While drone legislation already covers most military sites, the new restrictions provide additional protection to address national security concerns.

These measures, it is understood, aim to enhance deterrence and offer more legal options following a surge in drone sightings near critical facilities, particularly those linked to nuclear weapons.

The 11 sites affected by the new restrictions are:

  1. Alconbury
  2. Croughton
  3. Fairford
  4. Feltwell
  5. Fylingdales
  6. Lakenheath
  7. Menwith Hill
  8. Mildenhall
  9. Molesworth
  10. Oakhangar
  11. Welford

These sites are all key Ministry of Defence locations, with some linked to nuclear operations or sensitive military activities. The restrictions apply to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) flying within specific altitudes and distances around these sites.

This move comes after a series of unexplained drone sightings at US airfields across the UK, including two sites associated with nuclear weapons. While no arrests have been made, the incidents have sparked concerns that the activities may be linked to Russia. The authorities are continuing their investigations, although sightings have decreased significantly since late November.

To support this, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has issued temporary restrictions on unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) at the affected locations. These restrictions, which run from December 23, 2024, to March 23, 2025, are designed to mitigate risks to national security. They apply to drones only, with manned aircraft unaffected. Specific altitude limits and geographic boundaries have been set for each site, with the exception of certain emergency service operations.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson stressed the seriousness of the threat posed by drone activity and reiterated the importance of maintaining robust security measures at defense sites, telling me:

“We take threats seriously and maintain robust measures at defence sites.”

The MOD’s move to impose these restrictions is seen as a deterrent against further drone incursions. While some sites, such as RAF Lakenheath, where aircraft operate, are already governed by strict aviation laws, the new measures offer additional prosecutorial options under national security legislation.

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

12 COMMENTS

  1. Doubtless, the aliens operating the “drones” (actually classic UFO’s) apparently buzzing the military bases listed will obey the latest MoD restrictions. Of course they will. Thousands of them were filmed, photographed and witnessed by media journalists over Washington state the week before Christmas. The USAF claimed they were either swamp gas, scheduled passenger flights hovering for hours in one location – or the witnesses were under the influence.

    Somebody is telling porkies about the latest “UFO Flap”

    • @DavidLloyd, you may be interested to learn that there are several videos available on YouTube featuring self-styled “auditors” who have capitalised on the recent media coverage concerning unidentified drones observed over/near RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, and RAF Feltwell. These individuals have taken considerable satisfaction in confronting USAF personnel who might be checking what theyre up to at the bases fenceline, only to tell the guards that their activities could not be prohibited. When local law enforcement arrived on the scene, the auditors often displayed a typical lack of cooperation, seemingly attempting to provoke an uninformed officer into arresting them, thereby instigating a civil claim for financial compensation. This behavior is their modus operandi to get a significant payout for minimal effort.

      However, the implications of their actions extend beyond their immediate interests and will likely impact other legitimate drone operators. There is already movement to amend CAA regulations to render overflights of police stations and other government sites illegal in direct response to the actions of these auditors. The 19 temporary exclusion zones extending two nautical miles around the MOD locations published on the 23rd March 2024 will have stuffed up any local persons ability to fly a device from their back gardens if within that zone. This regulatory change will inevitably entangle innocent drone operators, particularly as the new no-fly zones may encompass parks and other preferred recreational flying areas, as well as locations utilised for business activities, such as property surveys.

      Simultaneously, individuals with malicious intent may exploit the disarray created by these auditors to engage in unauthorised reconnaissance activities. It is apparent that the auditors may be unaware of, or indifferent to, the fact that their actions could facilitate the objectives of individuals with nefarious intentions.

      • I look at one of those channels regularly, and I 100% Agree.
        Amongst the varied police stations and other places the person was supposed to be “auditing” for the public good were several other locations that are not widely known, that I was already aware of, having found them myself in my research activities.
        The huge difference is, I’m not plastering videos about them or naming locations online! I was shocked to see them being filmed.
        The “Auditor” then feeds off the response from the authorities and is quite confrontational. The followers in the comment sections then laud the auditor as some kind of hero. Pillocks.
        I’m intrigued as to tipped the auditor off about these places, and the fact that considerable research would have been needed to even find them points to a different motive than just auditing.
        This individual, while amusing, does not use Drones as far as I’m aware.

        • I have a real problem with the Auditor trend, I consider it a real breach of privacy in which vast amounts of very personal information about individuals is uploaded for anyone to harvest. The safeguarding and privacy concerns are very significant, with a number of cases in which women who were being protected from violence x partners were essentially outed with predictable results.

          These authors manly seem to be trying to get people doing a job in trouble and to loss their jobs, by baiting them. It is also now a trend that the poor people on the videos of these Auditors are then the victims of campaigns of complaints against them via their employers to try and get them fired.

          A very disturbing and disgusting 21c social media trend.

          They have even been know to start filming in healthcare settings, which quite frankly is profoundly appalling. We would sack and even sometimes get prosecuted health staff who filmed on site, is so inappropriate.

          • Agree.
            There is also the CT angle as well as privacy.
            Some idiot standing outside places fiming staff entering or exiting the premises who for very good reasons might not want to be filmed.

    • Agree, though I think it a mix of both mate, there were plenty of actual Drones and other legit sightings over New Jersey amongst the more unusual ones like red balls of light flying past airline pilots at 50K, such as occurred over Oregon.

  2. What struck me immediately on seeing that list of locations is that every single one bar one is used and staffed by USVF – US Visiting Forces.
    So this was at the behest of the US government.
    Only one at first looks out of place, Oakhanger, so assume that also has considerable US traffic running through it as well.
    With the exception of Fylingdales, our own military has very little presence at these places.

    • Yes, that does rather jump out. In the current climate, do the Russians still have recon overflight access from the START/SALT2 agreements or is that paused at the moment?

        • G’day mate

          The Americans withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty in November 2020. The Russians followed suit in January 2021. Both sides were pushing the limits of the agreement and Trump withdrew because of alleged Russian violations. The Russians withdrew alleging the USAF had overflown military sites in Georgia during popular unrest without giving the customary 72 hours notification.

          I would be surprised if the British Government was still authorising Russian overflights under the Treaty

          The Americans offered to share some of its intelligence and reconnaissance information with European allies to make up for any loss of critical information.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here