RAF Lakenheath Drone Alert: Who Can Shoot Down Drones Over a US Base?

Introduction

RAF Lakenheath, the British military installation used by the United States Air Force in Suffolk, was placed under heightened security precautions on November 13, 2026, after American personnel responded to suspected unauthorized drone activity. Reports of personnel being instructed to shelter raised two immediate questions: what had happened at the base, and whether American forces could legally shoot down an unidentified drone flying overhead.

The legal answer depends on the circumstances. The United Kingdom retains sovereignty over RAF Lakenheath and the airspace above it. American forces have substantial responsibilities for protecting the installation, but their presence does not confer unrestricted authority to destroy aircraft. British police possess statutory powers concerning unauthorized drones, while any use of destructive force requires a separate legal justification.

Reports also raised questions about FPCON Delta, the highest level of the American military's force-protection system. Its activation at RAF Lakenheath on November 13 was not established by the official statements available after the incident. The distinction between a reported security alert and a confirmed terrorist threat is essential to understanding both the event and the legal response.

1. RAF Lakenheath Drone Activity on November 13

On the evening of November 13, 2026, US Air Force Security Forces responded to what an American military spokesperson described as suspected unauthorized drone activity over RAF Lakenheath. Sky News and Reuters reported the response, while Sky News also described instructions directing personnel to take shelter.

The American statement indicated that no personnel, aircraft, or infrastructure had been affected. The British Ministry of Defence subsequently said the situation had been resolved and that the authorities were investigating the reports. Neither government publicly identified the suspected drone operator or established the purpose of the activity.

That limited information does not support a conclusion that the base had been attacked. It also leaves open whether the reported objects were positively identified as drones, how many were involved, and whether they entered a restricted part of the airspace. The available official account does not establish that American or British personnel shot down an aircraft.

RAF Lakenheath is a particularly sensitive installation because it hosts the US Air Force's 48th Fighter Wing. The wing operates F-15E Strike Eagle and F-35A Lightning II aircraft, making the base an important component of American combat aviation in Europe. Unauthorized activity near such an installation can justify substantial security precautions even before the nature of a potential threat is established.

The November alert followed earlier concerns about unidentified drones near American military facilities in Britain. In November 2024, US military authorities acknowledged sightings of small unmanned aircraft near RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, and RAF Feltwell. Those sightings formed part of a separate episode and did not establish the identity or intentions of anyone involved in the November 2026 incident.

Security concerns had also affected nearby RAF Mildenhall earlier in November 2026, when American aircraft were relocated amid reporting about a possible threat. The circumstances and potential international consequences of that episode are examined separately in the discussion of the RAF Mildenhall evacuation and NATO Article 5. Neither episode establishes that the suspected drones at Lakenheath were operated by a hostile state.

The distinction is significant because the appropriate response to an unidentified aircraft depends partly on what is known about its behavior. A drone conducting photography, an aircraft that has inadvertently entered restricted airspace, and a device presenting an imminent danger to life may require different measures. The existence of a security alert alone does not establish which situation the authorities faced.

2. FPCON Delta: Meaning and Reported Activation

Force Protection Condition, usually abbreviated as FPCON, is the system used by the US military to establish protective measures against terrorist threats. Its five principal levels are Normal, Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, and Delta. The levels reflect assessments of the threat environment and determine the security measures military commanders may implement.

FPCON Delta is the highest level. Official American military guidance associates it with circumstances in which a terrorist attack has occurred at a particular location or intelligence indicates that terrorist action against a specific location or person is imminent. Delta can justify exceptionally restrictive access and protective measures, but its meaning is tied to the relevant threat assessment.

During the November 13 incident, reports circulated that RAF Lakenheath or nearby American installations had reached FPCON Delta. The publicly reported US Air Force statement confirmed a security response to suspected drone activity, but it did not confirm a Delta declaration. Shelter instructions, by themselves, cannot establish which force-protection condition was in effect.

Earlier reporting about FPCON Charlie at RAF Mildenhall concerned a different security episode. Charlie generally reflects a heightened assessment of terrorist risk, while Delta is reserved for more specific and acute circumstances. A previous declaration at one installation cannot be treated as evidence of a later declaration at another.

