I will try to offer some additional doctrinal baseline.
We can get very wrapped up with differences between Reconnaissance and Surveillance and then have long, passionate debates about Target Acquisition. The fairly new Sense - The Operational Function offers that: Reconnaissance is finding something; Surveillance is watching for something; and Target Acquisition is finding something with enough accuracy to trigger engagement. So what? Some systems might be hyper-specialized for one of those tasks, but most could potentially do all of them.
Our ISTAR doctrine tells us that it is a grouping and a process. It is really a process at the end of the day that serves three purposes:
a. provide situational awareness (Sensor: Gr 123456, 1 x T72S Battalion moving SE (unspoken FYI at the end) - Action at CP: "Oh crap")
b. support to targeting (Sensor: "1 x T72S Battalion in TAI 401" - Action at CP "Engage TAI 401 as per AGM!"
c. support to commander's decision-making (Sensor: "1 x T72S Bn in NAI 401 heading SE" - Comd "Launch the Countermoves to KZ A1!"
Armoured Recce elements can perform all three purposes and can execute reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition tasks. They are also more than just parts of the ISTAR process, even if they are grouped as an ISTAR organization (yes, I was in an ISTAR Company in Afg).
Going to Ground Manouevre Reconnaissance, we recognize:
a. Combat Recce - collection of info below unit level engaged in close combat - perhaps a Cbt Tm in an advance guard
b. Close Recce - "platform-neutral" recce tasks conducted by recce elements with a BG Area of Interest (so BG/Inf Recce Pl)
c. Medium Recce - Mounted Recce tasked at the Bde and Div levels in support of operations
d. Long-Range Recce - collection of info beyond the limits of medium recce (so Corps, Theatre etc, TMZ, Entertainment Tonight)
Some of these definitions approach tautology, but they do make the distinction of who the recce element is serving, which is useful. I do not get excited about the difference between reconnaissance and surveillance in a Recce Sqn. They are all Screen mission task verbs at the end of the day and the sqn has TTPs to accomplish the task. Coyotes or the forthcoming LAV Recce variant can do great work in an OP (surveillance), but they can certainly conduct route, area, point (although this getting into the infantry recce platoon's area) and zone recce as well.
Regarding the need for armoured recce (and indeed all ground manoeuvre reconnaissance) in the modern age I turn to Stephen Biddle's 2002 study of the initial phases of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. This resonates with me today as well as it did 20 (?!?) years ago:
"At Op ANACONDA in March 2002, an intensive pre-battle reconnaissance effort focused every available surveillance and target acquisition system on a tiny ten-by-ten kilometer battlefield. Yet fewer than 50 percent of all the al Queda positions ultimately identified in the course of the fighting on this battlefield were discovered prior to ground contact. In fact, most fire received by US forces came from initially unseen, unanticipated al Queda fighting positions...How could such things happen in an era of persistent reconnaissance drones, airborne radars, satellite surveillance, thermal imaging and hypersensitive electronic eavesdropping? The answer is that the earth's surface remains an extremely complex environment with an abundance of natural and manmade cover and concealment available for those militaries capable of exploiting it."
My takeaway is that UAVs and other sensors are absolutely useful, but they will not find everything. You could then just go with combat reconnaissance, leading with combat teams and trusting to armour and firepower. That can work, but it can also lead to decisive engagement/culmination at the time determined by the enemy instead of us. Armoured Recce, employing stealth, manouevre and sensors can both tell you about the ground in front of you as well as risking the smallest amount of force to enemy kill zones and countermoves. That is not just "recce by death." While some General once said "Ask me for anything but time"; there is also the truism "Time spent in recce is seldom wasted." Given some time, armoured recce can tell you what's in front without having simply trundle down the road to their death. We've seen the apparent results of that method in the current war.
On this site we tend to focus on equipment and organization, since a quick visit to the google-machine gives us lots of data. I think we also need to talk about training and doctrine.
