Drone Panic or Something Else? The Lakenheath Mystery, the Helicopter Crew and the F-15
Above: A screengrab of the helicopter video shows a small object, which appears as a tiny blob on the infrared camera, slowly moving towards the top right of the screen
Written by Michael Morgan - 26 November 2025
Witnesses – including locals, plane-spotters, military personnel and police – described fast-moving, highly luminous objects with unusual flight characteristics and endurance, which drone experts say do not match off-the-shelf systems.
A National Police Air Service (NPAS) helicopter encountered one or more of these objects on 22 November 2024, reporting emergency evasive action and being “pursued by a large drone” at close proximity.
NPAS submitted a Mandatory Occurrence Report to the UK Airprox Board (UKAB), yet initial FOI responses and CAA statements appeared contradictory about whether a “drone” was actually reported.
When the UKAB report was finally released in June 2025, it concluded the NPAS crew had misidentified a Lakenheath-based F-15, despite unresolved questions over TCAS returns, lighting and the reported 100-ft separation.
NPAS and military call logs, along with a still from the helicopter’s FLIR footage, suggest the presence of an unidentified object, but the full 30-minute infrared video remains withheld by the MoD and MoD Police.
The incident appears to have been investigated primarily by the USAF, with no clear use of independent drone/UAV expertise and no meaningful coordination disclosed between UKAB and MoD Police.
New UK drone no-fly zones over US and joint US/UK sites, the absence of a RAF QRA response, and ongoing FOI stonewalling by UK and US authorities have fuelled further questions about what was really in the skies over East Anglia.
Above: Photo taken at RAF Lakenheath by Jonny Gios on Unsplash
In November 2024, multiple ‘drone’ incursions were reported over the US air bases at Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell, as well as several other UK bases; none have been satisfactorily explained.
This month marks the first anniversary of the so-called drone sightings over the US air bases.
To date, the ten or so nights of incursions remain officially unexplained, much like similar events in the United States, and there are now widespread reports of ‘drones’ across several north-western European countries, continuing right up to November 2025.
In many respects, the more recent sightings in Europe have taken attention away from those in England last year, especially as the UK Government has sent RAF Regiment counter-UAS teams to assist their NATO allies in Denmark and Belgium.
The 2024 sightings at the three British air bases, which all lie within a few miles of one another, are still unexplained, with speculation repeatedly falling upon Russia, although no credible evidence at all has been provided.
Although the sightings at these bases are well-known, from my enquiries, I believe there were sightings at 6-7 other British bases last November, including a number of RAF-staffed flying bases.
Witnesses on the Ground and in the Air
To summarise events at the three US bases, dozens, if not hundreds of witnesses from the local populace, plane-spotters, the military and the police reported seeing what were described as drones.
From the various witness accounts I have collated, the descriptions vary from green, red, orange or white lights, but on one occasion, there was no illumination – just a dark object. Sometimes a light looked like a plasma ball, while others were more defined. Some were silent, while others did actually sound like drones.
The UK drone community, including experts in the field whom I have spoken to, all agree these were not off-the-shelf drones and probably not the type they could build themselves.
These ‘drones’, if we continue to use that descriptor, were anything but regulation drones.
The brightness of their lights and their airborne duration all far exceeded that of most regular drones. The battery life alone would be substantial and would need large energy units to perform such displays.
Many in the drone community believe they are being unfairly blamed and say most of these sightings are misidentifications of distant aircraft or stars.
While this may be the case in some sightings, many of the witnesses I have spoken to are incandescent when they hear such claims. The witnesses live or work at or adjacent to the bases, they know the aircraft, their sounds, lights, shapes and the night sky.
To many, it is insulting to challenge their perception of reality – what they saw was very, very unusual. They tell me they have never seen anything like these objects before or since their sightings in November 2024, and each witness would like to know what they saw.
