Mike
13 October 2000, 17:51
Army Times, 10/16/2000
Recon school could be for battalion scouts, too
FORT BENNING, Ga. — Battalion scouts may one day be required to train at the school originally created for their long-range counterparts.
Reconnaissance proponents at Fort Benning want to create a single skill identifier for both long-range surveillance teams and scout platoons. Currently, neither group’s military occupation designates them as reconnaissance soldiers.
LRS teams operate alone, providing division and corps commanders with surveillance from deep behind enemy lines. Scout platoons provide battalion commanders with short-range reconnaissance.
While these missions would not change, the proposal would ensure that scouts receive the same formalized training as LRS soldiers at the Long-range Surveillance Leaders Course.
In the past, the 33-day course has trained a number of scouts, but their attendance has never been mandatory.
“The focus of it is, if we are going to have people doing reconnaissance, they ought to be experts,” said Col. K.K. Chinn, commander of the 4th Ranger Training Battalion, which provides support for the long-range surveillance school.
“We don’t have anything for that scout platoon leader or the scout. It’s important for any recon unit because they are the eyes and ears of a commander. It really doesn’t matter if they are scouts or LRS … it’s a valuable course to any leader.”
Officials are also looking at changing the name of the long-range surveillance course to attract broader interest. One proposal could change the name to “The Infantry’s Reconnaissance and Surveillance Course.”
“If we could change the name and add a , it sort of creates a requirement for these units to send their leaders,” said Ron Matty, infantry force design and structure project officer of the Infantry Center’s Directorate of Combat Development.
But officials are still unsure if the proposal will go beyond the planning stages.
“We don’t know if we can do it. We don’t know if the Army can afford it. We don’t know if we can afford it at the Infantry Center,” Matty said.
The intent of the plan is to keep dismounted reconnaissance and surveillance relevant at a time when the Army is creating new medium-weight fighting units that would rely heavily on mounted and unmanned reconnaissance assets.
Already, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s vision for the future Army has created new units that he hopes can be deployed with the speed of a light unit and pack the staying power of a heavy outfit.
These Brigade Combat Teams would be equipped with a reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition squadron to provide situational awareness. Each squadron would have scouts riding in medium-weight, armored vehicles as well as a surveillance troop responsible for operating unmanned aerial vehicles and remote ground sensors.
The new concept has many in the LRS community concerned that the Army of the future will become too dependent upon scouts that rarely dismount from their vehicles and high-tech hardware that is not immune to adverse conditions such as weather.
Commanders in the field “have got to have that 24-hour, all-day, all-terrain asset,” said Capt. Tony Turpin, commander of the Long-range Surveillance Leaders Course and former commander of the 2nd Infantry Division’s LRS detachment in Korea. “What we are trying to say is, you have to have that human element on the ground. He can tell you it’s a burnt-out tractor and not a T72 tank.”
Col. Jim Stone, who is spearheading the infantry side of the transformation as director of Combat Development, said that while units like LRS detachments are not being worked into these new brigades, it isn’t likely the need for dismounted reconnaissance will go away at the division and corps levels.
“There is a common misconception with some people that means better sensors and artificial intelligence,” he said. “I believe this is a good time to look at LRS. What is our human intel requirement?”
After Operation Desert Storm, there was less of a need for long-range surveillance, officials said, prompting the Army to do away with the Q6 skill identifier for LRS soldiers.
But there is no ignoring the need for professionally training reconnaissance and surveillance units after the initial damage reports from the 78-day air campaign in Kosovo turned out to be largely inaccurate, Turpin said.
Officials had first thought the 2,000 sorties had destroyed 93 tanks, 153 armored personnel carriers and 389 mortars and artillery systems.
“The revised bomb damage assessment, once the Munitions Effectiveness Assessment Team went in, was 14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 mortars and artillery systems,” Turpin said.
Because of this, there is also a proposal to add damage assessment and target acquisition to the curriculum at the Long-range Surveillance Course, in addition to bringing back the Q6 skill identifier and the proposed name change.
“There is still a need for the human intel on the ground,” Turpin said. “It has been in the past and will be in the future.” he said.
