Why is there less variety in aircraft camouflage these days?

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
29 November 2010
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
3,363
an example

H5xiSw5.png



with F-16s, Mig-29s, F-15s, Mirage-2000s, etc you saw a lot of variety in camouflage

these days, from the Eurocanards onwards its mostly the same thing

Rafale - almost every operator uses virtually the same paint as the French version. just different insignias. Only Qatar has something slightly different
Gripen - everyone pretty much the same
F-35 - same
Typhoon - mostly the same except Germany, and I believe the Saudi uses something similar to the german ones

I heard the F-35 paint is difficult to change due to the stealth coating?
but what about the Rafale and gripen
 
I remember reading paints used on modern fighters aren’t cheap (specially the F-35 one) , so using one color is cheaper .
Developing paints with same properties in other tones would add cost to these already very expensive planes.
Grey, because its the most neutral tone and effective visual camo in a fight at average altitudes.

Wasn't there some sand and brown painted Saudi Typhoons ? Like their tornados ?
 
Last edited:
During the First Gulf War some RAF Tornado bombers were painted the same desert pink as SAS Land Rovers.
 
Last I checked many use a commercially available RCS treatment base sourced from the US. Hence the uniformized look of it.
 
Last edited:
The move away from low altitude operations and the realisation that while still important most threats are not primarily reliant on the mark1 eyeball has probably contributed to the reduced diversity in camouflage on combat aircraft.
 
Back when I used to be able to get to the American Society of Aviation Artists annual Forums, I heard both Keith Ferris and Wilson Hurley talk about why shades of gray (or grey) are the better choice for camouflage on aircraft. Atmospheric perspective grays out colors with distance and even an aircraft in USAF SEA camouflage will look gray given enough distance. Starting with grays can help the aircraft blend into the sky with less distance.. Now. That was back in the 90s when I heard that, and I am aware that newer technologies have come into play. I'm just saying what I remember from their painting demos.
 
The document that Shin getter posted is an intersting read, but there's a slight inaccuracy in the following Q&A...

What was the first application of all-over grey as camouflage, was it the Welkin?
“It would appear that the first all grey trial occurred in May 1941 when a PRU Mosquito at RAF Benson was painted with a Medium Sea Grey/ Olive Grey scheme. It proved very effective, but it was felt it would be difficult to introduce to existing aircraft as the workload of stripping, priming and applying the new scheme would be too much work.

Experimentation with low visibility markings and colours saw a number of RAF Sopwith Cuckoos decorated in light grey overall with toned down roundels and fin flash in late 1918 in preparation for a proposed operation to sink the High Seas Fleet at its anchorage at Wilhelmshaven using aircraft carrier based torpedoplanes. Serials and manufacturer’s logo were a dark shade of grey and roundel blues were lightened, with the white the same grey as the rest of the aircraft. In Jack Bruce's Sopwith B.1 and T.1 Cuckoo Windsock Datafile is a representative colour profile based on existing photographs of Cuckoo N7982. Exact numbers of how many aircraft were decorated in this fashion are not known, but some also wore a vertical white band around their aft fuselage midway between the cockpit and fin with a single black (or red) band in its centre, with no known purpose.

Taken at Marske in late 1918, this slightly out of focus image is of considerable interest as it shows a T.1 in low visibility all over neutral grey with toned down markings; note the absence of white in the rudder flash. The aircraft had yet to be introduced into service and was based at No.9 Aircraft Acceptance Park, Newcastle at the time the photo was taken.
 

Attachments

  • Cuckoo at Newcastle.jpg
    Cuckoo at Newcastle.jpg
    237.1 KB · Views: 17
Cost and need

Pretty much. I've been involved in a paint strip and refinish of a variety of aircraft types, including C-130 and P-3 and there is a lot of effort in blanking and covering before sanding down and paint stripping, then extensive cleaning and repplying seam sealant, after which the blanking and covering is replaced because of soaking from the application of paint stripper, before the new coat of paint is applied. It's a lengthy process to repaint an aircraft, talking a week or so with a gang of guys depending on the size of aircraft. It doesn't happen every heavy maintenance check - the expense is too great and it would kick the check out in terms of budget and time on the ground.
 
There is also the question of offensive vs. defensive camouflage--colors intended to hide an aircraft in flight vs. on the ground. Greys better protect aircraft viewed air-to-air and from the ground. Greens and browns do a better job hiding stationary aircraft on the ground from aircraft flying above. The major powers haven't really had to worry about being attacked on the ground of late--they do most of the attacking. So the trend to gray makes sense.
 
