of the drone making it a very challenging target, it was successfully shot down using an Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile (ASRAAM) and the threat eliminated – a tribute to the skill and professionalism of Royal Air Force pilots.”

The engagement took place on the 14th of December.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

158 COMMENTS

  1. Damn that’s big news. Doesn’t happen too often these days.

    When was the last conventional air-to-air engagement with an RAF aircraft?

    • In the 1980s a Phantom shot down a Jag (by accident).. That’s it apart from RAF pilots flying FAA Sea Harriers in 1982.

      • Don’t forget there were FAA pilots flying the Sea Harriers as well! For those who haven’t read it I recommend David Morgan’s book Hostile Skies. He was on secondment to the SHAR’s at Yeovilton, I forget which squadron, and came back with four kills. A very well written account and definitely gives a good look at the esprit de cours that ran through that small group of pilots.

        • Yes of course the majority of SHAR pilots were FAA, I was referring to the last time the RAF shot anything down – FAA has had far more success than the RAF since WW2, and the carriers have had more opportunity for combat.

          • Hi BobA
            Until this recent engagement, I believe the last confirmed RAF air-to-air kill was May 22 1948, during the withdrawal from Palestine, when RAF Spitfires shot down four Egyptian Spitfires attacking the Ramat David airbase.
            The RAF did not shoot down any Israeli aircraft during this campaign, indeed it lost three Spitfires, one Tempest V and a Mosquito to the activities of the embryonic Israeli Air Force (flying Spitfire IXs and P-51s).

          • i may be wrong about the sidewinder, but im pretty sure GR3 shot down helicopters with cannon. according to the 1983 published analysis of the air war i have recently read anyway

          • Hi julian1, You might be confusing this with a manoeuvre kill achieved by Flight Lieutenant Dave Morgan (RAF) when flying a Sea Harrier on an exchange tour with the Fleet Air Air.
            During the Falklands Conflict, on 23 May 1982, the turbulence from his jet-wash as he passed a few feet overhead caused an Argentinian Army Puma to spin out of control and crash on West Falkland.
            As James states below, the GR3s saw no air-to-air combat – but destroyed a number of Argentinian helicopters on the ground in cluster bomb and strafing attacks.

          • Hi Julian,
            True, several Argentine helicopters were destroyed by Harrier GR3s. But I believe they were all destroyed on the ground. RAF sqn ldr Jerry Pook has written an interesting book on his experiences in ’82, himself having strafed ground targets.

    • RAF Spitfires were in combat during the withdrawl from Israel and I believe shot down one Egyptian Spitfire and one Israeli Spitfire, for the loss of at least one of their own.

      • Hi BdtP, I agree the RAF was engaged in air-to-air combat during the withdrawal from Palestine – but it did not shot-down an Israeli aircraft. See my other post on this thread for more details.

    • Hi Jay
      In answer to your questions –
      (1) RAF had never shot down an enemy aircraft before using a missile. Correct.
      (2) RAF had never shot an enemy aircraft down before using a jet. Correct.
      (3) RAF had never shot an enemy aircraft down since World War 2 – Not Correct.
      On May 22 1948, during the withdrawal from Palestine, RAF Spitfires shot down four Egyptian Spitfires attacking the Ramat David airbase.
      As a service, this day marked the RAF’s last air-to-air kill (until this new engagement).
      However, it should be noted RAF pilots serving with the USAF in Korea and Fleet Air Air in the Falklands did achieve several air-to-air kills. In addition, the RAF destroyed enemy aircraft on the ground in bombing or strafing attacks during the Suez (1956), Falklands (1982) and Gulf War (1991) campaigns. For instance, in January 1991, during an airfield attack, a low-flying Tornado GR1 destroyed an Iraqi Mirage F1 on the taxiway with JP233 sub-munitions.

    • There should be teeth shown to Russia. That’s what I’d expect in a pre-war situation. Well done UK. Start to screw down Russian movement options.

  3. What size/type drone is the question. Impressive kill if it was a small prop driven item, or should it have been gunned down? Saving an expensive missile.
    AA

  4. Be interesting to find out whose drone it was. Syrian, Iranian or Russian are most likely. Whoever it was we’ve let them know we are willing and able to look after our selves and our friends. Whatever congrats to the pilot.