The NPAS Helicopter Encounter
The sightings might have faded into obscurity were it not for one particular report – the account given by the crew of a National Police Air Service (NPAS) helicopter near the US bases on 22 November 2024, which has driven many, myself included, to investigate the case in detail.
In December 2024, Chris Sharp and Josh Boswell wrote in the Daily Mail that a senior officer told them:
“The drones were recorded flying at 120 mph near the base, chased a police helicopter and appeared to be controlled remotely using frequencies outside the normal bands used for military or civilian drones. The drones were flying with no lights. When they were close to the site, they were turning their lights on going, “I’m here” and as far as I know, not one piece of our equipment could bring it down or spot it”.
Their source added that the ‘drones’ were flying in a set formation and immediately locked onto an approaching police helicopter. When the helicopter climbed, the ‘drones’ climbed.
When the helicopter tried to leave the area, they followed it. The drones were faster than any drone seen before, and one was tracked doing 170 mph.
I contacted a researcher and former police detective like myself – Gary Heseltine. He informed me, another source, whom we will not name, said the helicopter followed the drone-like objects, but one did something which cannot be explained.
We cannot state publicly what was reported to protect the source, but its actions are a major concern regarding flight and public safety.
An examination of flight data shows the helicopter entering the vicinity of the air bases at 21:36 hours local time.
The helicopter, a Eurocopter EC135-T2, has a maximum speed of 178 mph, just above the alleged speed of the drone.
Its route, when plotted on a map, took it past Newmarket and on towards RAF Lakenheath. It then made an abrupt turn back towards Newmarket, where it spent 10-15 minutes with fluctuating speeds, directions and altitudes, while making a series of erratic manoeuvres.
Call logs from Norfolk and Suffolk Police have two interesting entries:
‘Forced to take emergency evasive action in relation to a drone which came dangerously... (rest of text was missing)”.
‘NPAS is withdrawing due to drone coming close to them.’
When the police were asked for further information, it was denied using Freedom of Information exemptions of National Security, Investigations and Law Enforcement.
FOIA applications to NPAS resulted in confirmation that their helicopter responded on 22 November 2024:
‘Suspected drones were located and tracked, but no drones or drone operators were detained.’
Further enquiries with NPAS found the crew to have submitted a Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) to the UK Air-Proximity Board (UKAB). As with all such reports, the contents and the names of those involved are confidential and will not be released by the UKAB.
Another associate of mine contacted the UKAB asking for details of any drone air-proximity reports at Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell. He received a surprising reply:
‘I can confirm that following a review of held information, it has been reasonably determined that the CAA holds no information within the scope of the request. That is to say from 19 November 2024 to 6 December 2024, no drone air-proxes have been reported to the UK Air-proximity Board in the vicinity of Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Feltwell and Fairford.’
Bearing in mind that NPAS had stated a report involving a drone-like craft was submitted to the UKAB, why had they given this reply?
When questioned further, they replied:
‘The application was a request to list any drone Air-prox. The Air-prox reported by NPAS did not cite a drone as the other aircraft. As such it is still the CAA’s position that the response was correct.’
What sort of craft or description of a craft was given in the report to the UKAB? They declined to provide any details, saying they would release details in due course.
Further research found that the report was made to the UKAB on Monday 25 November, and it indicated ‘The belief the other platform was a drone.’
To many people, these replies appear confusing. However, this may be a product of a system which allows pilots to report an object, but the system expects a qualifying description.
For example, if a pilot reports a drone, they are expected to describe its structure, e.g. a quadcopter.
If the helicopter pilot made a report, citing ‘the belief the other platform was a drone’ without giving a description, the UKAB probably left it as an unknown object.
In February 2025, I asked NPAS for images from the helicopter’s FLIR camera, but I was told they were exempt by virtue of sections 24(1) National Security and section 31(1) Law Enforcement of FOIA. Later, they informed me that the images were unclear.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) Police started an investigation into all the reported sightings over the three airfields, and NPAS passed their footage to the MoD Police.