FPCON levels also have a limited legal function. They direct military security arrangements, including access controls, searches, patrols, movement restrictions, and protective procedures. They are not statutes or treaties granting independent authority to use weapons against civilian aircraft.

A commander may raise a force-protection condition because the perceived risk warrants precautionary action. The legal authority for a particular response, however, must still be found in the rules governing the personnel, location, equipment, and circumstances involved. A high FPCON level does not dispense with those requirements.

3. British Airspace and Legal Status of RAF Lakenheath

The presence of American combat aircraft and security personnel does not place RAF Lakenheath outside British territorial jurisdiction. Article 1 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944, commonly called the Chicago Convention, recognizes each state's complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.

That principle applies to RAF Lakenheath because the installation is situated in England. British authorities retain legislative and regulatory powers over the site and surrounding airspace, subject to the legal arrangements permitting American forces to operate there.

The United States may exercise responsibilities allocated to its visiting forces, but it does not acquire territorial sovereignty through operational control. The distinction determines which government may regulate drone flights, how security powers are exercised, and why authorization to use an airbase is different from authority to employ force in the surrounding airspace.

3.1 British Ownership and American Operational Use

The British Ministry of Defence explained in a May 2016 freedom-of-information response that installations made available to United States Visiting Forces remain owned by the Ministry of Defence. The American military conducts day-to-day activities at facilities assigned for its use under the relevant defense arrangements.

This arrangement gives American forces considerable operational responsibility without transferring sovereignty. It resembles the legal position at other British installations used by the United States, including RAF Fairford and its status under UK–US defense arrangements.

The Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces, signed in London on June 19, 1951, provides an important part of the framework. Known as the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, or NATO SOFA, it governs aspects of the legal position of military personnel stationed in another participating state.

Article II requires members of a visiting force and its civilian component, as well as their dependents, to respect the law of the receiving state. In Britain, the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and related legislation give domestic legal effect to parts of the visiting-forces framework. Those provisions coexist with further arrangements addressing the operation of particular installations.

3.2 Permanent and Emergency Airspace Restrictions

British authorities had already introduced specific restrictions on unmanned aircraft flying near defense installations before the November 13 alert. The Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Ministry of Defence Prohibited Places) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/64, came into force on February 19, 2026.

For RAF Lakenheath, those regulations prohibit unmanned aircraft from flying below 600 feet above mean sea level within a defined area. The boundaries are established by coordinates rather than by an unrestricted circular zone around the installation.

The regulations contain exceptions. They include specified flights operated by or on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, certain emergency services, and the United States Visiting Forces at named installations. They also allow flights conducted with permission from specified authorities, including the American visiting forces in the circumstances identified by the instrument.

A separate emergency measure was made on November 9, 2026. The Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (RAF Lakenheath, Norfolk) (Emergency) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/1176, took effect immediately and prohibited unmanned aircraft from flying below 1,200 feet above mean sea level within a five-nautical-mile radius of a specified point at RAF Lakenheath.

Although the formal title of the emergency instrument refers to Norfolk, the airbase is located in Suffolk. The restriction is identified geographically through the coordinates and radius contained in its schedule.

The emergency instrument provides a different exception from the February regulations. It excludes unmanned aircraft flying in accordance with directions given by RAF Lakenheath Air Traffic Control Unit. It does not simply reproduce every permission or exemption in SI 2026/64.

The emergency regulations were expressly intended to operate temporarily, with revocation contemplated once the emergency had passed. Their precise continuing status at the time of any particular flight depends on whether a subsequent legal measure had brought them to an end.

Even where a restriction applies, proving a violation requires evidence of the aircraft's location, altitude, and authorization status. The November 13 public statements do not supply those details. Neither regulation, standing alone, gives military personnel a general right to shoot down an aircraft that enters the protected area.

3.3 Protected Sites Under British Security Law

British legislation provides another layer of protection for defense installations. The National Security Act 2023 establishes offenses concerning prohibited places, including certain Crown land and facilities used for the defense of the United Kingdom or a foreign country.

