Information Warfare: Long Range Surveillance Teams
October 1, 2026: Long-range reconnaissance units have been a staple of military operations for thousands of years. The U.S. Army's current LRS (Long Range Surveillance) units are used by military intelligence units. They are highly trained surveillance units for obtaining information from deep within hostile territory.
Long Range Surveillance units are trained and equipped to operate deep inside enemy territory, where they build a hide site and provide continuous surveillance/special reconnaissance of an intelligence target. LRS teams allow 24-hour surveillance and analysis coverage, unlike large drones, manned aircraft, and most satellites, which usually provide limited coverage. If they are not discovered, they typically remain in position for up to 5 days, depending on available food and water supplies. LRS units operate up to 100 kilometers from friendly territory for up to five days.
Before LRS, radio made the LRRP (Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol) possible. With a radio, a small unit of men could sneak deep into enemy territory and report back what they found. Starting in World War II, numerous LRRP units were formed for this kind of dangerous work. In the United States Army, LRRPs went in and out of fashion depending on whether a war was on. Some LRRP units formed during World War II were disbanded after the war. The same thing happened during the Korean War, although two LRRP companies were created in 1958 for missions deep into Russian-controlled territory. LRRPs sprang up spontaneously in Vietnam. All but two companies were disbanded after the war, and these two companies were used in 1974 to form the Ranger Regiment. But in the early 1980s, as the U.S. Army took troop quality and training more seriously, the need for LRRPs returned. This time, the drill was a little different. The units were called LRSUs (Long Range Surveillance Units) and generally operated in four-man teams, rather than the 8-12-man LRRP units. Better equipment and the ability to send the patrols deeper made smaller units more effective. LRSUs are expected to stay out there for up to 30 days at a time. LRSUs have been used in every American conflict of the late 20th century. LRSUs have also been used in anti-drug and anti-terrorist operations. While still trained to fight, long-range scouts receive even more intensive instruction on staying hidden. Being a LRSU is considered on a par with Rangers or Special Forces, if only because LRSUs often enter an area before any of those other elite troops.
LRSUs evolved from the American Army’s LRRPS, but unlike US Army Ranger units, LRSUs carry out passive intelligence-gathering missions and are not equipped for offensive combat operations. LLRSUs take great pains to avoid being detected. Long Range Surveillance Units provide US Army divisions and Corps with the ability to deploy highly skilled reconnaissance patrols deep into the enemy’s rear, behind enemy lines. Operating as six-man teams, Long Range Surveillance Unit teams are trained extensively in long-range communications, survival, covert observation, and various infiltration techniques. Many LRSU unit members are qualified in HALO/HAHO and combat diving skills. In certain situations, they may also engage in stay-behind operations. Units can infiltrate on foot, by aircraft, by parachute, or by small boat. Units may be deployed up to 150 miles behind enemy lines. They are expected to operate independently for up to thirty days. Team members can provide bomb damage assessments, direct artillery fire, destroy enemy anti-aircraft systems, and locate enemy troop concentrations.
Each Army Corps is authorized as a Long-Range Surveillance Company (LRSC), and each Division a Long-Range Surveillance Detachment (LRSD). Long Range Surveillance Companies have a large headquarters platoon, a communications platoon, and two patrol platoons. Long Range Surveillance Detachments have fewer teams authorized per patrol platoon. Active Army Long Range Surveillance Units are assigned to their parent unit's military intelligence (MI) unit. Army National Guard Long Range Surveillance Units are assigned to their divisional cavalry squadrons.
FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, October 01, 2026 - 02:36 pm: Edit

today: Feast of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, Patron of Aviators

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, October 01, 2026 - 02:49 pm: Edit

I am not aware of any of the US drones being used by Ukraine. We have ours, they have theirs, a lot of technology flows both ways for various reasons, and I'm the one who has championed a factory in the US producing whatever Ukraine is producing and selling it to them just to have enough for us to train and enough production capacity for a war.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, October 01, 2026 - 03:41 pm: Edit

St. Thérèse of Lisieux is also the patron of missionaries, despite the fact that she was a cloistered nun. She was mostly educated at home, and had no advanced theological training. Yet, she is the youngest person to be declared a "Doctor of the Church" and one of only 38 to be named as such in all 2000 years of Church history.

