Aircraft Camouflage

[THEJETDEMON 0]

So what is your view on this topic?

[Longestpants 1]

MARPAT is a lot harder to see, so I think it's a pretty good indicator of what direction we could be taking.

[Bounder 0]

digi pattern is far from new,we had them during Desert Storm ,the "desert parka"was general issue to all ground troops back in the 90's(it was meet with mixed results)

 

Below the marpat that was mentioned prior

 

 

Edited June 29, 2008 by Bounder

[JediMaster 451]

I don't know how effective it will be on aircraft, but one thing I can guarantee...it will look uglier, just like the uniforms!

[THEJETDEMON 0]

[eraser_tr 29]

Yeah we need a change. Ghost grey and/or gunship grey overall is pretty boring looking. Kinda takes the personality out of planes.

 

Kinda impractical and does less to camouflage a plane with sophisticated WWI/WW2 like artwork, but we should use something to keep aircraft interesting, like SEA or Euro camo from the cold war.

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

I voted yes, because low viz is for me the ennemy of handsomeness of planes!

[GodSaveTheUSA73 0]

the biggest problem with most zommies going digi or anything too excentric....it when they turn silhouette, they stand out like a sore thumb. for our A-10s, i see it as a bad idea for that reason only....but the grey is getting old and fast. i still think more research should be done to figure something out though. i'm all for a scheme change, but that is the only reason we haven't.

 

tony

[Bounder 0]

Well ppl seem to grow into a Cammo Pattern , I remember when we went from leaf pattern to BDU's PPL hated the change. Do you know we just deleted the BDU just last April,as well as the brown tee shirts. Now a uniform is easy to replace,just think the problems in changing equipment cammo.So far on the ground I have only seem two digi hummers,they looked cool ,but wierd all at the same time.

 

Edited June 30, 2008 by Bounder

[THEJETDEMON 0]

but if you were above an airplane with digi camo and you look down at it, the camo breaks the sillouette of the fighter

[Bounder 0]

well no matter how good the cammo is the human eye will detect movment way before it detects patterns,these days cammo on fast movers is realy for the ramp. It dose seem to work on rotory/helos. Now if your going about the same speed , and the opfor AC is below you it will have some positive effects.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Bounder

[+Typhoid 231]

I think the F-22 camo is already digital

[FastCargo 412]

Effective camoflage on aircraft are dependent on a whole buttload of factors...everything from time of day to what direction you are flying.

 

Visual camoflage has always been more an art than a science...some of the things that sound obvious on the ground are totally invalid in the air.

 

Some famous examples:

 

In WWII, the Luftwaffe figured out pretty quickly that the most effective night camo wasn't black, but a light blue...

 

The F-15 initially came out in a robin egg blue...which was quickly replaced by a all over grey in Europe when it was discovered that sky blue is great in Fort Worth...not so effective in the European theatre.

 

One of the hardest colors to see the skies over Texas isn't grey...but white. Yep, one of the most visible colors in the spectrum was actually very difficult to pick out during the Texas summer due to the haze...

 

Bounder is correct...the human eye picks up movement far sooner than contrast in most situations. And why 'pause and peer' works better than 'pan and scan'.

 

FastCargo

[Rambler 1-1 9]

I think camo should be used, but it should be changed depending on the task of the planes. Make high-fliers light blue, make mud-runners camo, make euro planes low-vis and make Navy planed blue. Maybe if they could devise a variable camouflage system or something.

[+Typhoid 231]

I think camo should be used, but it should be changed depending on the task of the planes. Make high-fliers light blue, make mud-runners camo, make euro planes low-vis and make Navy planed blue. Maybe if they could devise a variable camouflage system or something.

 

that is pretty much how its done.

[Viggen 644]

If anyone can find a picture of F/A-18C BuNo 164960 from VFA-195 (Modex is 406 I believe) during CVW-5's time in OSW, that is the camo I think should be used.

Edited July 1, 2008 by JA 37 Viggen

[Rambler 1-1 9]

that is pretty much how its done.

 

then how come all the fighters and bombers I see these days are low-vis grey?

[+Typhoid 231]

then how come all the fighters and bombers I see these days are low-vis grey?