Section 4 addresses specified conduct involving a prohibited place when the person acts for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom and satisfies the statutory knowledge requirement. The provision can cover conduct carried out remotely, including the use of an unmanned vehicle or device.

Section 5 establishes a separate offense concerning unauthorized access, entry, inspection, or passage over or under a prohibited place. It expressly includes causing an unmanned device to undertake the prohibited conduct. Unlike section 4, it does not require proof of a purpose prejudicial to British safety or interests, although the statutory requirements concerning authorization and knowledge must still be satisfied.

Section 6 is especially relevant to stopping unauthorized activity. A constable may, in defined circumstances, direct a person to cease specified conduct or arrange the movement of a vehicle or device in or near a prohibited place. The officer must reasonably believe the intervention is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

These provisions demonstrate how British law combines the protection of military facilities with limits on state coercive powers. The distinctions between territorial authority, criminal liability, and enforcement measures reflect broader principles of jurisdiction in international law.

The existence of an offense does not establish that every suspected drone flight constitutes espionage. Nor does a statutory power to issue directions or move a device necessarily authorize its destruction. Each intervention requires its own legal basis.

4. Who Can Legally Stop or Shoot Down Drones?

Several authorities may have responsibilities when an unidentified drone approaches RAF Lakenheath. British police can exercise statutory powers, American security personnel protect the facilities assigned to their force, and British military personnel may participate in security arrangements. Their responsibilities overlap operationally, but their legal powers are not interchangeable.

The question also changes according to the proposed response. Identifying an operator, ordering a flight to stop, seizing equipment, interfering electronically with a control signal, and physically destroying an aircraft are different acts. Permission to carry out one does not necessarily authorize the others.

The public legal framework supports a qualified answer: British authorities possess established powers to regulate and enforce restrictions against unlawful drone activity, while American forces may undertake security measures within the arrangements governing their presence. Whether personnel may use destructive force depends on the applicable domestic law, operational authorization, threat, and circumstances.

4.1 Police Powers and Counter-Drone Interference

The Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 strengthened British police powers concerning unmanned aircraft. Its provisions address enforcement against unlawful drone operations, including specified powers relating to the grounding of aircraft, searches, and the seizure of equipment.

The Police Act 1997 also establishes a legal mechanism for authorizing specified interference with property or wireless telegraphy by certain law-enforcement bodies. Such powers are subject to statutory conditions and authorization procedures. They cannot be equated with unrestricted permission for any officer to deploy electronic counter-drone equipment.

The National Security Act 2023 supplies additional powers concerning prohibited places. Under section 6, constables may direct certain conduct to cease and arrange the removal or movement of devices where the statutory necessity condition is met.

The relevant policing institutions include territorial police forces and, within their statutory responsibilities, the Ministry of Defence Police. A Home Office parliamentary answer published in November 2026 identified existing police counter-drone capabilities while distinguishing those powers from the additional military authorities proposed in the Armed Forces Bill.

Electronic intervention can have consequences beyond the drone itself. Depending on the equipment used, a measure may affect communications or the behavior of an aircraft that subsequently loses control. The legality of interference depends on the authority granted, the applicable statutory safeguards, and the particular operation.

A police power to interrupt an unlawful drone flight is accordingly more specific than a general right to fire upon an aerial object. Firearms use, destructive interception, and other forceful measures require consideration of additional legal rules.

4.2 American Security Forces and Visiting-Force Rules

US Air Force Security Forces are responsible for protecting American personnel, aircraft, and facilities at RAF Lakenheath. Their presence rests on the United Kingdom's acceptance of American forces and the legal arrangements governing their activities.

Article VII(10) of the NATO SOFA provides for military policing and security measures by a visiting force at premises it occupies and controls. It distinguishes those measures from military-police activity outside such premises, where the receiving state's arrangements and coordination become particularly important.

Article VI addresses the possession and carrying of arms by members of a visiting force in accordance with their orders. Neither provision should be read as a self-contained authorization to shoot at any unidentified object above the installation.

The NATO SOFA also allocates aspects of criminal jurisdiction between the receiving and sending states. Those rules concern which authorities may exercise jurisdiction over particular offenses. They do not determine, by themselves, whether firing a weapon during a security operation would be lawful.