She also died at the ripe old age of 24.

So much in so short a life!

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, October 01, 2026 - 03:59 pm: Edit

SVC, I don't think there's significant corruption involved in the US inability to build cheap weapons. I think there's a misalignment of incentives and goals.

I suspect that "grow the program" and "continue the program" are rewarded and emphasized (much) more than "finish the program on time and under budget".

I am quite sure that the reward for "spend less than your budget" is "you get a smaller budget next year", while the reward for "so SNAFU that you needed an emergency increase in funding" is to get an increase next year. Which means everyone wants to spend every dime that they can.

You get what you pay for, and we quite literally pay people to spend their entire available budget without finishing their development program. But this goes back to the way Congress handles defense authorization bills. Your line item starts with "what did you spend last year" rather than "what does an independent evaluator think you should be spending this year and how efficient are you".

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, October 01, 2026 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Alan,

There are a couple I would start with… Janes publishes several that I think well of.

As far as empirical data goes, most corporations provide specifications of weapons systems that they sell to foreign governments. The C.I.A. Publish a fact sheet that profile various nations information, include some tabular data.

Perhaps I did not choose my words correctly, I was trying to point out the Economist Magazine tends to use a distinct writing style as opposed to being overly technical.

William Jockusch seemed to denigrate “Western Drones” in his post above by quoting the Economist Magazine implying that “underwhelming” was in fact inferior.

Agree with me or not, it is my opinion that the Economist is not a good reference to use in that context.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, October 01, 2026 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Well, I watch daily reports about the war. Many of the underlying sources on which the reports are based are Ukrainian. I can't remember the last time I saw anything about a US drone being used, or about Ukraine clamoring for US drones.

This is a sharp contrast with the situation for PAC interceptors or F-16 fighters. Both are American systems, and Ukraine badly wants more of both.

So sniping about sourcing is missing the forest for the trees. If US drones were effective, Ukraine would be using them and asking for them. They don't.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, October 01, 2026 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Army unit claims a first with attack drone built and flown by its own soldiers

Article in Stars and Stripes.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, October 01, 2026 - 08:57 pm: Edit

There are many kinds of drones.

Ukraine DOES practically beg for US cruise missiles which are a kind of drone and exceed the Ukrainian capability by light years. The US has big recon drones that lead the world but aren't needed where US and EU are giving Ukraine satellite data.

No one has said that Ukraine is using, asking for, or wants US drones of the smaller cheaper sorts which ten different countries make. To say that this equals "US drones are inferior" merely proves you don't understand the technology or the situation. Why would Ukraine import US-made Switchblades or Ravens when they have drones almost as good? Good enough is good enough, it doesn't prove good enough is way better.

Bill, we cut you some slack because your Ukrainian relatives make your posts polemic and grossly biased, but seriously, give it a rest. You really don't know what you don't know and ignore things you don't want to hear. Future "all Ukrainian drones are great and all US drones are crap" statements will be deleted and sanctioned. As you keep ignoring, it's WAY more complicated that any blanket statement. That's like saying "All French cars are great and all Norwegian cars are crap." Both countries make more than one kind of car.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, October 02, 2026 - 10:00 am: Edit

Carrier Strike Group Theodore Roosevelt is enroute to the Gulf, which will bring the number of CVNs there to three (along with Washington and Bush.)

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Friday, October 02, 2026 - 10:08 am: Edit

Also, CVN-79 Kennedy reached preliminary acceptance by the Navy this past Tuesday; final delivery is expected in March.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, October 02, 2026 - 11:04 am: Edit

So rings the death knell for the U.S.S. Nimitz.

For the record, I do hope the EMALs and combat munitions elevators perform better than the record the U.S.S. Bush has been able to report to date.

