# Ensuring Continued Relevance of LRSU



## EATIII (Dec 16, 2006)

This is a Great Wealth of Info & In site to LRS,And the most current & up to date that I have found.It is a 169 pages so take your time to fully absorb & appreciate!

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=299


Collection Master of Military Art and Science Theses

Title Ensuring the continued relevance of long range surveillance units. 
Author Keaveny, Valery C., Jr. 
Abstract Long Range Surveillance Units (LRSUs) provide a unique and necessary capability to today’s commanders and to commanders who will fight in the future. In looking to the future operational environment, LRSUs must ensure their ability to operate across the full spectrum of operations at a rapid tempo and in a short-notice, force projection Army. Current LRSU doctrine is primarily built around the AirLand Battle doctrine of the Cold War, a conventional threat, linear battlefield, and employment at great distances behind enemy lines. As a result, LRSU doctrine and Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) require update or change. These changes will ensure continued LRSU relevance and their maximum effectiveness. This study identifies an increased and unaddressed emphasis on target acquisition, Stability and Support Operations, and operations in urban environments. These operations lend themselves to non-traditional and creative tasking of LRSUs and will necessitate increased requirements for friendly unit coordination, vehicular insertion, and potential task organization of reconnaissance elements. This study recommends changes to doctrine, tactics, techniques, procedures, and training based on lessons learned by LRSUs on recent operational missions and the lessons of similar units. These changes require proponent leadership, LRS community teamwork, and warrant additional Army oversight and assistance.  
Keyword Long Range Surveillance Units (LRSU); AirLand Battle; Operational environment; Lessons learned; Military doctrine; Future force; Reconnaissance; Surveillance; Army Transformation; Objective force; Military intelligence; Target acquisition; Stability and support operations; Urban operations; Force projection; Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs); Teamwork; Leadership; Army  
Series Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis

Publisher Fort Leavenworth, KS : U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 
Date, Original 2002-05-31 
Date, Digital 2002-05-31 
Resource Type Textual  
Format PDF; Adobe Acrobat Reader required; 116 p.; 368 KB.  
Call number ADA 406744 
Release statement Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.  
Repository


----------



## JAFO (Dec 16, 2009)

It shows as 105 actual pages, and also as a total of 116 digitial pages for me.

I read over the doc, and near the middle and end I got the impression the author was even him self out of touch with the Army. 
Not that the pdf is not worth reading, by all means it is a very comprehensive report. But, one section and again later mentioned how the author 
thought there should be an MOS specific for recon, obviously they have never heard of 19D. 

It is a primary MOS with recon training introduced in the basic pahse of OSUT. Some thing I have heard they done away with, OSUT that is. 

SO, how can these guys write such report like this and not even be aware that their are reconnaissance troops being trained as an mos?

I guess cav scouts really are the bastard children of the army...


----------



## Mac_NZ (Dec 16, 2009)

Cheers EATIII, it's a good read.  I had glanced over it before on CALL.


----------



## pardus (Dec 16, 2009)

JAFO said:


> But, one section and again later mentioned how the author
> thought there should be an MOS specific for recon, obviously they have never heard of 19D.
> 
> It is a primary MOS with recon training introduced in the basic pahse of OSUT. Some thing I have heard they done away with, OSUT that is.
> ...


 
19D's are not LRSUs.

OSUT is still in effect.


----------



## EATIII (Dec 16, 2009)

pardus said:


> 19D's are not LRSUs.
> 
> LOL, yes you could say that!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 16, 2009)

JAFO, the 19D MOS is a CAV Scout, meaning a mounted recon unit, kind of like the USMC LAR units. That is why there are a dismounted "Infantry" troop in all RSTA's and that is why 19D's only filled the role of scouts in mech units. Light units have always used Infantry.

LRS is a different game all togetherthen a scout plt or Cav scout unit (RSTA), you would be out of your mind to compare the them to each other...


----------



## 104TN (Dec 17, 2009)

While great guys, when my old BN changed colors from INF to CAV I didn't see that the 19Ds brought anything to the table but vehicle ID skills that wasn't already possessed by our old Dco.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 17, 2009)

Don’t get me wrong I think 19D’s are GTG and have valuable skills; they are just not on the level of LRS or any other strategic reconnaissance unit. They are a mounted recon unit used in maneuver warfare. They are good at that and their mission is tough, but to claim that they are a “reconnaissance MOS” is a little far fetched IMO.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 18, 2009)

I may have some perspective here.  I was a CAAT platoon commander and a Force Reconnaissance platoon commander so I have done both kinds of reconnaissance.  I also went to the Army's Cavalry Leader's Course so I understand HOOAH.  19Ds are cavalry scouts.  While they conduct reconnaissance missions, they are not reconnaissance specialists, just like CAAT and LAR Marines.  CAAT, LAR, RSTA, Scout Platoons etc conduct mounted reconnaissance missions to locate and destroy enemy reconnaissance assets and armor units.  They are also called upon to screen guard or cover a motorized or mechanized infantry force.  19Ds, 11Bs and 0311 infantry Marines also conduct reconnaissance patrols.  There is no monopoly on reconnaissance, it is a basic doctrinal task that can be conducted by any unit.  

