Jump to content

High Vis vs. Low Vis


dov

Recommended Posts

High Vis vs. Low Vis

When did the change in the painting occur? What was the reason of it?

I wonder about the reason for painting the aircraft so nice and wonderful and the opposite.

Is it just visibility? Since on radar it makes no difference at all? Was there any other reason behind I have no clue at all?

Who knows?

Thank you in forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The process of reducing the visibility of combat aircraft in the USN was not something quick but developed over a number of years. The reason can be traced in the experience of the Vietnam War, when it was realised that both dogfight and visual identification still had a place (although part of this depended on the local rules of engagement).

Some experiments had already been undertaken during the war, for example the use of USAF SEA colours in various combinations or the use of a 3-grey scheme on some types (A-3, P-2) but it was after the war that the Navy started a systematic study of camouflage.

A first result was the introduction of the overall 36440 scheme, that initially only saw no change in markings but was later supposed to come with reduced size national insignia (that did generally happen) and reduced unit markings (that did not always happen...). This occurred in 1977/78. In the following years units started to use grey national insignia as well, but certain units retained full colour markings and insignia til the end of this scheme

In the meantime the USN had continued experimenting and this work led to the introduction of the Tactical Paint Scheme, with schemes for individual types approved between 1980 and 1983, with aircraft appearing in the scheme in the following couple of years. This is the scheme (or better, set of schemes) still used today, although some of the individual schemes changed over time. In general the schemes consist of 2 or 3 greys, with all markings, national insignia and stencils in contrasting greys.

 

This is the overall development of the change in schemes from the hi-vis era into the current low-vis but there are exceptions, for example the practice of retaining one or two aircraft in each unit in high visibility markings, the aircraft formally assigned to the Carrier Air Group Commander (the so called CAG planes) and often also the one formally assigned to the squadron commander. For these it is not possible to give a single rule as practices differed among units and with time within the same unit, so from a modelling point of view it's better to look at each aircraft individually

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Giorgio N.

I had no history in background. My eyes only know the IAF very well, even in the transition years.

In Haifa, I saw quite often US carrier, with the deck full of a/c.

For modelling, I have a favor of both. High and low vis.

It is for me a challenge to work on high-vis models; it needs more accuracy and time.

Anyway thank you. Your reply was quite informative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to help !

On the relative difficulty of the various schemes, for me it's the opposite as TPS painted aircraft are known to suffer from wear, particularly during cruises at sea. And more, standard USN practice is to spray the edges of panels once these have been removed for maintenance and then put back in place, to rprevent any onset of corrosion in areas where paint may have been removed. This often leads to a very grubby, almost patchwork like, appearance that takes some time to get right on a model

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

And more, standard USN practice is to spray the edges of panels once these have been removed for maintenance and then put back in place, to rprevent any onset of corrosion in areas where paint may have been removed. This often leads to a very grubby, almost patchwork like, appearance that takes some time to get right on a model

This is the best modelling tip, since a long time !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other reason was a difference in approach to war more generally--that wars of the future would not necessarily be fought with nuclear weapons from an early stage, so less need to paint certain features of the aircraft gloss white to reflect the heat from a nuclear detonation.  U.S. thinking in the 1960s hinged heavily on threats to Allies (and the homeland) from the USSR and China, with Vietnam as a distant and unfortunate side-show.  We call this, retrospectively, the "first off-set."  NATO's doctrinal change from Massive Retaliation to Flexible Response in 1967 probably was instrumental in getting people to think differently, but the harsh reality of Vietnam (as @Giorgio N correctly states) made a direct impact on aircraft camouflage. 

 

After Vietnam, assumptions changed.  War with another superpower could theoretically have had a protracted conventional phase of weeks or even months (unlikely), during which the U.S. and its Allies would seek to maximize technical superiority (the "second off-set"), minimize losses, and preserve a core reserve for nuclear employment.  Camouflage colors reflected this shift.

 

Today we see some variation in US Navy colors, with CAG commanders' aircraft painted in more colorful schemes, and some limited restoration of high-visibility markings on other aircraft.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...