    • Al Tanf sits right on the Iraq/Syria/Jordanian border and forces the Iranians to route their arms supplies to Hezb-allah up the road to Deir-ez-zur which is why they have built huge underground storage bunkers on the border with Iraq and why the IDF has been hitting them on a regular basis. it is in Tehran’s interest to remove the Yanks, so as to afford them access to a much shorter route to Lebanon, The Yanks have a 55 km (do not enter zone) and when the Iranian militia tried to take the place by force in 2017, the Yanks hit them hard, since then the Iranians have resorted to UAV strikes, the last in Oct 2021 when 5 suicide UAVs struck the base. So I would place my money on Tehran.

    • A misunderstanding here – you are not killing the drone for the sake of it, you are killing it because if you don’t the drone will kill and maim your comrades and allies. The cost ratio is their lives versus the cost of an ASRAAM. And of course it is worth it.

  6. Drone? If so who’s was it? Has the MOD put out a statement?
    Am I pig ignorant? I thought ASRAAM had been withdrawn.

  8. So just had a butchers on the internet and apprantly the take down took place on the 14th and the UAV was heading towards a US base which housed 200 troops. So at a quick guess I would say it was the Iranians who have become somewhat bold in hitting the Yanks with the sniffer in cheif in charge.

  9. ASRAAM is a IR heat-seaker type missile. Does this mean the drone had a jet engine, or do small petrol engines produce enough of an IR signature?

    • ASRAAM uses a imaging infrared (IIR) seeker. This operates slightly differently to traditional IR seekers. Rather than looking for and homing in to a hot spot. It operates more like a thermal camera. So “sees” the spectrum of heat the body is giving off, which it then compares with the skies colder background contrast. This means ASRAAM and similar IIR guided missiles can be fired at the front of an opposing aircraft, giving it a definite all aspect attack capability. These types of sensors are so sensitive that they can see heat generated by chemical batteries, when they are being used to power something. Something like a suspected Iranian drone, is likely to be powered by an internal combustion engine, to guarantee the range. The hot exhaust, cylinder etc would pose no problem for ASRAAM to see.

        • It doesn’t mean that. The algorithms in the targeting system recognise an aircrafts shape from the image produced by the IIR. It then specifically targets the front of the shape for impact, thats usually where the cockpit is….no homing in on a heart…

  10. Russian,Syrian, Israeli, Iranian, Isis or Hamas drone?

    BBC reporting today the first USAF F35A’s arriving at RAF Lakenheath.

    • IS most likely, maybe Iranian. It was on course for a US FOB in Iraq, the second turned back, so they will know from where.

    • And we are all pleased about that because that would have some very nasty ramifications to peace,stability and the chance of everyone getting vaporised, burned or irradiated to death in a nuclear war.

      • We are pleased about it becuase no-one was killed by a drone strike. No-one is going to be irradiated by legitimately shooting down a rogue aircraft – what nonsense – and if they were we would irradiate back, I beleive 16 Trident D2 with 144 warheads are aimed at Moscow and in the mid Atlantic right now..

        • Hi James I think your miss understanding me, the poster seemed to think was nothing that a drone was shot down, because it was not a SU-33 flanker. My meaning was if we had got to a situation that an RAF fast jet needed to shoot down a Russian aircraft, in the present climate we would be a very big step closer to a war with Russia and a war between nuclear powers has never happened for the very good reason. The nuclear deterrent has been proven to be a great way to keep the peace duing peace time, BUT it’s a Real risk it will fail in its purpose During a conflict with a nuclear peer and our CASD will be be no help if the deterrent bit fails. Russia can end all life on our island and erase our entire culture from the world, we in return would probably fatally wound russia as nation state but be assured we would all be dead. In war or the transition to a state of war lines are pushed, miscalculations made and 16 trident missiles would not save us from giant miscalculation on the part of Putin….its not like authoritarian leader make utterly stupid miscalculations…

          • Well if you believe Putin is a suicidal maniac then your point might hold water – only an suicidal maniac would press the button over this.

            Defending yourself is not risky – and this incident was defensive, to prevent a drone strike inside Iraq. Failing to defend yourself is risky.

            Putin wants to consolidate his claims to the old Russian Empire- to Ukraine and Georgia. Syria is about access to the Med and cutting off Ukraine from Western Naval power.

            Putin does not want nuclear war, that would ruin all his plans.