The last report was less than 500 successful launches between reported breakdowns. The design specification calls for 5,000 successful launches.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 02, 2026 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Reports on CNN and Fox both say that Trump will start bombing the @#%& out of Iran around the first week of November.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, October 02, 2026 - 12:46 pm: Edit

75th Rangers "1 February 1969, the final period of the existence of these units (the independent Ranger companies) began when the Department of the Army redesignated the LRP companies and detachments as lettered Ranger companies of the 75th Infantry Regiment"

Also "Detachment A (formally the 39th Special Forces Detachment) was a clandestine U.S. Army Special Forces unit stationed in West Berlin from August 1956 until its deactivation in 1984, followed by its successor identity until 1990."

Also there are 21 and 23 SAS

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, October 02, 2026 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Correction: should have typed U.S.S. Ford.

The U.S.S. Bush was the last of the Nimitz class, and did not have EMALs.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, October 02, 2026 - 10:34 pm: Edit

I hear it. You are tired of me.

However, I think there may be a misreading of intentions. I very much want the US to succeed. I am concerned about us.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, October 03, 2026 - 12:03 am: Edit

Personally, I suspect that Ukrainians are likely the best users of small drones in the field today, simply because of how many they use. I also suspect that given the daily use that they are currently the best at innovations in use being rapidly spread to other units.

Field use tends to speed this sort of thing up. If President Trump starts ground operations in Iran, I would expect US forces to rapidly get better in these areas, once we hit the field and move away from the common peace time practices of cost cutting.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, October 03, 2026 - 10:52 am: Edit

Adm, wi9th respect the DoD budget has risen at record pace.

As for drone use, we still don't know how well the US can shut down completely GPS and satellite communications.

I suspect that this 'drone age' will be short lived.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, October 03, 2026 - 11:13 am: Edit

Drones, like tanks, are just a new kind of thing and it has to be dealt with. For example, "anti-drone guns" are becoming a thing.

The problem is that the category is too broad. There are small drones and big drones, cheap drones and expensive drones, recon drones and attack drones, 5km and 35km and 350km and 3500km range, air land and sea (and undersea) drones. Any statement about drones which doesn't define the kind of drone is just going to be too broad to mean anything.

Bill, I am not tired of you, I am tired of broad sweeping statements that all Ukrainian drones are the best and all other drones are crap. Too broad a statement. US Switchblade drones, within their range and purpose limits, are every bit as good as Ukrainian and Russian drones of that category.

That's like saying my Beretta M9 is the best pistol. Lots of people would argue that the Glock this or Sig that are better, and then you have to ask "for what purpose?" Against a Grizzly Bear or a dinosaur, I would think anything short of a Desert Eagle or Casul would almost be a waste of time. Against a rabbit a 9mm would probably be overkill. Petrick's .45acp and my 9mm will both put a man down, his with one bullet from a magazine of 7, mine with two bullets from a magazine of 15. Ford vs General Motors.

Tactically, Ukraine is the most experienced, which can be defined as the best, but that's just one narrow subject.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, October 03, 2026 - 11:34 am: Edit

In other news, NBC news on September 30, 2026 interviewed the CEO of Saronic corporation.

Saronic Technologies has broken ground on Port Alpha, a massive $3.2 billion next-generation shipyard located at the Port of Brownsville in Texas.

• Location: Port of Brownsville, Texas (835 initial acres with an option to expand to nearly 4,400 acres)

• Investment: Over $3 billion in private capital, projected to generate a $264.5 billion economic impact for Texas

• Employment: Up to 10,000 direct jobs

• Groundbreaking occurred on September 30, 2026, with operations targeted to begin by the end of 2027 and the first vessels rolling off the line by late 2028

• Initial Capacity: 150,000 gross tons annually, designed to scale past 2 million gross tons over the long term
• Built to handle vessels up to 850 feet initially, scaling to over 1,200 feet

A software-defined manufacturing facility focused on building manned, autonomous, and autonomy-capable surface vessels, including U.S. Navy Landing Craft Utility (LCU) and Medium Unmanned Surface Vessels (MUSV) like the 180-foot Marauder

Not sure how long it has been since a new shipyard got built in the United States, but this is significant.