Recon school could be for battalion scouts, too
FORT BENNING, Ga. — Battalion scouts may one day be required to train at the school originally created for their long-range counterparts.
Reconnaissance proponents at Fort Benning want to create a single skill identifier for both long-range surveillance teams and scout platoons. Currently, neither group’s military occupation designates them as reconnaissance soldiers.
LRS teams operate alone, providing division and corps commanders with surveillance from deep behind enemy lines. Scout platoons provide battalion commanders with short-range reconnaissance.
While these missions would not change, the proposal would ensure that scouts receive the same formalized training as LRS soldiers at the Long-range Surveillance Leaders Course.
In the past, the 33-day course has trained a number of scouts, but their attendance has never been mandatory.
“The focus of it is, if we are going to have people doing reconnaissance, they ought to be experts,” said Col. K.K. Chinn, commander of the 4th Ranger Training Battalion, which provides support for the long-range surveillance school.
“We don’t have anything for that scout platoon leader or the scout. It’s important for any recon unit because they are the eyes and ears of a commander. It really doesn’t matter if they are scouts or LRS … it’s a valuable course to any leader.”
Officials are also looking at changing the name of the long-range surveillance course to attract broader interest. One proposal could change the name to “The Infantry’s Reconnaissance and Surveillance Course.”
“If we could change the name and add a , it sort of creates a requirement for these units to send their leaders,” said Ron Matty, infantry force design and structure project officer of the Infantry Center’s Directorate of Combat Development.
But officials are still unsure if the proposal will go beyond the planning stages.
“We don’t know if we can do it. We don’t know if the Army can afford it. We don’t know if we can afford it at the Infantry Center,” Matty said.
The intent of the plan is to keep dismounted reconnaissance and surveillance relevant at a time when the Army is creating new medium-weight fighting units that would rely heavily on mounted and unmanned reconnaissance assets.
Already, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s vision for the future Army has created new units that he hopes can be deployed with the speed of a light unit and pack the staying power of a heavy outfit.
These Brigade Combat Teams would be equipped with a reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition squadron to provide situational awareness. Each squadron would have scouts riding in medium-weight, armored vehicles as well as a surveillance troop responsible for operating unmanned aerial vehicles and remote ground sensors.
The new concept has many in the LRS community concerned that the Army of the future will become too dependent upon scouts that rarely dismount from their vehicles and high-tech hardware that is not immune to adverse conditions such as weather.
Commanders in the field “have got to have that 24-hour, all-day, all-terrain asset,” said Capt. Tony Turpin, commander of the Long-range Surveillance Leaders Course and former commander of the 2nd Infantry Division’s LRS detachment in Korea. “What we are trying to say is, you have to have that human element on the ground. He can tell you it’s a burnt-out tractor and not a T72 tank.”
Col. Jim Stone, who is spearheading the infantry side of the transformation as director of Combat Development, said that while units like LRS detachments are not being worked into these new brigades, it isn’t likely the need for dismounted reconnaissance will go away at the division and corps levels.
“There is a common misconception with some people that means better sensors and artificial intelligence,” he said. “I believe this is a good time to look at LRS. What is our human intel requirement?”
After Operation Desert Storm, there was less of a need for long-range surveillance, officials said, prompting the Army to do away with the Q6 skill identifier for LRS soldiers.
But there is no ignoring the need for professionally training reconnaissance and surveillance units after the initial damage reports from the 78-day air campaign in Kosovo turned out to be largely inaccurate, Turpin said.
Officials had first thought the 2,000 sorties had destroyed 93 tanks, 153 armored personnel carriers and 389 mortars and artillery systems.
“The revised bomb damage assessment, once the Munitions Effectiveness Assessment Team went in, was 14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 mortars and artillery systems,” Turpin said.
Because of this, there is also a proposal to add damage assessment and target acquisition to the curriculum at the Long-range Surveillance Course, in addition to bringing back the Q6 skill identifier and the proposed name change.
“There is still a need for the human intel on the ground,” Turpin said. “It has been in the past and will be in the future.” he said.