 

it varies so far as I know. The Navy ones are different from the USAF ones, or at least they used to be. For the aircraft primarily tasked for air to air their vis is different from the low and slow guys and again from the airlift/tankers. Not to mention the B-2 "Burnt Black".

[+Jug 99]

it varies so far as I know. The Navy ones are different from the USAF ones, or at least they used to be. For the aircraft primarily tasked for air to air their vis is different from the low and slow guys and again from the airlift/tankers. Not to mention the B-2 "Burnt Black".

 

It is my opinion that camo must be matched against the most likely threat to the aircraft. A-10's are down in the mud and their most direct threat is from ground fire. It makes sense to use the current light grey scheme to blend with the clouds and sky when they can. Jets which pick up the CAP role, need camo to help them when the fight gets out of the BVR arena, so, grey appears to be their best bet. Fast moving ground pounders need camo to keep the fighters off of them, but they spend quite a bit of time upside down in the fight zone, so full surround camo seems a good fit for them. Digital or traditional schemes should be the choice following some sort of vision acquisition testing. Remember that the paint job adds a surprising amount of weight to the aircraft, so camo must be selected to accomplish a defensive function against the most likely threat for the aircraft's most likely mission. I have even had the thought that a fighter looking for a visual target most often acquires his ground attack target by finding the aircraft's shadow on the ground, so a black paint job for the fast moving dirt movers might be best. You know, which one's the shadow? At the end of the stream is any esthetic need for camo of any type. This is military equipment and esthetic appeal plays no part in the fight.

 

However cool I think digital is (and I do), the dudes that describe standardized paint jobs, evidently, need a little more.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Jug

[JediMaster 451]

It seems to me that the largest threat to most air vehicles has been and will continue to be ADA and SAMs. I don't think anti-air camo should really even be worried about to the same extent.

[+Typhoid 231]

It seems to me that the largest threat to most air vehicles has been and will continue to be ADA and SAMs. I don't think anti-air camo should really even be worried about to the same extent.

 

actually it is very important. don't forget those optical sights!

 

also, many of the systems rely on a variety of technologies to acquire and track the aircraft. Those can be partly defeated or at least degraded by various cameo schemes.

 

without using current technologies as an example (ahem...)

 

waaaaay back in WWII the ship cameo patterns were designed to do two things. One was to hide the ship of course in the murky visual environment of whatever theater they were operating in. (North Atlantic schemes were somewhat different than the South Pacific.....) But even then, the cameo put false bows onto the pattern in order to confuse the range finders and throw off the shot.

 

same thing, to some degree, happens with current cameo patterns. They are designed to defeat or degrade not just visual acquisition by a pilot, but also gunners on the ground and the EO systems that try to visually track aircraft.

[JediMaster 451]

No, what I mean is camo should be tailored to prevent sighting from the ground as opposed to air-air sightings because that's where the majority of combat losses have come from since the end of Vietnam. How many A-10s have had to evade a MiG? How many A-6s? Now how many of those have had to evade AAA and SAMs? Seems worrying about an enemy fighter getting a visual on you is secondary for now, at least until we see a conflict where the enemy has a significant fighter presence. When that happens, we can easily repaint them quick enough anyway.

[+Typhoid 231]

No, what I mean is camo should be tailored to prevent sighting from the ground as opposed to air-air sightings because that's where the majority of combat losses have come from since the end of Vietnam. How many A-10s have had to evade a MiG? How many A-6s? Now how many of those have had to evade AAA and SAMs? Seems worrying about an enemy fighter getting a visual on you is secondary for now, at least until we see a conflict where the enemy has a significant fighter presence. When that happens, we can easily repaint them quick enough anyway.

 

 

good point. I agree.

[THEJETDEMON 0]

My point on this is that if you look on most fighter aircraft today it looks like blobs on the wings where the color changes not necessarily changing the color but changing the pattern, for example the special paint for the X-02 of of ace combat zero.

[Falcon161 3]

I think it is time for our Air Forces to definitely switch from the dull gray pattern they are using as it really does take the personality out of the plane. Thank god hyper stealth did this for the Slovakian Airforce

 

And No it is not photo shopped this is a real pic of a real plane!