Cost and need

Pretty much. I've been involved in a paint strip and refinish of a variety of aircraft types, including C-130 and P-3 and there is a lot of effort in blanking and covering before sanding down and paint stripping, then extensive cleaning and repplying seam sealant, after which the blanking and covering is replaced because of soaking from the application of paint stripper, before the new coat of paint is applied. It's a lengthy process to repaint an aircraft, talking a week or so with a gang of guys depending on the size of aircraft. It doesn't happen every heavy maintenance check - the expense is too great and it would kick the check out in terms of budget and time on the ground.

great info!

but this is for maintainance and repainting right?

how about them new aircraft that are still in primer, and the customer still has an opportunity to customize the paint?

for example it seems the Su-57 is coming out in a variety of colors, as are Flanker models
 
I would ask people consider what the purpose of visual camouflage is when thinking about this subject:

Military camouflage is the use of camouflage by an armed force to protect personnel and equipment from observation by enemy forces. In practice, this means applying colour and materials to military equipment of all kinds, including vehicles, ships, aircraft, gun positions and battledress, either to conceal it from observation (crypsis), or to make it appear as something else (mimicry). The objective with camouflage by crypsis is to become invisible by blending in with the background or by disruption of outlines. The objective with camouflage by mimesis is to become totally ignored and unnoticed. The objective with camouflage by dazzle is to confuse the opponents.

In terms of aircraft, typically we are looking at two environments where this sort of visual camouflage is necessary:

  1. On the ground where they may be looking to avoid attack by enemy forces from the air - something rarely used these days it would seem since very few schemes for decades have been focussed on shielding such observation against an airfield background; and/or
  2. In the air where they are trying to avoid visual observation/detection. The challenge here is that with modern sensors (be that radar, IR or otherwise), the old Mk.1 eyeball has become less and less relevant and indeed has been so for decades. Moreover, with modern weapons the instances of aerial combat involving the form of dogfighting and use of a gun (as really the only time the visual acuity of a pilot is going to be a factor) are going to be virtually non-existent and even off forced into such a situation, no form of paint scheme is going to save a pilot. Therefore it wouldn't really matter what colour a platform was (interestingly, I would argue the same applies to any sort of national markings such as roundels.
Therefore, given the above, i would argue that the main things determining the scheme worn are a combination of the following:
  • What ever assists the reduction in cost - both up front acquisition wise and longer term sustainment wise with the latter also including the preservation of the underlying structure from the likes of corrosion;
  • Tradition (or 'it looks cool' factor)- we always have painted our warplanes in warlike schemes even if nowadays that means grey... which raises an interesting question: would something harkening back to the days of the flying circus or similar (say shark mouths etc) give pilots a more war like feeling;)
  • Possible dual use to include stealthiness in other means - i.e. if a paint were to include features that aid in reducing IR/RADAR detection.
 
For air-to-air combat within visual range, the most important thing of all is to eyeball the other guy first. Engagement usually takes place at altitude, where an all-over grey blends nicely with the typical hazy sky. (This also militates for smaller single-engine fighters, one reason the F-16 is still such a consistent winner) If they spot you first, you will have to survive their first pass before you can bring your fancy air-superiority stuff into play.

Another issue might conceivably be that your choice of colours is limited by stealth paint technology; if stealth can only give you shades of grey, then you are stuck with the optimum balance between optical and electronic visibility. Early stealth paints looked about the same dark grey colour as ground-up ferrite powder, and weren't even waterproof. Modern stealthy types seem to have gone grey, I can only wonder how they achieved that. I have never seen a stealth-treated aircraft any other colour (have you?). But there, if I actually knew what I was talking about I wouldn't be allowed to post it here!
 
See above my post of the limited nbr of Stealth coating suppliers.
Dassault uses the same as Boeing. I am not sure anymore for Typhoon & Saab ( forgot it).
 
