Do militarily used drones mark a new NATO airspace test across Germany and Belgium?
{loadposition bannertop}
{loadposition sidebarpub}
Drone sightings forced repeated halts at Munich Airport on Oct. 4, with flights only gradually resuming. A confidential police assessment cited by Reuters said drones near Munich were “used militarily” amid wider sightings at European airfields and training areas.
On Saturday, 4th of October 2025, repeated drone sightings again disrupted operations around Munich, capping a week in which unmanned aircraft appeared over or near several European airfields and training areas. In a confidential police report referenced by Reuters, authorities assessed that the drones seen near Munich were “used militarily,” a phrasing that underscores concerns about intent and capability as reported by Reuters.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link
What stands out from the week’s reporting is consistency: brief drone appearances timed to force caution at airports, incursions over military training zones, and sequences that ripple from Denmark to Germany to Belgium (Picture source: South Korean MoD/Yelim Lee)
The pattern has shifted from isolated incidents to a tempo of short, recurring overflights that touch both civilian hubs and military-adjacent sites. At Munich Airport, both runways were closed twice within 24 hours, resulting in dozens of cancellations and diversions and leaving around 11,500 passengers stranded over two evenings, with operations only gradually resuming the next day. Authorities also confirmed drones over the nearby Erding military base, which hosts Bundeswehr drone R&D activities, while Germany’s interior leadership spoke of an “arms race,” pledging new counter-UAS units and proposing legal changes to facilitate military assistance in shooting down hostile drones.
Witness reports around Munich described drones transiting near the runways in brief windows that forced precautionary holds and diversions. Local assessments circulating among authorities characterized the sightings as only the beginning of a wider phenomenon, with the Munich activity portrayed as the “tip of the iceberg,” language echoed in media accounts of a confidential police report, as reported by Reuters. Within those accounts, several drones were described as being configured or operated in ways consistent with reconnaissance rather than hobbyist flights, while police also noted at least one unrelated case of a hobbyist near Frankfurt facing penalties, indicating a mixed threat environment.
Elsewhere, Belgium recorded coordinated overflights at the Elsenborn training area near the German border. According to reports, around 15 drones were detected by chance at approximately 01:45 on Friday during a routine test of surveillance equipment above the Elsenborn base, which spans 28 square kilometres and serves as a principal army training camp. An investigation by Belgium’s defence authorities is under way, with some local reporting suggesting the aircraft may have crossed in from Germany, as reported by Euronews.
Although flight durations were short and altitudes modest, the repeated appearances suggested purposeful observation of routines on a range that is integrated into Allied training calendars. The timing of the Elsenborn incidents aligned with broader European airspace disruptions, Munich’s closures included the cancellation of at least 17 flights on Thursday night, fueling debate among EU leaders about a “drone wall” along the eastern flank.
In Denmark, sightings were logged in the vicinity of airports with dual civilian–military roles, including locations close to airbases that host key air force assets. In response, authorities imposed a nationwide prohibition on civilian drone flights during the week of high-level EU meetings, citing security considerations and recent incursions near Copenhagen that prompted a four-hour airspace closure. Officials warned that violations of the ban could lead to fines or imprisonment of up to two years, and NATO moved additional surveillance and an air-defence frigate to support Danish airspace security.
Looking at the operational arc, this wave resembles a second phase in Europe’s drone-sighting history. The first phase, several years ago, was defined by sporadic reports that were often ambiguous and localized. The current phase features clustered, multi-day appearances separated by short pauses, with a visible preference for airports, military training sites, logistics nodes, and the seams between them. That progression hints at operators who are mapping routines: how quickly flight operations pause, what sensor cues trigger a response, and where ground teams deploy when a drone is called in, patterns mirrored in Germany’s closures, Belgium’s multi-drone detection over a large training area, and Denmark’s pre-emptive national restrictions.
Geographiclly, Southern Germany’s air and rail corridors link Munich’s civilian hub to U.S./NATO training complexes at Grafenwöhr and Hohenfels in Bavaria, with Ramstein Air Base farther west on the same reinforcement axis; in Belgium, ranges like Elsenborn lie within short reach of NATO HQ (Brussels), SHAPE (Mons), and U.S. APS-2 at Zutendaal; in Denmark, dual-use airports sit near key air bases that were on heightened alert following drone sightings.
What stands out from the week’s reporting is consistency: brief drone appearances timed to force caution at airports, incursions over military training zones, and sequences that ripple from Denmark to Germany to Belgium. The through line is access to the same shared air corridors and nodes used by NATO and U.S. forces, not dramatic stunts or public claims of responsibility. That quiet, persistent pressure tells its own story. It signals operators who are patient, adaptive, and focused on learning the rhythms of Europe’s busiest and most strategically relevant airspace, precisely where civilian schedules and Alliance movements converge.
Written by Teoman S. Nicanci – Defense Analyst, Army Recognition Group
Teoman S. Nicanci holds degrees in Political Science, Comparative and International Politics, and International Relations and Diplomacy from leading Belgian universities, with research focused on Russian strategic behavior, defense technology, and modern warfare. He is a defense analyst at Army Recognition, specializing in the global defense industry, military armament, and emerging defense technologies.
