Spotting dudes in camo seems like a prime opportunity for neural net ar
There's nothing useful to deploy it on though--the 'future soldier' concept of the 90s never went anywhere ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Soldier ) and we don't have a computer platform on every soldier. IMHO I'd stick to using machine learning to detect stealth aircraft and missiles to improve intercepting them.
I liked that Ukrainian night sappers wear a ... cape made from a yoga mat to keep them invisible from IR scopes on drones.
Yeah for a fraction of the cost in complexity, weight and issues with consumables a suppressor does all of what they were talking about and more. The US army is in theory going to a new rifle and issuing suppressors to every (frontline) infantry unit with the NGSW contract. (We'll see how widely the new system and everything actually gets deployed but it was an important part of the whole program at least)
Why not just build one in? I guess I'm accustomed to assault rifles having flash suppressors because the one that I've actually handled and lugged around and shot with, the Valmet RK 62, does have a suppressor built in, a distinctive feature [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK_62
From the Wikipedia article:
> In addition to the flash suppression, the end can quickly cut barbed wire by pushing the muzzle onto a strand of wire and firing a round.
CADPAT is the basis for MARPAT. It's the most effective generic pattern that has been produced (according to the article.)
Thanks. Is MARPAT what the Canadian soldiers showed up to Afghanistan in? Edit: looks like the wore the forest green stuff to Afghanistan. The only articles I can find suggests they did it on purpose, to stand out for peace keeping reasons, but that could easily be damage control. Anyone know the real story? GP suggests they just didn't have an arid design at the time (which I would believe).
Can't speak to exactly why they didn't have it, but it was not a deliberate decision ("It's my uniform," said Master Cpl. Perry Morrow. "I'd rather wear this than no clothes at all.") from a relevant CBC article at the time about it(1))
For years afterwards whenever there was a discussion about equipment and supporting troops, it was brought up as an argument in favour of more purchases.
Source: former military member. In combat, camouflage is really the VERY last line of defense possible, and a fairly weak one at that. If the difference between staying alive and being dead is the pattern of your clothing, a lot of things have already gone seriously wrong and your chances of survival are not great. In the grand scheme of things, camo relatively high-hanging fruit. Money and time have mostly been spen…
> camouflage is really the VERY last line of defense possible Doesn't it go: 'don't be seen, if you're seen don't be acquired, if you're acquired don't be hit, if you're hit don't be penetrated, if you're penetrated don't be killed'? Camouflage ('don't be seen') is the first layer on the onion, not the last!
Best way not to be seen is to be lying prone in good cover. Ideally none of your uniform is visible to your targets, even if it was bright orange.
Think - positioning rather than magic fabric. That's my interpretation anyway.
> camouflage is really the VERY last line of defense possible Doesn't it go: 'don't be seen, if you're seen don't be acquired, if you're acquired don't be hit, if you're hit don't be penetrated, if you're penetrated don't be killed'? Camouflage ('don't be seen') is the first layer on the onion, not the last!
Best way not to be seen is to be lying prone in good cover. Ideally none of your uniform is visible to your targets, even if it was bright orange. Think - positioning rather than magic fabric. That's my interpretation anyway.
Well that just places it second or third, not last!
Your last line of defence is not being killed if you've been penetrated - your medical kit!
I wore this pattern during my time in the service. It sucked and did not blend into anything but wet gravel. It sucked so much that when it came time to deploy overseas, troops were issued Multicam uniforms to better blend with the elements.
> "Pixels have minimal impact on the ambient vision but a large impact on the focal cone causing further delay as the brain attempts to process the increased detail, when pixelation in camouflage is done correctly (color and scale) the brain will confuse the background noise with the pixels, removing the anomaly as a threat or delaying the identification of a threat. (6)"
I read that as having more to do with the length scale of features represented by the pixels than the shape of the pixel itself. From the biological perspective, the same phenomenon should happen with dots or triangular shapes
I think squares are easier to fit together than dots and probably triangles.
If you used dots you have irregular spaces between them. This may or may not be a good thing, but it is certainly going to be different to the dots themselves.
Hexagons could work though.
But judging by the linked site and some Googling, I'm going to say no one knows for sure because no one has tested it.
> camouflage is really the VERY last line of defense possible Doesn't it go: 'don't be seen, if you're seen don't be acquired, if you're acquired don't be hit, if you're hit don't be penetrated, if you're penetrated don't be killed'? Camouflage ('don't be seen') is the first layer on the onion, not the last!
Best way not to be seen is to be lying prone in good cover. Ideally none of your uniform is visible to your targets, even if it was bright orange. Think - positioning rather than magic fabric. That's my interpretation anyway.
I'm sure everyone has a story like this, but I was in the Army back when they had the green and black blobby camouflage, and we were doing a training exercise against some California National Guard unit. My squad leader and I were at a forward observation point, got bored, and decided to infiltrate them. We ended up behind their lines under some kind of evergreen tree with branches hanging to the ground, so a bit dark, but broad daylight otherwise. So some guy from the "enemy" side peeked underneath the tree, stared straight at us, not three feet away, then turned around and left. (Their side was wearing shirts inside-out so we could tell each other apart.) I guess I did my face paint OK that day.
> Imagine the JavaScript cool kid mindset but with guns. A more terrifying sentence than this has rarely been written.
The table stakes are uniforms here, lets not blow it out of proportion.
Until the Javascript cool kids invade your country because the USans elected a guy with a family grudge against your president. Then the Javascript cool kids decide whether to blow you into assorted body parts and pink mist in front of your parents because you tried to help a wounded child.
Wow, my first comment on the thread, consisting entirely of a quote from expert analysts, and already I'm a "luddite Reformer". (Idiosyncratic capitalization also doesn't help you seem balanced and rational.) This turkey was designed in the 1990s. The contract was awarded in 2001. The first f35 flew in 2006. When will this "technology" no longer be "new"? Presumably it will be some time, since the entire fleet was gr…
I think the reason why you're getting some pushback is because we've heard all these before with another aircraft that had similar teething and development problems: the F-15. The F-15 project was supposed to be a small and light fighter but feature creep" blew the project up into a massively expensive boondoggle. Some of this was due to the fear of the MIG-25; an aircraft we later learned wasn't so scary. Yet today,…
> Yet today, the overpriced, chronic cost-overruning F-15 sits at an impressive 109:0 kill to loss ratio, making it the best performing aircraft in the United State's history.