Back in the 70s I remember various schemes being tried out on the F15, notably the initial air superiority blue colour. Grey was soon adopted. The A10 went the other way going from grey to green/grey Lizard. Later on the Germans tried various schemes on their F4s. Then there were the painted on cockpits on the undersides. Airlines and Air Forces have both gone for as few paint colours as possible. The Russians still have some pretty colours
 
  • Tradition (or 'it looks cool' factor)- we always have painted our warplanes in warlike schemes even if nowadays that means grey... which raises an interesting question: would something harkening back to the days of the flying circus or similar (say shark mouths etc) give pilots a more war like feeling;)

I wonder if painting it 'cooler', would help create more support for the military, among the populace. Especially in countries that don't really see much active conflicts and have a history of cuts. painting planes in more 'cool' schemes might generate better interest in the armed forces
 
Another issue might conceivably be that your choice of colours is limited by stealth paint technology; if stealth can only give you shades of grey, then you are stuck with the optimum balance between optical and electronic visibility. Early stealth paints looked about the same dark grey colour as ground-up ferrite powder, and weren't even waterproof. Modern stealthy types seem to have gone grey, I can only wonder how they achieved that. I have never seen a stealth-treated aircraft any other colour (have you?). But there, if I actually knew what I was talking about I wouldn't be allowed to post it here!

this makes me wonder about the Pak-fa colors as the Chinese and US seem to generally adopt the same colors for their 5th gen, but the Russians are still using schemes generally more associated with 4th gen aircraft
 
From “The Ultimate Flying Wings of the Luftwaffe”

The flight of Icarus and the invisible cape of Loki are recurrent concepts in the mythology of many cultures as they represent the noblest and darkest side of the human spirit. Despite its apparent incompatibility, the war dynamics search for the perfect weapon would end up joining them.

The Italian Rumpler Taube that carried bomber missions over Libya since 1911 had their wings painted with clear nitrate dope over linen and the pilots discovered that they were much more difficult to see the airplanes, from the ground, against a clear sunny sky.

In May 1912 a German Taube was experimentally coated with a transparent cellulosic material named ‘Emaillite’. During the flight tests made by Lieutenant Edouard Nitter in Wiener-Neustadt it was observed that the aircraft was practically invisible when flying at more than 300 m of altitude.

In 1913 the French presented a monoplane Moreau at the Salon de l’Aviation with transparent wings. The coating consisted of two layers of ‘Emaillite’ of 0.5 mm with a sheet of tulle between them to increase its resistance to tearing.

In 1914, engineer Ledebeff tried a new cellulosic cladding on the structure of a Farman biplane, but the material had an excessive elasticity that affected the lifting capacity of the wings.

In the summer of 1913, German engineer Anton Knubel made experiments in Münster coating a Taube with a transparent material named ‘Aeroid’ to increase the invisibility effect. The aircraft structure was painted in sky blue. In 1915, Knubel started using the ‘Cellon’ an acetyl cellulosic acid compound made by Rheinisch-Westfälischen Sprengstoff AG in Cologne. The ‘Cellon’ was transparent, little flammable and could be sewn or glued, although it might be not very much resistant to tearing as the inventor killed himself in an Albatros B.II with transparent wings on September the 8th.

On 9 July 1916, another almost invisible aircraft, marked with red crosses, was seen during a flight test, in the Somme area, by the B.E. 2C of the 16 Sqn RFC and unsuccessfully chased by French fighters. It was one of the three Fokker E.III (werknummers 616, 627, 639) that had been clad with ‘Cellon’ in June.

The invisibility tests continued during the war, using Aviatik C-1 reconnaissance airplanes and bombers Linke-Hoffman R.I and Gotha VGO in 1917. With dry weather the ‘Cellon’ was very transparent and smooth as glass, but it degraded with humidity, losing its aerodynamic properties. The material of 0.4 mm of thickness used to coat one of the Fokker ‘Eindecker’ weighted 25 kg more that the usual fabric and required much maintenance.

The Central Powers finally had to give up the magic ‘Tarnkappe’ of Siegfried in favour of a more vulgar material, that was also more resistant to heat, rain and tearing.

Since 1916, a new fabric began to be used in the Western Front, that patterned with polygons of different colours reduced the visibility of airplanes confusing them with the ground tones.

The new camouflage system was named ‘Lozenge-Tarnung’ and based its design on the Impressionists painters that, it was discovered, had a distortional optical effect during combat manoeuvres that made the enemy accurate aim very difficult.

By the end of the ninetieth century, zoologists discovered that the tiger stripes mimic the vertical shadows in the reed beds where they hide for hunting. On the other side, the zebras stripes seem designed to increase visibility; however, five out of six lion attacks fail, due to more subtle causes. As it turns out, due to the movement of the animal, the rhythmic waving caused by the black stripes produces an optical distortion (known as ‘akinetopsia’) that affects the way in which the brain calculates distances.

The Royal Navy was the first to apply this principle to the naval war but, towards 1915, almost every warship was painted with white, black, grey and blue diagonal stripes to disorient the telemeters of the enemy artillery.