          • No I don’t think Putin would push a button over one fighter , that was not my point. my point is I’m please this was not a Russian jet being shot down as that would put us closer to war with Russia and what sort of person would want that to be the case, so I’m pleased it was a mystery drone being shot down. I did not say our forces should not defend themselves, I was pretty clear I was happy they did not have to defend themselves against “Russia” because that means we are heading one step closer to the hell of a major peer on peer war.

            As for nuclear war, the world has come close on any number of occasions. The nature of War and near war is that it’s chaotic and complex in which outcomes and boundaries become unclear. Authoritarian leaders have a tendency to become a bit detached from reality in these high risk chaotic episodes and underestimate western democracies resolve (which we have helped with some pretty shitty foreign policy decisions from major western players) so never think we are safe from nuclear war. It’s still a present existential risk.

          • Morning Jonathan. The simple truth is that it just takes one madman, one micalculation or nowadays one bit of fake news, one Nuke finally obtained by a fanatic, one Nuclear strike to unleash Armaggedon. Sadly I think it is inevitable

          • Well it’s been 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the looser security of the nuclear weapons during that time, and we still have managed to avoid Armageddon…. I think your being just a bit pessimistic about things….

          • So you let a bully win!

            At least with a manned aircraft, the Typhoon pilot would have tried to call him on Guard, thereby trying to make them turn away from the Yank base. However, if the jet ignored the warning, this would have been escalated by firing a warning shot (burst from 27mm Mauser) in front of the jet. The next step would be a missile up the chuff, regardless. If the jet was posing a risk to life, then by international law having expended the other avenues, the Typhoon would be well within its rights to bring it down!

          • Davey, did I every say our forces should not defend themselves, nope read what I wrote. I’m glade that a british jet and Russia jet did not end up in conflict and the RAF had to shoot it down. Because that would mean we would be heading closer to a war with Russia and personally I would consider that in the realms of “ fucking nightmare I would never want to happen”. This rational thought process does not mean that I think we should be weak in our foreign policy and Not defend ourselves and our allies ( as weakness is as great way to cause a war as much as being overtly aggressive) , but I’m never ever going to be pleased about something that could bring use closer to war with another peer nation or force one human being to kill another.

          • Copy. But at some point deterrence can no longer be relied upon, if the other side keeps pushing the boundary.

          • I know and that’s what really worries me, I think Putin is starting to lose understanding around how far the West can be pushed and I think he’s going to push to far at some point. It’s a nasty dangerous mixture of what happens to all authoritarian absolutists, (in that after a time they believe their own mythology) and the Western powers both cutting military to the bone and Showing levels of weak and incompetence foreign policy. Is a deadly mix.

          • I think it will come to a head sooner rather between the West and East sooner than later sadly! This is because a certain Mr Putin is now 69 years old, so age and time will be going against him. He has already mentioned publicly about the Russian speakers genocide happening in Ukraine and that something must be done about it. If the rhetoric increases then we know for sure something is going to kick off! Especially when you consider that his speech was on National TV and held in the Parliament, who then gave a rousing applause once he’d finished.

            I think this is the same for the Chinese Premier Xi. There have been “un-named” editorials recently in the Chinese Post, stating that the sailings around Japan, joint exercises with Russia and flight incursions into Taiwan’s airspace are a prelude to things getting more physical. Perhaps the most telling statement was from Xi himself, who said that the Taiwan issue would be settled, within the timeframe of his premiership!

            I wouldn’t be a million miles away to speculate that perhaps these two have a joint agenda?

          • To be honest I think Putin is aware that if he pushes into Ukraine the limit of western intervention will be sanctions, after all our blindingly brilliant western leadership removed at strategic ambiguity buy publicity announcing such on TV ( they should have simply said “ramifications would be significant and Universal from the family of western nations And the west would not stand for the invasion of a sovereign state. But now he knows his key concern, military Intervention is off the table. All he has to do is consider if he is willing to take the sanctions and what the cost of sanctions and defeating the Ukraine armed Forces would be compared to the benefit to him and his strategic plans ( he will not give a shit about hardship of death of his forces and population, other than what it means to his power).

            The trouble is, for sanctions to work it would have to be based on energy as that’s Russia’s main export. As Central Europe and to some extent Western Europe is pretty dependent on Russian energy sanctions will hit the west hard as well. Also the US and U.K. have a treaty with Ukraine around sovereignty, it’s meaningless in regards to not defining what we would do, but even so it will be one more thing that makes the western democracies look Like weak untrustworthy friends.