{loadposition bannertop}
{loadposition sidebarpub}
Drone sightings forced repeated halts at Munich Airport on Oct. 4, with flights only gradually resuming. A confidential police assessment cited by Reuters said drones near Munich were “used militarily” amid wider sightings at European airfields and training areas.
On Saturday, 4th of October 2025, repeated drone sightings again disrupted operations around Munich, capping a week in which unmanned aircraft appeared over or near several European airfields and training areas. In a confidential police report referenced by Reuters, authorities assessed that the drones seen near Munich were “used militarily,” a phrasing that underscores concerns about intent and capability as reported by Reuters.
What stands out from the week’s reporting is consistency: brief drone appearances timed to force caution at airports, incursions over military training zones, and sequences that ripple from Denmark to Germany to Belgium (Picture source: South Korean MoD/Yelim Lee)
The pattern has shifted from isolated incidents to a tempo of short, recurring overflights that touch both civilian hubs and military-adjacent sites. At Munich Airport, both runways were closed twice within 24 hours, resulting in dozens of cancellations and diversions and leaving around 11,500 passengers stranded over two evenings, with operations only gradually resuming the next day. Authorities also confirmed drones over the nearby Erding military base, which hosts Bundeswehr drone R&D activities, while Germany’s interior leadership spoke of an “arms race,” pledging new counter-UAS units and proposing legal changes to facilitate military assistance in shooting down hostile drones.
Witness reports around Munich described drones transiting near the runways in brief windows that forced precautionary holds and diversions. Local assessments circulating among authorities characterized the sightings as only the beginning of a wider phenomenon, with the Munich activity portrayed as the “tip of the iceberg,” language echoed in media accounts of a confidential police report, as reported by Reuters. Within those accounts, several drones were described as being configured or operated in ways consistent with reconnaissance rather than hobbyist flights, while police also noted at least one unrelated case of a hobbyist near Frankfurt facing penalties, indicating a mixed threat environment.
Elsewhere, Belgium recorded coordinated overflights at the Elsenborn training area near the German border. According to reports, around 15 drones were detected by chance at approximately 01:45 on Friday during a routine test of surveillance equipment above the Elsenborn base, which spans 28 square kilometres and serves as a principal army training camp. An investigation by Belgium’s defence authorities is under way, with some local reporting suggesting the aircraft may have crossed in from Germany, as reported by Euronews.
Although flight durations were short and altitudes modest, the repeated appearances suggested purposeful observation of routines on a range that is integrated into Allied training calendars. The timing of the Elsenborn incidents aligned with broader European airspace disruptions, Munich’s closures included the cancellation of at least 17 flights on Thursday night, fueling debate among EU leaders about a “drone wall” along the eastern flank.
In Denmark, sightings were logged in the vicinity of airports with dual civilian–military roles, including locations close to airbases that host key air force assets. In response, authorities imposed a nationwide prohibition on civilian drone flights during the week of high-level EU meetings, citing security considerations and recent incursions near Copenhagen that prompted a four-hour airspace closure. Officials warned that violations of the ban could lead to fines or imprisonment of up to two years, and NATO moved additional surveillance and an air-defence frigate to support Danish airspace security.
Looking at the operational arc, this wave resembles a second phase in Europe’s drone-sighting history. The first phase, several years ago, was defined by sporadic reports that were often ambiguous and localized. The current phase features clustered, multi-day appearances separated by short pauses, with a visible preference for airports, military training sites, logistics nodes, and the seams between them. That progression hints at operators who are mapping routines: how quickly flight operations pause, what sensor cues trigger a response, and where ground teams deploy when a drone is called in, patterns mirrored in Germany’s closures, Belgium’s multi-drone detection over a large training area, and Denmark’s pre-emptive national restrictions.
Geographiclly, Southern Germany’s air and rail corridors link Munich’s civilian hub to U.S./NATO training complexes at Grafenwöhr and Hohenfels in Bavaria, with Ramstein Air Base farther west on the same reinforcement axis; in Belgium, ranges like Elsenborn lie within short reach of NATO HQ (Brussels), SHAPE (Mons), and U.S. APS-2 at Zutendaal; in Denmark, dual-use airports sit near key air bases that were on heightened alert following drone sightings.
What stands out from the week’s reporting is consistency: brief drone appearances timed to force caution at airports, incursions over military training zones, and sequences that ripple from Denmark to Germany to Belgium. The through line is access to the same shared air corridors and nodes used by NATO and U.S. forces, not dramatic stunts or public claims of responsibility. That quiet, persistent pressure tells its own story. It signals operators who are patient, adaptive, and focused on learning the rhythms of Europe’s busiest and most strategically relevant airspace, precisely where civilian schedules and Alliance movements converge.
Written by Teoman S. Nicanci – Defense Analyst, Army Recognition Group
Teoman S. Nicanci holds degrees in Political Science, Comparative and International Politics, and International Relations and Diplomacy from leading Belgian universities, with research focused on Russian strategic behavior, defense technology, and modern warfare. He is a defense analyst at Army Recognition, specializing in the global defense industry, military armament, and emerging defense technologies.