NPAS were asked if the US Air Force had made any request for their helicopter to abandon its mission or to leave the area it was searching. They replied, “NPAS had no contact with the USAF”.
The reply that the helicopter had no contact with the USAF was surprising. The incident happened within the military air traffic zone (MATZ) of Lakenheath and Mildenhall, so it is surprising they had no contact with the military controllers.
I then asked them:
‘1. Which air traffic control was the NPAS helicopter crew in radio communication with on the evening of Friday 22 November 2024, if it was not in contact with the US Air Force at Mildenhall or Lakenheath?
‘2. According to Flight Radar 24 data, the NPAS helicopter flew to Lakenheath that evening before turning on to a reciprocal heading towards Newmarket at 21:37 hours. It then engaged in a number of sudden increases and decreases in altitude and fluctuating air speeds for a number of minutes over Newmarket. Why did the pilot undertake such actions?
‘3. I believe the restrictions on Eurocopter EC-135 T2 helicopters such as G-POLJ, restrict the top speed of the aircraft to 160 knots or 184mph. If correct, the Flight Radar 24 data showed a speed at 21:53 hours over Newmarket to be 160 knots or 184 mph. Again, why was it necessary to fly the aircraft to its limitations that evening over a heavily populated town?’
Who Actually Investigated the Incident?
On 3 June 2025, I received a reply which threw fresh doubts about the alleged ‘drone’ incursions when they stated:
‘The NPAS crew were under the control of Lakenheath Air Traffic Control.
‘The helicopter was searching and tracking for reported drone activity therefore had to maneuver, in order to search and track, and avoid moving objects as they were identified accordingly.
‘At one point in the task, the crew believed there was credible potential that safe separation between the helicopter and the object being tracked was compromised, therefore the helicopter left the area at speed to ensure safe separation was gained as quickly as possible within the normal aircraft limitations.’
A month after my last contact with NPAS, they were still referring to drone activity and tracking an object, but this response was very interesting.
Firstly, they were now stating they were in contact with Lakenheath air traffic control (USAF air traffic control). Note also the use of the word object rather than drone.
I challenged NPAS on the apparent change in the descriptor for the objects.
They explained that the descriptor used in previous replies to my requests depended on the language used in my applications and the information available at the time.
They said the helicopter crew had submitted a report to the UKAB using the term ‘drone’. This was despite the UKAB saying the report they received did not directly mention the term drone, but they believed the other platform was a drone.
Although this may seem a classic case of splitting hairs, there was clearly some confusion in the descriptors being used and possibly what was being described that night.
I was then surprised by the next paragraph:
‘As the Air-proximity Board investigation and other independent investigations have progressed, there has been information that suggests that the identified object may or may not be a drone – hence the language moved from an honest held belief on the day of the incident from drones, to ‘believed to be drones’ or ‘suspected drones’…NPAS has therefore responded in a manner to individual FOI seeking accuracy, depending on the date and individual FOI.
‘Early FOIs may have been responded to with a binary ‘Drone’ descriptor in accordance with the information at the time, and this may have changed to believed drones or suspected drones as information and investigation has progressed and subsequent FOIs have been administered.’
While this was an apparently frank explanation for the varying descriptive language, it still failed to answer the question of what the crew exactly saw that night.
At this point, it is worth examining exactly what happens when a pilot makes a report. The UKAB gather the report and, if necessary, any ATC or radar data.
On very rare occasions, an Inspector may contact the pilot to clarify the information before a case file is presented to the Board for evaluation.
In early June 2025, I asked the UKAB:
‘Has there been further contact with the pilot/NPAS crew since the initial report and what was the reason for this?’
I was told there had been communications between a UKAB Inspector and NPAS, so this case was one of those very rare cases when an Inspector contacts the pilot.
Either this was an unusual report or one that caused some concern – but for whom and why?
The reported manoeuvres by the helicopter that evening were unusual. To do this over a built-up area like Newmarket while pushing the aircraft to its limits raises the question: what would make a pilot do this?