            As for China, I think they are playing Russia just as well as Hitler did, they may well use Russia as a tool to put strategic pressure on the west, but I think the want the Russian East as they will need food production land and lots of it over the next 50 years.

            I think the west needs to have a geopolitical plan to, weaken the Mercantile attack from China ( that’s been underway for around 20 years). Removing our dependency and rebuilding our production as well as following a policy of hard line resource security. which means buying access to and securing all the resources of the 3rd and 2nd world, competitively claiming the high north and Leaving the ant artic treaty and pushing assets in to secure all the western claims.

            We need to push and push China with our own devistating mercantile strategy until we have stripped its wealth generating options, at the same time we need a preparation for war build up of navel forces for Pacific entrapment of China.

            We are likely to loss Ukraine from the west to Russian control, I think we have already lost that geopolitical near war battle unless we suddenly change are are willing and able to bring Ukraine strait into NATO and move forces immediately into the area. Not sure if it’s better to redraw the line and include Ukraine in NATO or just make very very clear any move of any type on a NATO nation will be a war on Russian soil not just NATO.

            So it’s either:

            Contain Russia with threat of overwhelming violence, removing all dependence on Russian energy and weaken China with a concerned highly aggressive mercantile strategy and containment via build up of navel forces across western nations.

            The end gamefor this highly aggressive strategy is that it will hopefully lead to China at some point moving on Russia as the easy option for expansion and resources. Solving the problem. Or both nations become so weak they are not in a place to challenge western hegemony.

            Or we potter along, russia will gobble up the states on its board, miss step and at some point force NATO into a war it’s not ready for and China will at some point become so economically and technologically superior using its mercantile strategy that the liberal democracies either accept Chinese hegemony or fight a war it will loss and have Chinese hegemony forced on it as the loser anyway.

          • I thought the RAF refused to fit the gun and had concrete balast in its place or did they see science and had it fitted???????

          • Yes pretty much. The Tranche 1s without the weight of the gun upset the center of gravity and the flight control software has issues trying to compensate for it. Thankfully sainer heads prevailed and sense got through the dogma, so the gun plus ammo was refitted. This was about the time of 9/11. Someone finally realized that having a gun that fired warning shots would be a good idea in a similar situation.

          • History repeating itself – broadly speaking. Believe the USAF discovered that in Vietnam when they introduced the F4 Phantom negative gun!!

    • Russian aircraft do fly regularly in Syrian airspace against those groups opposing the Assad government (whether or not we agree with them being there). So if the Typhoon had indeed come an Su-33, there should have been no reason to suspect it was hostile to NATO forces in the region.

      • There’s a demarcation line between where both sides can fly. It was agreed by all sides with the aim of preventing such a situation. When the Yanks pulled back from Eastern Syria the line was moved.

    • About 150 fighters and 100 attack helicopters left now, they suffered a high attrition rate during the civil war but since it mostly ended Russia has been supplying them with a lot of parts and the number of aircraft that are actually combat ready has gone up substantially.

      • That’s a good thing. I don’t particularly like siding with Putin on anything but a stable Syria is surely good. What on earth the US and UK were thinking trying to destabilise it I will never know, our politicians have clearly learned nothing from the Iraq war

          • Who said anything about Operation Shader? I know exactly what I am talking about, thank you, and I was referring to the blatant Western support for groups like the FSA.

          • You mean the Syrian Kurds who were the ground force relied on by the west to destroy IS. Certainly and rightly blatant.

          • No, I mean groups like the FSA with links to extremist groups, but just like Libya, who cares as long as they cause chaos and disruption for the Syrian government, right? All we did for the Kurds was turn our backs on them once Turkey became increasingly involved.

          • The drone was most likely from Islamic State, it was destroyed because it was entering Iraq on course for a US FOB. The Typhoon is part of Op Shader. Western support is for groups who oppose Islamic State and wish to have a democracy and don’t want to be ruled by a murderous tyrant. Russia has propped up an unwanted autocrat for their own strategic ends.

          • Actually it was most likely from Iran or Iranian-backed rebels, the base is near a road used to link Tehran and Southern Lebanon.

    • I doubt it – the Turks shot down a Su-25 in 2015 when it strayed too near their airspace. This drone was on course for a US base and 300 military personnel.

