Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

hyperstealth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 309 posts

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#281

Post by ncmncm »

bumby wrote: post #279
ncmncm wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DoD missions its design was compromised for did not happen.

There were plenty of joint NASA/DoD missions that were performed using the Shuttle. Why do you think NASA, an agency built upon freely sharing scientific information, occasionally had classified payloads aboard the Shuttle? "Between 1982 and 1992, NASA launched 11 shuttle flights with classified payloads, honoring a deal that dated to 1969, when the National Reconnaissance Office—an organization so secret its name co…

They did some classified launches, but none that drew on the extreme specs they had demanded in exchange for helping to fund it.

It was an embarrassment.

Literally no STS launches did. And they were so expensive, it would have been cheaper to build more Hubbles and launch them the regular way than to have done the repair missions.

The Space Shuttle was a disaster for US space presence. US ended up depending on Soyuz!

Now, the X-37 is proving another embarrassment. They can't find enough work for it, so leave it parked in orbit most of the time, pretending to be "on a mission".

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#282

Post by rtkwe »

int_19h wrote: post #246
rtkwe wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dazzle camo wasn't so much a "hide me" camo as it was a "hide data needed to shot me" camo. It was designed to make it harder to estimate heading and speed so it was harder to calculate accurate shots by submarines and naval guns which needed data about the target ship's speed, distance and heading to calculate an accurate shot.

This is true for modern infantry camo, as well - it aims to disrupt the human silhouette at a distance, not only to make it harder to spot, but also to make it harder to aim center mass (can be tricky if the visual border of said mass is all fuzzy and blends into the surroundings!).

The distinction I was making was that dazzle doesn't really hide things at all where uniform camo does try to hide the person somewhat.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#283

Post by the_af »

ncmncm wrote: post #203
bityard wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Snipers need good camo, but the people snipers snipe don't?

My reading is that snipers are a very specialized soldier type that can benefit from cammo, but it's way less useful for other soldier types.

A sniper lies prone for a long time, with really heavy cammo (think netting, foliage, etc). Staying put is a big deal.

Regular soldiers constantly move about, which means their cammo has to be more practical and lightweight, and is also less effective due to said movement.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#284

Post by rtkwe »

ncmncm wrote: post #211
rtkwe wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dazzle camo wasn't so much a "hide me" camo as it was a "hide data needed to shot me" camo. It was designed to make it harder to estimate heading and speed so it was harder to calculate accurate shots by submarines and naval guns which needed data about the target ship's speed, distance and heading to calculate an accurate shot.

Radar killed dazzle.

It's definitely the final nail in it's widespread use but it was used somewhat up to the end of WW2 though that focused on anti-kamikaze painting in the Pacific theater. Japan was several years behind the rest of the world on radar so it stuck around longer in the Pacific too before that transition to anti-kamikaze but even there by the end of the war Japan was using radar fire-control.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#285

Post by bumby »

ncmncm wrote: post #281
bumby wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were plenty of joint NASA/DoD missions that were performed using the Shuttle. Why do you think NASA, an agency built upon freely sharing scientific information, occasionally had classified payloads aboard the Shuttle? "Between 1982 and 1992, NASA launched 11 shuttle flights with classified payloads, honoring a deal that dated to 1969, when the National Reconnaissance Office—an organization so secret its name co…

They did some classified launches, but none that drew on the extreme specs they had demanded in exchange for helping to fund it. It was an embarrassment. Literally no STS launches did. And they were so expensive, it would have been cheaper to build more Hubbles and launch them the regular way than to have done the repair missions. The Space Shuttle was a disaster for US space presence. US ended up depending on Soyuz!…

>Literally no STS launches did.

Do you mean no STS launches were DoD payloads or do you mean no STS launches required DoD specs? I'm not saying the "cost effectiveness" promise of the Shuttle was met, but there appears to be evidence that neither of the above claims are accurate. For example, STS-38 was a classified DoD payload [1] and there are book chapters dedicated to fact that DoD specs drove the shuttle design [2]. The gist from [3] is

"the support and budget for space decreased, increasing the need for NASA to work closely with the DOD. Their partnership prompted many compromises that were made on the vehicle’s uses and design, which resulted in a broad set of requirements"

Those compromises were largely to accommodate the DoD payload and range requirements. Whether or not they were ultimately necessary we can't know because much of that is classified and unverifiable. But they still drove the design and eroded the cost benefits that NASA wanted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-38

[2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137438546_11

[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296652080_Space_Shu...

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#286

Post by ncmncm »

bumby wrote: post #285
ncmncm wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did some classified launches, but none that drew on the extreme specs they had demanded in exchange for helping to fund it. It was an embarrassment. Literally no STS launches did. And they were so expensive, it would have been cheaper to build more Hubbles and launch them the regular way than to have done the repair missions. The Space Shuttle was a disaster for US space presence. US ended up depending on Soyuz!…

> Literally no STS launches did. Do you mean no STS launches were DoD payloads or do you mean no STS launches required DoD specs? I'm not saying the "cost effectiveness" promise of the Shuttle was met, but there appears to be evidence that neither of the above claims are accurate. For example, STS-38 was a classified DoD payload [1] and there are book chapters dedicated to fact that DoD specs drove the shuttle design…

You keep repeating that you don't know whether the DoD did or did not use the capability they had demanded. I believe you!

The answers to all your questions are right there in the message you clicked "reply" on. I invite you read what it says there.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#287

Post by bumby »

ncmncm wrote: post #286
bumby wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Literally no STS launches did. Do you mean no STS launches were DoD payloads or do you mean no STS launches required DoD specs? I'm not saying the "cost effectiveness" promise of the Shuttle was met, but there appears to be evidence that neither of the above claims are accurate. For example, STS-38 was a classified DoD payload [1] and there are book chapters dedicated to fact that DoD specs drove the shuttle design…

You keep repeating that you don't know whether the DoD did or did not use the capability they had demanded. I believe you! The answers to all your questions are right there in the message you clicked "reply" on. I invite you read what it says there.

I'll be more direct: Can you substantiate your claim that the DoD missions did not need those specs? You haven't provided anything other than an opinion at this point.

Because to a laymen, that's an unverifiable claim since those details appear to be classified. Meaning that opinion doesn't amount to much. It's plausible, but I'd need a little more than your opinion to believe it.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#288

Post by sandworm101 »

numpad0 wrote: post #276
sandworm101 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all honesty, there isnt much room to improve the actions of modern assault rifles. There are dozens of post-stoner improvements that have bern tried. Millions have been spent on them. They have all been shelved as to complex or cumbersome. The gas-operated rotating bolt is so elegant, so reliable, that fundimental improvements are hard to imagine. Adding water to the equation? Rust, mud, weight, boiling ... you wo…

I suspect there should be a lot of room for improvements, just that we are not able to perceive them without first- or second-world war going on. I remember reading about importance of a newfangled barrel free-floating construction on carbines, soon after the Afghan war started. The examples used at that time were kludgy top-rail secured things supposedly used by mysterious SEALs guys. Later I saw Crane stock for the…

Those aren't changes to the action, the core of how the rifle functions.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#289

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

bityard wrote: post #106
Sharlin wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Very very few things in nature actually are made of large blobs of a single color (unless you're very shortsighted). Honestly, it baffles me why militaries didn't realize this earlier.

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…

It's hard to interpret those Navy blueberry uniforms as anything but pointless optics and possibly inter-service ego nonsense between the decision makers involved. A uniform that doesn't blend in with ships, docks, or beaches, but is actually a serious hindrance in a person overboard situation. Oh and it's about as fireproof as a grease soaked rag.

Thankfully rationality eventually prevailed, but not before wasting 100's of millions, a portion of which was out of pocket for sailors.

Re: U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained (2013)

#290

Post by ncmncm »

bumby wrote: post #287
ncmncm wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep repeating that you don't know whether the DoD did or did not use the capability they had demanded. I believe you! The answers to all your questions are right there in the message you clicked "reply" on. I invite you read what it says there.

I'll be more direct: Can you substantiate your claim that the DoD missions did not need those specs? You haven't provided anything other than an opinion at this point. Because to a laymen, that's an unverifiable claim since those details appear to be classified. Meaning that opinion doesn't amount to much. It's plausible, but I'd need a little more than your opinion to believe it.

I have, of course, no opinion: this is purely a matter of fact. I merely echo complaints by NASA insiders.

I may speculate that their requirements were such as to be able to loft the NSA equivalent of Hubble into a polar orbit, but that by the time STS was flying, they had retired that design and were using rather smaller birds.

Post reply on HN