In the air, the fighters Albatros D.V of the Jasta 37 were the first to use the optical distortion techniques, with its tailplane painted in black and white diagonal stripes. In combat, the violent turns of the airplane achieved the ‘zebra effect’ thus disrupting the aiming of the British pilots. They had the additional resource to use the Iron Crosses painted on the upper wing as reference, but the Lozengue camouflage and the aircraft vibration during tight turns made the distance estimation very difficult in deflection shooting. The Fokker DR.I of the Jasta 6 also used the ‘zebra effect’ painting the tailplane, the fuselage and even the interplane struts with stripes.

The system worked and towards 1917 almost every German reconnaissance two-seater airplane, operating in the Western Front, had a rectangular patch of diagonal stripes on their fuselage.

The British airplanes started to imitate them. In 1918 it was common to see the F-2B and ‘Camels’ of the RFC with series of white bands painted over the khaki of the rear fuselage.

The technique reached its peak of refinement during the summer of 1918 with the Albatros DV flown by Ltn. Fritz Rumey, assigned to the Jasta 5, an elite squadron. In this airplane, the diagonal stripes had four different widths and had been painted in spiral (like on a candy) along the fuselage.

The Austrians had their own mind about the subject. They started painting small spirals on the upper surfaces of the Phönix fighters but, around 1917 they camouflaged the Aviatik with a special scheme of hexagons which colours varied in intensity, lighter on the wing tips and tail surfaces, to blur the characteristic shape of the airplane.

The British had a problem with the colour of their airplanes. Since 1915 all were brown and both the fighters and the anti-aircraft artillery had the tendency to open fire against anything painted in another colour….. French ones included. As a consequence, their experiments were more conservative, although at the end of the war some airplanes carried the roundels of the upper plane painted in asymmetric position to confuse the enemy, as it happens with the false eye that some tropical fishes had near the tail. They also used additional, more blurred roundels, painted on unusual spots of the airplane, like the tailplane, the back of the fuselage or the central section of the upper wing.

In 1918 limited essays were made on skewed-perspective box-grids, diminishing overlapping rectangles and high visibility but misleading geometrical designs. These experiments were shaped by advice from painters of the ‘Vorticist School’ (Britain’s version of Futurism) like Wyndham Lewis and their ultimate objective was to create in the enemy pilot that second of doubt and confusion that frequently is key to escape.

The end of the WWI did not end with these practices. In 1923 the Finnish Fokker D.VII were painted on a ‘splinter’ scheme in dark blue, light grey, purple and light green. During the 30s, the new Luftwaffe started to use the ‘splinter’ in two or three different shades, although some Heinkel 45, seen during the Spanish Civil War, still kept the ‘Lozenge’ camouflage.



In 1935 the Hawker Demon fighters of the 74 sqn of the RAF, based in Malta, tried a new type of camouflage based on ochre, yellow, grey, green and brick red, with just one roundel on upper wing starboard and the opposite side aileron painted in aluminium!

The general idea, apparently not very successful, was not to make the plane hard to see but hard to be shot at by enemy pilots.

During the first years of the 30s the French chemists produced a new transparent material, similar to the cellophane, named ‘Rodoid’ or organic glass. In 1935 the Russian engineer S.G. Kozlov made new experiments, replacing the fabric coating of a Yakovlev AIR-4 trainer by ‘Rodoid’ sheets. To reinforce the optical effect, the inner structure of the airplane had been painted in aluminium colour. The flight test conducted along a standard AIR-4 proved a reduction of visibility of 75 per cent. They also revealed that the ‘Rodoid’ had electrostatic properties and accumulated the dust generated during take off, losing much of its transparency. The project of invisible airplane ‘Nyeridimyi Samolyet’ was cancelled in 1935.

The Munich crisis of September 1938 served, among other things, to prove how unprepared were the French and British air forces for the war. At that time, London was defended by biplanes that were slower than a ‘postal’ Heinkel He 111. The Hawker Fury and the Dewoitine 510 lost their aluminized painting of peace time that was hastily covered with a dark green layer.

Despite their theoretical neutrality, the U.S. airplanes also lost the chrome yellow on their wings. In 1940 the US Army Air Corps performed low visibility camouflage tests with some Curtiss P.36 and Northrop A-17 A. The US Navy repeated the British experiments of the ‘Vorticist School’ with some Brewster F2A and Northrop BT-1 in North Island, California. Finally mass production prevailed: Seversky and Curtiss in olive drab, Brewster and Grumman in naval grey.