The difference between allocating criminal jurisdiction and authorizing coercive action is central to enforcement jurisdiction in international law. A state may consent to foreign military activities on its territory without surrendering all control over how force is exercised there.

British legislation adds further detail. Section 8 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 allows specified legal provisions to be applied or adapted in relation to visiting forces. The Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999 contains provisions addressing military communications and wireless equipment, with their operation dependent in part on agreements between the governments concerned.

Those historical provisions cannot be treated as an unrestricted contemporary authorization for electronic counter-drone operations. Their practical application must be considered alongside subsequent telecommunications law and the terms of any relevant agreements.

Some UK–US arrangements concerning the use and security of American facilities are not publicly available in full. As the House of Commons Library has explained, bilateral agreements supplement the NATO SOFA and the Visiting Forces Act. Publicly accessible law consequently does not establish every operational permission that may apply to a particular security measure at RAF Lakenheath.

American personnel may have substantial authority to secure the facilities they occupy, but the existence and scope of a particular power to disable or destroy a drone cannot be inferred solely from their responsibility for base protection.

4.3 British Armed Forces and Joint Security Measures

The United Kingdom remains responsible for the legal regime governing its territory and airspace. British defense authorities may coordinate security measures with American commanders, including surveillance, detection, policing, and responses to suspected threats.

That cooperation does not eliminate the distinction between existing legal powers and proposed ones. British service personnel are not automatically entitled to employ any counter-drone technique merely because an aircraft approaches a defense installation. Their authority depends on the applicable legislation, permissions, operational responsibilities, and circumstances.

The two countries have previously cooperated on counter-unmanned-aircraft activity. In October 2020, the 48th Fighter Wing announced joint testing with the Royal Air Force of counter-small-unmanned-aircraft systems. The announcement demonstrates an established area of technical cooperation, although it does not prove what systems were available or used during the November 2026 alert.

On November 12, 2026, the day before the Lakenheath incident, British ministers discussed the protection of military installations in the House of Commons. The parliamentary debate addressed surveillance, guarding, police capabilities, and cooperation with American forces. It did not disclose the operational rules governing a specific response to unidentified drones.

Military cooperation can improve the speed and coordination of a response. It does not establish that the United States or the United Kingdom conducted an interception on November 13, or that either government had authorized a particular destructive measure.

4.4 Reasonable Force, Aircraft Safety, and Liability

British law recognizes circumstances in which reasonable force may be used to prevent crime. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 permits such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for preventing crime or effecting or assisting a lawful arrest.

The application of that provision depends on the facts. It does not create a standing power to destroy a drone whenever a flight is suspected of breaching an airspace restriction. Whether the proposed intervention is reasonable must be assessed in relation to the danger and the circumstances confronting the person acting.

Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides defenses in specified circumstances involving the protection of property. Those defenses concern criminal liability for damage under defined conditions, including beliefs about the need to protect property and the reasonableness of the means adopted.

A defense that may arise after property has been damaged is conceptually different from advance statutory authorization to conduct a military interception. The presence of valuable aircraft or sensitive facilities does not remove the need to establish the legal basis for a particular response.

A further consideration is the risk created by disabling an aircraft. A drone that is destroyed or loses control may fall onto personnel, vehicles, buildings, or areas beyond the installation. A response intended to prevent one danger may create another, a factor relevant to assessing the circumstances in which force is employed.

International aviation law also requires careful treatment. Article 8 of the Chicago Convention addresses aircraft capable of flying without a pilot over another contracting state's territory and requires special authorization. Articles 1 and 3 distinguish territorial airspace sovereignty and the Convention's treatment of civil and state aircraft.

Article 3 bis, introduced by the 1984 Protocol to the Chicago Convention, concerns the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight. The United Kingdom is a party to that Protocol, which entered into force in 1998. The United States is not among its listed parties.

The treaty provision cannot consequently be presented as an identical conventional obligation binding both governments. Its application also depends on whether the aircraft concerned is civil rather than a state aircraft. The status of an unidentified drone cannot be assumed from its appearance or from the fact that it was detected near a military base.