Certain reconnaissance missions are higher risks than other and require a higher trained and more specialized Marine/soldier.  These missions are generally higher risk because of the distance from general purpose forces.  This throws a lot of considerations into the problem such as inability to utilize supporting arms other than Close Air Support, inability to medevac out wounded personnel for several days if at all, requirement for specialized and/or clandestine insertion and extraction means such as parachuting, diving, etc, high enemy threat level, requirement for clandestine reconnaissance... you get the idea.  

CAAT/LAR/RSTA units operate ahead of general purpose forces but don't stray too far away.  LRSU and Marine Reconnaissance units will operate anywhere in the commander's area of influence or interest, which can be pretty distant depending on what level unit the reconnaissance unit is operating for.  

LRSU soldiers and Recon Marines are specialized in dismounted reconnaissance missions and are trained in special insertion and extraction means.  Both kinds of units operate well forward of general purpose forces.  There has been some blurring between the two, for example 1st Recon Battalion loaded up on HMMWVs and acted as a CAAT battalion/RSTA squadron and screened forward of 1 MEF during OIF I.  I am surprised the Army hasn't created a separate MOS for reconnaissance yet.  There is a tremendous amount of training and schooling necessary to conduct reconnaissance and we have a hard enough time getting it done even with a reconnaissance MOS.  I know when I send a Reconnaissance Marine to freefall, he will eventually be a free fall jumpmaster when he is a team leader or platoon sergeant.  You know that you or some other recon unit will get a return on that investment and don't have to worry about him going somewhere else in the fleet.  Most Recon Marines don't even go to b billets outside of SOTG/SMTB/BRC.


----------



## 104TN (Dec 18, 2009)

Great post Teuful.

I don’t know if the Army would ever create a recon MOS though. Not because there’s no interest in doing the job, but because most of the schooling inherent to recon focused units these days involves taking an 11B and sending him to schools that award a relevant ASI: Ranger, LRSLC, etc. that demonstrates he's at least been shown the proper skills. That’s kind of the Army way of doing things; take the core function and then throw badges, tabs, and letters at it.

  While this doesn’t necessarily give Army guys the career integrity say a 0321 may have, there are plenty of V coded (Ranger tab required) positions in Recon BN/PLTS, RSTAs, LRS and Pathfinder units that aren’t being filled.

  As an aside, I’ve seen some stuff that hints that the Pathfinder units may be going the way of the dodo. That doesn’t mean the Army isn’t going to need that skillset, just that a bean counter didn’t see it as being valuable enough to warrant continued funding. That’d be training I’d be dialing in on if I was a CO or 1SG in a LRS unit.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2009)

I may be wrong but I believe at one time the Army had an 11F MOS that was “light reconnaissance” I am thinking Vet Nam ara, back when the Army was heavly dependent on LRRP missions. I believe that every Briegade had a detachment or company of LRRP before they became a Division assest. 

Also something that bug’s me is that the Army did away with the Recondo course, I know they have the RSLC now but it’s a very short course. I believe Recondo was 6 to 8 weeks long and was 100% focused on light reconnaissance.

I do believe the Army will devlope a true SR mos eventally, a lot of the new RSTA stuff has been tossing the idea of a SR mos need. How long that will be, nobody will know.

As for LRS going away? It’s never going to happen, they may rename it or roll it over to be atteched to a RSTA or what ever hair brained idea/name they come up with, but the mission will always be there…:2c:


----------



## AWP (Dec 18, 2009)

Big Army tried to kill LRS a few years ago (or greatly reduce it in size); I think G/143 was a casualty of this (though it has since returned). The Army either needs a separate MOS for LRS or a "super ASI." For better or for worse the Guard retains LRS soldiers for about forever while Big Army will just rotate guys in and out of the community. LRS could also use a former assessment and selection process (run it twice a year with cadre from LRSLC or whatever it is called). The Army could, with minimal resources, have LRS "come into it's own" but the sad reality is that LRS will be seen as some RSTA offshoot/ attachment by many commanders. Conventional Army hates anything that is "special" or different and it shows.


----------



## Red_Reign_Six (Jun 15, 2011)

Well, this is quite the Necropost!  I sure hope the LRS-concept stays around.  Tracks can't go everywhere.  LPC's can (Leather Personnel Carriers - boots)  Quiet, stealthy movement trumps a loud motor.  I understand we can't carry as much as a vehicle, but every piece of gears needs to be mission-related.  20 years ago in the Gulf,  they reluctantly gave us HUMVEEs when we pointed out that the SF team we were OPCON'd to had 'em.    I hope the guys today are doing better than we were!  Rant over.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 15, 2011)

JAB said:


> I may be wrong but I believe at one time the Army had an 11F MOS that was “light reconnaissance” I am thinking Vet Nam ara, ...



JAB, you are absolutely right about 11F, first time I heard about it was last Friday when I was interviewing someone on some topics related to EXINT.


----------