    • No, there would be several escalating incidents. Putin won’t launch nukes because a UAV has been downed! He would lose like we lose. So what would be the point.

  14. Perfect job for a laser to undertake to save on costs in the future.

    Tempest should receive a version of Dragonfire so I wonder if Typhoon will become a testbed for it at some point?

    A job well done nonetheless.

    • What was simple about it in your opinion, technically speaking that is?

      Saving coalition forces is a job well done in my opinion.

    • Agreed, Nigel. It is a commendable job in my view as well, it saved the lives of 300 Americans from a potential attack as well as demonstrating air to air capability, the latter being far less important

      • Absolutely eclipse, even one life. Hopefully, the cost per shot compared to a laser will get things moving a little bit faster if that’s possible!

        “The first laser will undergo user testing onboard a Royal Navy Type 23 frigate by detecting, tracking, engaging and countering unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), announced the MOD.
        Meanwhile, a “Wolfhound” armoured vehicle will host a laser demonstrator that will investigate capability against UAVs and other airborne threats for the British Army.
        The RF weapon demonstrator will also be used by the British Army, hosted on a “MAN SV” truck to detect and track a variety of air, land and sea targets.
        “The MOD said that the novel weapons technology will be integrated onto the Royal Navy and British Army platforms for user experimentation from 2023 to 2025.”

        https://optics.org/news/12/9/26

    1. In the last few wars lost by us, we didn’t need an Air Superiority fighter. The other side didn’t compete in the air. Looked like a waste of money.
    2. In the war in Yemen, one side has air superiority and it’s still a stalemate.
    3. In the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Azerbaijan won by using drones.
    4. This looked like two strikes against the whole Typhoon programme. You can have air superiority and still lose. And if you really want air superiority, it’s easier and cheaper to do it with drones.
    5. At last, a Typhoon shoots down a drone. Almost perfect timing. The RAF needed that.

  16. You have to wonder if at some point we will be looking at having anti drone drones Your not really not going to be wanting your fast jets chasing after drones all the time. Especially when drone swarms become more of a reality. So I could se a reason for cheap loitering air defence drones.

    • If an asraam had been used, it must have been a drone of some size I should think. A mini-brimstone type missile with a mw radar would be useful to fire at drones from aircraft. No great range required, carriage in good numbers….?
      Or even LMM perhaps, as this is a weapon “in being”, targeted by the aircrafts designator.
      AA

    • In essence, you could have that tomorrow.

      One of the weapons available to Reaper is the unguided Hydra 70mm rocket. However, strap on the advanced precision kill weapon system (APKWS) package, it turns it into a guided rocket using a semi-active laser seeker. Trials have been done where the APKWS was used to take out a small reconnaissance drone (believe the target was a Predator drone). The Reaper has a very good electro-optical turret that includes a laser designator. This would be more than adequate for guiding the APKWS at a drone. However, the Predator would need either an infrared search and track sensor (IRST) or a millimetric radar, to allow it to search for and then track targets without the need for a 3rd party sensor.

  18. Quite significant – according to US sources ‘A British Typhoon jet shot down the incoming drone, according to a US defense official, using an advanced short-range air to air missile (ASRAAM), becoming one of the first times a heat-seeking air-to-air missile was used in a combat situation to take out a threatening drone.’

  23. Sometimes one really does not know whether to laugh or cry. In this mornings Mail Online, the paper I love to hate, one bright spark in the comments section says after the billions we have spent on jets and missiles since 1982, all we have managed to shoot down is a 200 dollar Chinese drone!! The posts are worth a read😁

      • Not necessarily Bob. Some like myself have a perverse attachment to ignorance and stupidity which exists in abundance on the comment pages of said journal! I think most of their readers like it for it’s content stuffed with entertainment and pictures of curvaceous ladies that”set pulses racing and temperatures soaring” as they display their”ample assets”. Vis-a- vis our shared interest in defence matters and the UKDJ I am truly stunned at the base ignorance of the masses not only on military issues but life in general. Winston Churchill was spot on when he said that the best argument against democracy was a five minute chat with the average voter!! By contrast UKDJ is an intelligent haven of knowledge in depth so perhaps I expect to much from the likes of the mail.

  24. congrats to RAF, testament to great training and capabilities, and demonstrating RAF role to control the airspace through offensive action. RN needs to learn from RAF and understand there will instances where they need offensive capabilities to control their domain.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here