Rules of general international law may remain relevant independently of treaty participation, but their application to a particular counter-drone operation requires its own legal analysis. Article 3 bis alone does not settle whether a small unidentified drone may be disabled, nor does it establish the operational authority of American personnel on British territory.

Responsibility for damage presents another question. Article VIII of the NATO SOFA contains arrangements for dealing with certain claims involving the activities of visiting forces. Those provisions are relevant if a security operation causes injury or property damage, but they do not themselves authorize the action that produced the claim.

The central legal distinction remains between an unlawful drone flight and a lawful response. An aircraft may have entered protected airspace without authorization, yet the decision to interfere with or destroy it must still be independently justified.

5. The Armed Forces Bill 2026 and New Counter-Drone Powers

The Armed Forces Bill 2026 proposed changes to British law that would expand the powers available to defense personnel against unmanned devices. As of November 14, 2026, the Bill had not received Royal Assent. It had completed proceedings in the House of Lords and was awaiting further consideration by the House of Commons.

The proposal followed an increase in reported uncrewed-aircraft incidents near defense sites. The Ministry of Defence recorded 126 such incidents in 2024 and 266 in 2025, an increase of approximately 111 percent. These were reported incidents across defense locations, not confirmed hostile attacks or events confined to RAF Lakenheath.

Clause 5 of the Bill proposed inserting a new Part 16D into the Armed Forces Act 2006. The proposed provisions would establish an authorization system for approved equipment used to prevent, detect, or mitigate specified unlawful activity involving uncrewed devices near defense areas or property.

The proposed powers were subject to conditions. Under the published Bill, authorizations would involve designated senior military or civil-service officials. A responsible person would also have to be satisfied that equipment was being used in accordance with the authorization and, for the relevant operational purposes, that its use was necessary and proportionate.

Proposed section 343P expressly included defense areas used for the defense of a foreign country or territory. That wording is significant for British facilities used by American forces because the regime was not confined to locations serving exclusively British military operations.

Nevertheless, the inclusion of foreign-defense facilities would not automatically confer identical statutory powers on US Air Force personnel. The Bill established a British authorization structure with defined officials, equipment, conditions, and responsibilities. Its effect would have to be determined from the enacted legislation and any instruments or authorizations made under it.

The distinction is particularly relevant to RAF Lakenheath. An installation may be protected by British law while being operated day to day by an allied military force. The legal authority to deploy counter-drone equipment need not belong exclusively to the personnel who operate the base.

Other reported encounters involving unidentified aerial objects also illustrate the importance of location. The legal questions raised by unidentified objects reported near RAF aircraft over the North Sea differ from those concerning a drone over a military installation in England. Airspace sovereignty and the geographical reach of domestic powers can change the governing analysis.

The proposed legislation reflected a decision to provide defense personnel with a more explicit statutory framework for counter-drone operations. Until the relevant provisions become law, however, they cannot be used to justify action taken under the earlier legal regime.

Conclusion

The November 13 alert at RAF Lakenheath established that American security personnel responded to suspected unauthorized drone activity and that protective measures were taken at the installation. It did not establish the identity or purpose of the suspected aircraft, confirm activation of FPCON Delta, or demonstrate that a drone was shot down.

The United Kingdom retains sovereignty over RAF Lakenheath and its airspace. British police have statutory powers concerning prohibited places and unlawful unmanned-aircraft activity. American forces possess security responsibilities under the visiting-forces arrangements, but those responsibilities do not amount to unrestricted authority to use destructive force.

Whether a drone may lawfully be disabled or destroyed depends on the personnel involved, the source and scope of their authority, the nature of the threat, and the circumstances of the proposed intervention. The NATO SOFA, British legislation, relevant bilateral arrangements, and rules governing the use of force must be considered together. An unauthorized flight may justify intervention, but it does not make every method of intervention lawful.

References

Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces (1951) Signed at London, 19 June 1951. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1951/06/19/agreement (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Ministry of Defence Prohibited Places) Regulations 2026 (2026) SI 2026/64. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/64/pdfs/uksi_20260064_en.pdf (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (RAF Lakenheath, Norfolk) (Emergency) Regulations 2026 (2026) SI 2026/1176. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1176/pdfs/uksi_20261176_en.pdf (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 (2021) c. 12. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/12/contents (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Armed Forces Bill (2026) Bill as amended on Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2026.