The Marauder class is supposed to be a “force multiplier” in that it will be paired with manned ships (such as a Burke class destroyer) increasing the number and type of weapons available for attack and defense.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, October 03, 2026 - 11:59 am: Edit

Getting back to the "many kinds of drones" thing, let me show you some things nobody is discussing and a few they are discussing.

We need to hit an oil refinery 1000 miles (1600km) away. Who you gonna call? US or Ukraine or for that matter EU? All have weapons that can do it. The Ukrainian Flamingo FP# can do it and costs a lot less. BUT...

Flamingos are a lot easier to shoot down. Nobody talks about how many Flamingos were sent vs how many actually hit.

A US Tomahawk is a lot more reliable. Nobody talks about the fact that if you sent a lot of Flamingos some just break down somewhere because cheap components will do that. It's baked into the system. Flamingos are cheap, you can afford to send extras. Maybe. Again, nobody knows what percentage of Flamingos fail to fly that far, failed to find the target, or get shot down. For all we know, they sent 50 every night for a week before 3 of them got there. Or maybe they sent six of them one time and 3 got there. We don't know, we cannot trust Russia, US intelligence might know but isn't going to say, and Ukraine has no reason to tell anyone how many Flamingos were sent to Kostromskya Kompnia du Gaz before three hit it. I would think Ukraine crazy if they did. Let's not make Russia's job any easier.

A US tomahawk has a known 98% chance of hitting with the first try. Flamingo, which is much cheaper, might need 2 or might need 200.

Then look at production rates "no matter the cost"? How many of each are built? (For the US not nearly enough. For Ukraine they are smart enough to not tell anyone.) Expressed another way, how many days of production is that refinery going to consume?

Based on all the factors, which is better? You can make the case either way, but in the end, does it matter? If it works, it works.

It's not one missile, it's a system of missiles. When you compare cost, production rate, reliability, accuracy, survivability, you can see it's not just one number.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, October 03, 2026 - 12:24 pm: Edit

And then it gets more fun.

One of the most profound statements I ever heard was a general who said "We no longer buy anti-aircraft guns; we acquire anti-aircraft capabilities. That might be a gun or something else."

The CIA says it can hire Russians as agents to sneak in and sabotage the control valves inside Kostromskya Kompnia du Gaz.

Israel says they can hack the Kostromskya Kompnia du Gaz's computers and set the plant to producing nothing but vodka.

The USAF says it can send a stealth bomber that the Russians will never see.

Strategic Missile Command says it can drop a non-nuclear missile with a big frakking warhead for less money than a Tomahawk, but it might spook the Russians into something you didn't want.

Space Command says it can de-orbit an old satellite and guarantee it will land in the Kostromskya Kompnia du Gaz at 34,000 miles per hour and leave little but a crater.

The Russian mob says for $25,000 it will murder the plant manager with a car bomb next to his office inside Kostromskya Kompnia du Gaz and that should get the job done.

We no longer just buy drones. We buy anti refinery systems.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, October 03, 2026 - 01:01 pm: Edit

I do agree that Ukraine would love to have US cruise missiles. I also agree that at this point we don't know whose have better value for money. HIMARS was also terrific for a time and still has value, though EW has reduced it.

Category definitions are a matter of preference. Personally I don't consider either of those "drones", but that's mostly a historical matter, and I can see how someone else could look at it differently.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, October 03, 2026 - 02:23 pm: Edit

The Flamingo is cool; a modern V-1.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, October 03, 2026 - 03:15 pm: Edit

"The Russian mob says for $25,000 it will murder the plant manager with a car bomb next to his office inside Kostromskya Kompnia du Gaz and that should get the job done."

Sounds expensive - I bet the Plant Manager could be bribed for $10,000 and a 1 way ticket to safety....

Capitalism at it's finest

...

Back on the RAF Fairford 'fun' from last weekend....

Another person has been arrested on Anti-Terrorism offences, but has been released .... (latest Person is a Dual UK/Iranian National).

So thats 6 arrest (IIRC) and all 6 on bail....

.... still don't know what happened.