In June 2025, my efforts to get the helicopter FLIR footage released met with the claim that it was not sufficiently clear to identify the object recorded.
Efforts to obtain information about the NPAS incident from the USAF started in June, but I am still waiting for their response nearly 6 months later.
The Official Report Is Released
On 27 June 2025, the UKAB finally released their report concerning the helicopter. To many people, their findings were totally unexpected.
The report concluded there had been a misidentification of a Lakenheath-based F-15 fighter by the NPAS crew, which was some distance away from the helicopter.
Lakenheath radar control authorised the helicopter to enter the Lakenheath Air Traffic Zone, but they did not inform the pilot of the F-15 aircraft in their vicinity, and nothing was observed on the helicopter’s own TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System).
The helicopter crew reported red flashing lights orbiting the base, which were believed to be drones.
The NPAS pilot told Lakenheath controllers he was leaving their zone and climbing east to estimate the height of the drones.
They climbed to 4,000 feet and headed east towards Bury St. Edmunds, while tracking what was believed to be a drone to the north of their position and at a slightly higher altitude.
The UKAB report states the helicopter then turned onto an easterly heading at 5,500 feet, when one of the “drones appeared to converge with them and fly above and in front of them.”
The NPAS pilot became aware of the air traffic controller talking to other call-signs (the F-15s), but there was nothing on the helicopter’s own TCAS.
The helicopter made a descending turn to the left to increase its perceived separation from a drone. They had a significant rate of descent of 145 knots, and the alleged drone overtook them.
Now heading south, the helicopter descended to below 2,000 feet, where it appeared the drone was no longer tracking them.
There was two-way communication with the pilot of an F-15 during their last change of direction, and the helicopter pilot thought they were being shepherded out of the area by the fighter.
Exactly what the F-15 to helicopter communication contained was not stated, nor was there any explanation of why the helicopter pilot thought they were being shepherded out of the area.
The NPAS crew ‘did not visually observe standard aircraft lights’ and none were picked up with on-board camera systems.
This, the report claims, may have reinforced the crew’s perception that they had observed a drone.
Conflicting Accounts of the F-15
The F-15 pilot told USAF investigators they were at 15,000 feet, 20 nautical miles from Lakenheath.
They had remained outside the Lakenheath zone with anti-collision, navigation and formation lighting on. Their transponder was operating on modes A & C.
The F-15E has navigation lights and anti-collision lights displaying red, white and green. If all of these lights were operating, that would make a multitude of coloured lights. However, the NPAS pilot reported just red flashing lights orbiting around the Lakenheath air traffic zone. How could the NPAS crew not see these different coloured lights?
The F-15 pilot said they were informed by controllers of the presence of the helicopter, but could not identify it with their own onboard radar.
They therefore asked controllers to ‘pinpoint’ the helicopter for them.
Eventually, the F-15 obtained visual contact with the helicopter at a range of about 1 nautical mile and 1,000 feet below it.
They utilised their on-board sensors to maintain position 1,000 feet above and behind the helicopter.
The F-15 was by this time at 6,000 feet. The F-15 pilot said they made three radio calls to the NPAS pilot, but the only answer they heard was the pilot saying they were returning to base.
Lakenheath approach radar said there were no unknown primary radar tracks observed at the time of this incident, just the helicopter and the F-15s.
The UKAB report said they were at a loss to explain why the helicopter’s TCAS had failed to detect the F-15 and questioned why the F-15 would ask for the helicopter’s position, then fly towards it.
The UKAB said the following were contributory factors:
1. Lakenheath controllers had not passed traffic information on the F-15s to the NPAS pilot.
2. The NPAS pilot had no situational awareness of the presence or position of the F-15s (either from TCAS or ATC).
3. The NPAS pilot had been concerned by the proximity of the F-15s, perceiving them to be ‘drones’.
It is clear, not only did the UKAB decide an F-15 approaching the helicopter had been misidentified, but the crew had probably perceived other F-15s in the area to be drones.