In 1939 the colour of the European aviation was as dark as its future. The Germans used splinter in two shades of dark green. The British used dark green, dark earth and black and white undersides. The French used earth, ash and dark green. Over the French-German border all the airplanes looked the same. The Bf 109 shot down Belgian Hurricanes on neutrality patrols, mistaking them for British fighters. The authentic Hurricanes of the BEF shot down Potez 630 confusing them with the Bf 110 and were attacked by Morane fighters that took them for German airplanes.

Only the Poles showed some creativity. When entering the war with Germany most of their fighters were well positioned in auxiliary aerodromes, the square shaped national markings were painted on the wings in asymmetric position and some P.Z.L. P.11C fighters of the 161 squadron had schemes of optical distortion painted in zig zag over the wings, although that was not nearly enough to overcome the technical and numeric superiority of the Luftwaffe.

During the World War II, when airplanes were manufactured by tens of thousands, the dynamic of the assembly lines did not allow any experiment with complex camouflages. There was not even the time to paint the airplanes and many Mustangs, Forteresses and Thunderbolts were delivered with the naked aluminium coating, while nationality roundels were replaced by big decals to save time and hand work!

In the battlefield that covered from the jungle to the sea and from the Arctic to the desert, things were very different and the airplanes received any type of conceivable camouflage to get unnoticed against the ground they flew over. Some missions, like the stratospheric combat, photographic reconnaissance or night fighting, required specially modified airplanes with camouflage schemes adapted to the environment on which they should operate.

The Ju 86P, Bf 109 G-6/AS, Spitfire HF Mk VIII, Westland Welkin and D.H. Mosquito NF.XV, intended for high altitude combat, used to go wholly painted light grey. The Lockheed P-38 F-5 that photographed the Ruhr at medium height, were painted bluish fog-grey; the Spitfire P.R.Mk IV and Mosquito P.R. Mk XVI were painted a deep blue colour, to rest them visibility against the sky colour at high altitude, while the Spitfire P.R. Mk VII of the 541 Sqn, operating at dawn with clear weather, were painted in pink colour. For the darkness war, the RAF painted in black the under surfaces of all its bombers, to make them less visible to the reflectors.

Until 1943, all night fighters were painted in black. Germany used the Arado Ar 68E, Bf 109 E-4, Bf 110 C-6 and E-2, Do 17 Z-10, Do 215 B-5 and Do 217 J and N. The British used the Defiant Mk II, Hurricane Mk II, Beaufighter Mk II, Mosquito NF.Mk II, and even some Spitfire Mk VB of the 111 Sqn. At the beginning they used an extra matt anti reflective paint, but it turned out that it produced drag, limiting the airplanes speed.

The Americans operated in Europe and in the Pacific with Northrop P-61 and Douglas Havoc II, the Japanese used the Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko, the Italians, the Caproni Vizzola F-5 and the French the Potez 631. It seemed to be the most logical solution, but the black painting did not work out well. The airplanes were very visible from above, when flying over clouds lighted by the reflectors.

The Germans started to use this advantage in August 1943, using conventional fighters Bf 109 and Fw 190 in the ‘Wilde Sau’ night operations. In the winter of 1942, some Do 215 B-5 and Do 217 J night fighters were experimentally painted in light grey, to make them less visible to the gunners of the Lancaster and to the pilots of the Mosquito NF. II of escort. The results were good and it was ordered that all night fighters and ‘Wilde Sau’ would be fully painted with RLM 76 ‘Hellblau’ (light blue).

Recalling the experiments made with the ‘night’ Lozenge for the Gotha bombers, in the WWI, the hazy effect was improved making the shape of the airplanes blurred by means of patches or ‘worm’ schemes of RLM 75 ‘Hell Violett-Grau’ (light grey violet). I worked better with the big airplanes Ju 88 G-6, Do 217 N and Bf 110 G-4 while the fighters Bf 109 G-5 / G-6 and the Fw 190 A-6 were light grey RLM 02 ‘Grüngrau’. Some had the underside starboard wing painted in black for identification of the flak.

Since 1943, the night fighters Mosquito adopted the idea, changing the overall black by the standard daylight camouflage in dark green and ocean grey upper surfaces, keeping the under surfaces in the previous black colour, that the RAF considered useful against reflectors, provided that they flew over the layer of clouds.