Available at: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/68228/documents/8938 (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Brooke-Holland, L., Mills, C. and Loft, P. (2026) US military forces in the UK: Legal agreements. House of Commons Library Research Briefing SN06808, 2 March. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/SN06808/ (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944) Adopted at Chicago, 7 December 1944; entered into force 4 April 1947. ICAO Doc 7300. Available at: https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/2025-02/7300_orig.pdf (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Criminal Damage Act 1971 (1971) c. 48. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/contents (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Criminal Law Act 1967 (1967) c. 58. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/contents (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Grierson, J. (2024) ‘Unidentified drones spotted over three UK airbases, US air force confirms’, The Guardian, 23 November [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/23/unidentified-drones-spotted-over-three-uk-airbases-us-air-force-confirms (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Haynes, D. (2026) ‘US military responds to “suspected unauthorised drone activity” at UK air base’, Sky News, 13 November [online]. Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/us-personnel-forced-to-shelter-at-uk-air-base-after-suspected-unauthorised-drone-activity-13611986 (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Home Office (2026) ‘Written answer to House of Lords question HL4203’, 2 November [online]. Available at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-10-19/hl4203 (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

House of Commons (2026) ‘United Kingdom Military Installations’, Hansard, 12 November [online]. Available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-11-12/debates/0573E903-BD37-4461-B7D4-96648694C09F/details (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (n.d.) Protocol relating to an amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Article 3 bis): Status of parties [online]. Available at: https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/secretariat/legal/CurrentListofParties/3bis_EN.pdf (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Ministry of Defence (2016) Freedom of Information response FOI2016/04194, 27 May [online]. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a800e5240f0b62305b88e7f/CAS_FOI_2016_04194___Information__UK_Bases_are_made_available_to_the_United_States_Visiting_Forces__USVF__is_the_NATO_Status_of_Forces_agreement__SOFA__of_1951.pdf (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Ministry of Defence (2026) ‘New powers for Defence personnel to defeat drones following doubling of incidents near bases’, 2 February [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-defence-personnel-to-defeat-drones-following-doubling-of-incidents-near-bases (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

National Security Act 2023 (2023) c. 32. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/32/pdfs/ukpga_20230032_en.pdf (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Police Act 1997 (1997) c. 50. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/50/contents (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Protocol Relating to an Amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Article 3 bis) (1984) Adopted at Montreal, 10 May 1984; entered into force 1 October 1998. ICAO Doc 9436. Available at: https://store.icao.int/en/protocol-relating-to-an-amendment-to-the-convention-on-international-civil-aviation-article-3-bis-doc-9436 (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Reuters (2026) ‘US Air Force responds to suspected drone activity over UK airbase’, 13 November [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/us-military-responds-suspected-drone-activity-raf-lakenheath-base-uk-sky-news-2026-11-13/ (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Sky News (2026) ‘US aircraft moved from RAF Mildenhall over reported threat from Iran’, 10 November [online]. Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/us-aircraft-moved-from-raf-mildenhall-over-reported-threat-from-iran-13610466 (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Taunton, S. (2020) ‘48FW and RAF jointly test counter-small unmanned aerial systems’, 48th Fighter Wing Public Affairs, 30 October [online]. Available at: https://www.lakenheath.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2399641/48fw-and-raf-jointly-test-counter-small-unmanned-aerial-systems/ (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

UK Parliament (2026) ‘Armed Forces Bill: Stages’ [online]. Available at: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4065/stages (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

United States Air Force (n.d.) ‘48th Operations Group’, RAF Lakenheath Fact Sheets [online]. Available at: https://www.lakenheath.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/297477/48th-operations-group/ (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

United States Army (2020) ‘Understanding USAG RP FPCON status’, 7 January [online]. Available at: https://www.army.mil/article/231460 (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Visiting Forces Act 1952 (1952) c. 67. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1952/67/pdfs/ukpga_19520067_en.pdf (Accessed: 14 November 2026).

Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999 (1999) SI 1999/1736. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1736/made/data.html (Accessed: 14 November 2026).