However, no mention was made of the alleged drones, their appearance and behaviour in this report.
The question is whether there were any alleged drones or other objects over the airfield? Social media commentators and official reports say there were ‘drones’ over the three US airfields that evening, so where were they during this event?
TCAS, Lights and What Was Really Seen
In relation to the TCAS system, a number of people reported that F-15s were operating without their lights, while their transponders had been switched to a secure military mode that could not be detected on ADS-B.
Ordinarily, if only one aircraft is operating TCAS (e.g. the helicopter), it should be able to detect another aircraft, if that aircraft’s transponder is operating with modes A and C transmitting.
If it was not transmitting mode C, TCAS would still receive traffic avoidance warnings, but not a resolution advice message, i.e. an instruction to turn to port or climb, etc.
In July 2025, the following was received from NPAS:
‘The object was assessed as being above, passing within 100 feet and in front of the helicopter. With focus being on avoiding the object and maintaining safe separation, the exact location is not known, beyond the general area of Lakenheath air traffic zone.’
They provided an extract from the call-log which showed the times the NPAS aircraft reported being off-scene as it was being pursued by a large drone:
‘NPAS51: Off Scene 22/11/2024 21:52:29.
‘NPAS51: Being pursued by a large drone 22/11/2024 21:52:58.’
The comments about being pursued by a large drone and the 100 feet separation do not feature in the UKAB report. The statement about being pursued seems to corroborate some of the earlier information.
After the release of the UKAB report in late June, I again asked NPAS exactly what their crew had seen that night.
They told me that they held no recorded information. ‘However, outside of the Act, please note that we hold nothing other than ‘2 drones being identified which were operating in excess of 2,000 feet, no structures were identified, such as wings or rotors’.
The UKAB report states the closest point of contact observed on Lakenheath radar was 1,900 feet vertical separation and 0.2 nautical mile horizontally. No risk of collision was observed.
The fact that there were no primary or secondary radar tracks other than the F-15s and the helicopter is hardly surprising, as the vast majority of drones (even if that is what they were) are too small and do not carry transponders.
There’s also the issue of the F-15’s lighting — it’s not just approaching the helicopter, it appears to be following or even shepherding it.
Could the NPAS crew and the F-15 have both witnessed the drone-like objects displaying red lights orbiting Lakenheath? As they both went to investigate, did they come within proximity to one another?
Could the helicopter crew have been observing a red lighted large drone-like object within 100 feet and in front of them, as the unseen F-15 also approached 1,900 feet above them? Could it be that the drone-like object was not visible on TCAS or ground radar systems?
Is this why the F-15 pilot says they had all their lights illuminated, while the NPAS pilot says they only saw a red flashing light? Is this why the radar corroborates the F-15 claims of being over 1,000 feet apart and not the 100 feet as claimed by the helicopter report?
And what are we to make of the NPAS radio call-log, which states at 21:52 hours: ‘Being pursued by a large drone’ - could this have been the F-15?
On 3 July 2025, I asked the UKAB if they had used anyone with UAV/Drone expertise on their investigation of the incident.
They informed me: ‘The incident was investigated by RAF Lakenheath, as such the CAA (or indeed the UKAB) hold no information.’
In effect, they were saying the USAF had investigated this matter!
I separately asked the UKAB if they had any communications with the MoD Police regarding the helicopter encounter and their subsequent report.
I received a surprising statement that there had been ‘No communication between the MoD Police and the CAA/UKAB regarding the NPAS incident on the 22 November 2024.’
Bearing in mind the entire series of sightings in November and the initial claims of a near-miss with a drone or drone-like aerial platform, does it not seem strange that the UKAB had no one with drone expertise on their board and did not communicate with the MoD Police investigation?
The FLIR Still Image
On 29 September, I finally received a still image from the NPAS helicopter’s FLIR camera. The still was on x32 zoom and displayed a small, round or oval-shaped object, which cannot be identified.