The accurateness and volume of fire of the flak increased daily. From the viewpoint of the British fighters that made straffing missions over the occupied France, the number of casualties grew until 1945… the Reich vomited flak.

In 1942, Captain Paul Hexter designed a black and white dazzle camouflage scheme for the under side of the attack airplanes. It was tested in a Mustang Mk IA proving that, like the warships of the WWI, it distorted the distance calculation of German telemeters during flights at low altitude, by the so known ‘zebra effect’. Its use was never generalized due to its difficult maintenance.

Since time immemorial, magicians hid objects using the almost infallible technique of bringing the public attention towards a different point from that where the real action is happening. In May 1940, the gunners of the British Expeditionary Force that defended the French aerodrome of Vitry, got ready to shoot over two Messerschmitt that went towards them flying at 200 m of altitude. Focused on their objective, they were caught unawares by the second couple of the ‘Schwarm’ that surged from the trees flying at ground level and destroying several Hurricane of the 56 Sqn.

In the Pacific, the Betty torpedo bombers of the Japanese Imperial Navy used the same technique, operating in groups of three airplanes, out of which just one of them flew at medium altitude.

In the Mediterranean the Savoia 79 of the Regia Aeronautica were too visible over the sea, with their ‘Sicilian’ camouflage. Some machines specialised in attacks with torpedoes received a layer of light grey painting in the front of the fuselage and wings leading edges to diminish its frontal visibility.

In the Atlantic, antisubmarine aircrafts of the US Navy had the same problem: the U-Boat immersed at the lowest sign of sighting. In 1943, an experiment was performed under the Yehudi code-name to diminish the frontal visibility against the luminous background of the sky. It consisted of 10 sealed-beam lights, installed along the wings leading edges and the rim of the engine cowling of an Avenger TBM-3D bomber. The tests proved that the Yehudi system lowered the visual acquisition range from twelve to two miles.

The entry into service of the new centimetric radars, that the ‘Metox’ detectors of the Kriegsmarine could not detect, disrupted the balance in the Battle of the Atlantic, rendering the Yehudi useless. But the experiments went on using a Liberator and were only declassified in the 80s.

During the Vietnam war, the idea was resumed under the ‘Compass-Ghost’ code name and the tests made with a blue and white F-4 Phantom, lighted by nine high-intensity lamps on the wings and fuselage, reduced the detection range a 30 percent.

In the mid 90s, the advanced achieved in Computer Generated Holography, wavelength computation with Fourier transform method and Point Source Holograms, allowed the creation of holographic images in 3D around an object to hide it. But the system just worked with static objects and the Phased Array Optics required a considerable amount of electronic equipment.

In 2003, researchers at the University of Tokyo developed an active camouflage system with video cameras that registered the background to project it against the object that should be camouflaged.

In 2004, the discovery of the graphene made possible the manufacturing of curve video screens and adapts them to any surface. An aircraft with a coat of grapheme screens and equipped with video cameras that register the background from any angle and project it on the screens at the other side, may become practically invisible.

The layers of grapheme are super-thin and several of them, with different properties, may be superimposed. Under the optical screen, it is possible to locate a layer formed by hexagonal elements of grapheme that may be heated or cooled down in a selective way, thanks to the ‘Adaptiv’ system, developed by BAE systems in 2011. This layer would very efficiently act as IR camouflage.
 
Correction: the Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko night fighters were painted FS 14077/FS 24201 Dark Green scheme, but some A6M2 Zero of the 203rd Kokutai Shumshu Detachment, defending the Imazaki airfield in the Kuriles Islands were painted in Black.
 
Thank you Justo for such a wonderful post!

But you missed the very first application of camouflage to a military aircraft. Back in 1907, at the British Army Balloon Factory, Farnborough, J W Dunne had built his first tailless swept biplane as a top secret glider (with optional engine pod) and was taking it to Blair Atholl in Scotland for flight trials. His commanding officer Col. John Capper was afraid that its revolutionary wing profile would be too easy for spies and journalists to make out, so he ordered its black slik covering to be painted in thin white stripes, laid in subtle patterns to confuse the eye. Photographs show them mimicking the reinforcing tapes commonly laid over the ribs, but the subtle twists mean you cannot make out the curve of the wing.
Also during the trials, a man suspected of being a German spy was spotted. Dunne selected some models of his failed designs and left them out in a bag for the spy to find and carry off, which he did.
 
in related news Luke AFB F-16s go all grey.. although the radome seems to be a different color
seems more motivated by cost and time efficiency than camouflage concerns?

 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom