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

New fighter jet camouflage schemes

markosun.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: New fighter jet camouflage schemes

#51

Post by ceejayoz »

electromagnetic wrote: post #21
tebbetts wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that most of the camouflage is to hide the airplane from humans on the ground. I would also guess an airplane providing support for ground troops would likely get shot at. They would paint a fake canopy on the underside of the Warthog: http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnielee/4105880397/ . This was to make it hard to tell which way the airplane was turning.

It might be for take-off and landing too when the planes without typical near-ground combat are now extremely vulnerable. The Warthogs are unbelievably built to go through hell and back, an F-15 not so much. > They would paint a fake canopy on the underside of the Warthog I'd just hate that someone painted my exact location on the bottom of my plane so the enemy knows exactly where I'm sitting so they know exactly wh…

Anti-aircraft fire isn't like a sniper rifle, it's more like a grenade launcher. You're certainly not going to be aiming for a specific location on a plane - you're going to be aiming in its general direction and throwing as much ordinance at it as possible, in the hopes that shrapnel from one of your shells pegs it.

Re: New fighter jet camouflage schemes

#52

Post by its_so_on »

nosse wrote: post #17

I'd guess that fighter camouflage also makes fighters more harder to track visually from satellites. This might not interest Americans, but for some air forces it could be a factor?

I'm curious why you say having fighters be harder to track visually from satellites wouldn't interest Americans - youu say it like America has a monopoly up there...

Re: New fighter jet camouflage schemes

#53

Post by paxswill »

mikeash wrote: post #42
electromagnetic wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be for take-off and landing too when the planes without typical near-ground combat are now extremely vulnerable. The Warthogs are unbelievably built to go through hell and back, an F-15 not so much. > They would paint a fake canopy on the underside of the Warthog I'd just hate that someone painted my exact location on the bottom of my plane so the enemy knows exactly where I'm sitting so they know exactly wh…

The underside of the cockpit is probably the best area to get shot at in an A-10. It's heavily armored, so the pilot is safe, and there are fewer important parts to break there as compared to being shot farther back.

As support, here's some specific pictures of just the "bathtub": http://www.flickr.com/photos/25695066@N00/sets/7215762746187...

Re: New fighter jet camouflage schemes

#54

Post by Retric »

ceejayoz wrote: post #50
Retric wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other way can the human or computer find out position direction and velocity of enemy jets who jam radar and camouflage themselves? Heat and contrail's. Also, I suspect the best solution to deal with advancing US warplanes is simply a vary large low cost drone fleet. Picture that fight but replace the second squad with 10,000 drones each of which has a single air to air or air to ground missile. They don't even…

> Heat and contrail's. Stealthy aircraft (i.e. virtually every fighter in development by Russia, China, or the West) are specifically designed to mask their heat signature, and contrails are solved by changing altitude.

Yea, that's actually a big part of why they don't go as fast. Push the mock number to high and your air frame literally starts to glow (in IR) and there is not much you can do about it.

Re: New fighter jet camouflage schemes

#55

Post by marvin »

pclark wrote: post #34
marvin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have any information about the second Iraq war, but a relative of mine works with radar systems. From what he told me, Iraq's air defense during the first Gulf war was ridiculously poor - the Iraqi air defence forces just turned on their air defense radars and waited to get a bomb dropped on top of them. Apparently, there was a NATO exercise in Norway a couple of years ago where the US expected the same tacti…

This has been played out in a huge war game in 2002 involving Lt General Paul Van Riper and your assumptions are correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

This is a very fascinating read. The exercise I mentioned probably took place after the 2002 exercise you have linked to.

Without being too deeply informed on this subject, it seems to me like the US military refuses to acknowledge the weaknesses of its doctrine in a large-scale conflict against a sufficiently skilled and advanced adversary.

Re: New fighter jet camouflage schemes

#56

Post by dfc »

nosse wrote: post #24
ayu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they used it to deter bloodsucking insects. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/120209-zebra-st...

How do you explain okapi and quagga? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quagga

Explain what?

Re: New fighter jet camouflage schemes

#57

Post by dfc »

ayu wrote: post #19
nosse wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zebras used it even before that. Practically all camouflage ideas can be found from nature.

Except they used it to deter bloodsucking insects. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/120209-zebra-st...

Except that is just one study, not definitive and does not preclude multiple benefits.

Re: New fighter jet camouflage schemes

#58

Post by nosse »

its_so_on wrote: post #52
nosse wrote: post #17

I'd guess that fighter camouflage also makes fighters more harder to track visually from satellites. This might not interest Americans, but for some air forces it could be a factor?

I'm curious why you say having fighters be harder to track visually from satellites wouldn't interest Americans - youu say it like America has a monopoly up there...

I thought U.S. has practical monopoly up there. At least in military surveillance satellites.

Re: New fighter jet camouflage schemes

#59

Post by nosse »

maeon3 wrote: post #9
cabirum wrote: post #5

Does camouflage really helps in modern air combat? Aircrafts engage each other mostly on beyond visual range distances, and dogfighting in kinda rare now. Also, HUDs should assist in tracking of targets and highlight them, so camo will make no difference. The only use for camo I can think of is to hide the aircraft while it's stationed on the airstrip - in a relatively vulnerable position.

Modern fighter jets give pilots helmets which contain a 360 degree view of the battlefield to show them where the airplanes are. The computers which acquire the location of the other airplanes use radar and visual spectrum. What other way can the human or computer find out position direction and velocity of enemy jets who jam radar and camouflage themselves? History channel has some modern Pilots talking about dogfig…

That youtube video is propaganda. Note how almost every single missile fired by f-22 hits, while enemy missiles lose their target constantly. It doesn't tell why U.S. missiles would be better. Also I find the explanation why f-22 would be better in dogfight to be very lacking. Vectored thrust is not going to cancel effects of high wing loading or slow rate of roll. Or it might but then it's something more harrier style.

Re: New fighter jet camouflage schemes

#60

Post by nosse »

dfc wrote: post #56
nosse wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you explain okapi and quagga? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quagga

Explain what?

If stripes are for insects not biting, then how come some species have developed only partial stripes? Would not make sense to get all the flies to concentrate on your non striped body-parts... Against lions this makes perfect sense as having striped backside makes the overall shape harder to grasp.
Post reply on HN