I compared the instrument data from the still; it states the date was 22 Nov 2024, time is 21:47:25, and the helicopter’s position was 52.15.50N 00.24.25E. Altitude is shown as 4,877 feet with a heading of 286 degrees.
Two small symbols display the attitude of the FLIR camera. It had a camera lens direction of 079 degrees and an elevation of 004 degrees (roughly facing North).
The UKAB report states that at 21:50:46 hours, radar showed the F-15 approaching the helicopter from the North.
The closest they came was at a point 2 nautical miles East of Newmarket at 21:51 hours with a vertical separation of 1,900 feet and horizontally 1 nautical mile apart.
ADS-B track and the cameras displayed latitude and longitude, placing the helicopter in roughly the same spot, just North of Newmarket at 21:47 hours on 22 November.
This appears to be slightly different to Flight Radar’s data, but such data is never 100% precise. Either way, the helicopter was over or close to Newmarket.
In addition, ADS-B records indicate there was no civil or general aviation aircraft/traffic in the direction the camera was facing at the time.
What the Withheld Footage Reportedly Shows
On 1 October, I contacted NPAS and asked if this was their best image. I was told they were preparing the footage for release, and nearly ten weeks later, I was still awaiting it
However, the Daily Mail’s Josh Boswell and Chris Sharp spoke with a UK military source who has apparently viewed the entire 30-minute video of the NPAS infrared camera. The source said there was more to the incident than a close brush with a fighter jet.
“In the 30-minute video with pilot audio, nobody mentions F-15s, they only talk about the drones. How they're basically mirroring the helicopter's movements. How fast the drones are going. That they're basically forcing them out of the area.”
The source added that the footage shows an object pursuing the helicopter performing manoeuvres impossible for a fighter jet.
“A fixed-wing craft is caught on the video, where you can see a corkscrew move. An F-15 cannot make a small corkscrew turn like that.”
Josh Boswell managed to obtain a small 9-second fragment of the footage. Although it showed a moving image, the object was similar to that in the earlier still I had obtained.
Despite repeated requests, the full 30-minute footage has not been released, with the MoD and the MoD Police allegedly preventing this. Why they should do this for an approaching F-15 is questionable.
Silence from the MoD, RAF and USAF
The UKAB report blames an F-15E via data provided by the USAF, while the UKAB questions certain elements of the explanation.
Meanwhile, our own MoD Police are still reluctant to release any information via FOI applications.
They will not even give the number of officers currently engaged on the investigation, what offences are being investigated, whether they have any suspects or if any ‘drones’ have been seized or located. Neither will they say how much the investigation has cost UK taxpayers to date.
What is surprising to many observers is the apparent lack of reaction from the RAF’s Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) Typhoon fighters based about 30 miles away in Lincolnshire. The lack of a QRA response was confirmed to me by the RAF/MoD in October 2025.
The RAF has a duty to safeguard the UK’s skies, so why did they not apparently react, while the USAF sent aircraft up during the sightings?
It was claimed by Air Forces Monthly magazine that on Thanksgiving 2024, a public holiday for Americans, armed Lakenheath F-15s were on combat air patrol over East Anglia while the RAF were not airborne.
In addition, a number of Notices to Airmen - known as Notams - were released declaring new no-fly zones for drones over a number of sensitive US or joint US/UK ground bases in the UK.
These are still in place until January 2026. None were placed on similar British-only staffed bases. Why differentiate between the two nations based in the same country?
I am still awaiting FOIA replies from the USAF after many months. The question is whether we shall ever know what these objects were and why the secrecy?
Michael Morgan is a former senior detective and senior investigating officer who also worked in the field of intelligence.
He has written a book, ‘The Silence is Deafening’, which gives greater detail about the refusal of the UK authorities to discuss UAP and drone intrusions over the UK. It was released on 25 November 2025.
