Evolution of aircraft camouflage

Within the span of 120 years, military aviation has evolved from a niche experimental weapon, an important observation tool, to now a fundamental battlefield element. The history is well documented. Indeed most videos on this channel look back on these changes. One of the lesser discussed topics within this evolution is that of aircraft camouflage. Let’s take a brief journey through time, looking at the use of camo, from the early days, through to the modern era.

WORLD WAR 1

Let’s go back to the introduction of aircraft into theatres of war. Aircraft were first used in rather primitive combat roles during regional conflicts at the turn of the 20th century. The Italo-Turkish war in 1911 saw Italian pilots equipped with French aircraft use archaic bombing methods against Turk positions in Libya. During the 1912 Balkan War, Bulgarian and Greek forces worked together to bomb the Turks in the Mediterranean. Yet during this period no real consideration was given to disguising an aircraft. At the right altitude they were hard to hit. Anti-aircraft cannons weren’t developed, and so a soldiers rifle was the greatest threat.

The first use of aircraft in wide scale combat occurred during world war 1. It was here that some thought was given to aircraft camouflage. During the first two years of the war, aircraft primarily operated in their production colours. Usually, these were grey, olive, or white. However, in 1916, both German and French designers began to experiment with aircraft paint schemes. The Germans first attempted to create a transparent design using a cellulose acetate. From a visual perspective this worked, rendering aircraft refractive against the sky, however the material was weak and prone to breaking. However the sun could create the inverse effect, essentially turning the aircraft into a refractive mirror and highlighting the aircraft, thus defeating the whole purpose.

During the same year, the French began to explore camouflage, with initial attempts to paint aircraft a sky blue. This saw some success in early 1916, but later they shifted to darker schemes. In mid 1916 a grey and silver aluminium finish was introduced, and by late that year the French had begun work on disruptive camos, using darker forest colours.

The British at this time had tried ‘dazzle’ camouflage on aircraft – which was popular on ships at the time – but this high contrast design failed to offer a benefit in the sky. Many British aircraft were coming off the production line with a protective dope which gave a drab look, a colour that may have been perfectly fine as it was.

By 1918, the French and Germans were both using specifically designed camouflage on their aircraft. The French used a set of standardised disruptive paint schemes, whilst the Germans used a variety of grey and olive drab schemes, sometimes with blotches and occasionally with lozenge patterns. Meanwhile the British had come up with a black absorbent varnish known as VISO, which was rolled out in 1918 to aid in night operations.

As with any other form of camouflage, there were two primary benefits; concealment (or hiding an object against a background), and disruptiveness -(or tricking the eyes into falsely identifying the shape of an object). Both elements can be used together or independently. For example, ghillie suits blend a soldier into his environment through replicated colours and shapes. Some modern outfits (which blend coloured uniforms with black or flat coloured equipment) do not necessarily blend into the natural environment, but break up the shape of the soldier – which is what enemies are naturally scanning the area for.

By the end of world war 1, aircraft camouflage had essentially become standard. For the next 20 years, most airforces would adopt either flat or disruptive paint schemes to match the environments they would operate in. However, the interwar period would also see some advances.

INTERWAR YEARS

The first major conflict during the interwar years to see wide scale air combat was the Spanish Civil War. This conflict was important, as it was the modernised Luftwaffe’s first trial by fire. Equipped with the new BF-109, they would achieve complete air supremacy. However, German aircraft – some of which went into combat in basic grey or blue paint schemes – were easy to spot from the ground.

Two major developments were underway during this period, which made paint schemes all the more important. Firstly, flak canons and various other anti-aircraft weapons were rapidly being developed during the 1930s. Secondly, early analog computing was being developed. Together, this new technology allowed ground units to accurately set fuze timing and other targeting parameters by matching target and gun data.

By the late 1930s, England and Germany were both adopting a new method of disguise for their aircraft, to mitigate both air and ground threats. It involved painting the aircraft in darker, earthier colours on the top, whilst the underside would be painted in faint blue.

WORLD WAR 2

At the outbreak of world war 2, these methods would provide some advantage. During the battle of France and Battle of Britain, both sides camouflaged their aircraft on the ground utilising their paint schemes and occasionally field coverings. Observation from the air in high-flying aircraft required serious focus to discern lower flying aircraft from the surrounding environment.

In the east, Japanese fighters commonly used a variety of white and dark green camouflage. As time went on, more complex schemes emerged, again with the goal of disrupting the shape of the aircraft against the ground.

As the war dragged on, practically all factions adopted contextual paint schemes to suit the environment. Smarter approaches were also taken. For example, in 1943 both the allies and axis began to ditch the black underside paint that had been standard for night operations since 1918. Rather, the undersides of bombers were painted in lighter base colours. This meant they would blend in with the clouds illuminated by the skyglow of cities at night.

By the end of world war 2, many American aircraft began to abandon their flat colour schemes in favour of an unpainted silver finish. There were several reasons for this. Firstly, an aircraft required a decent amount of paint, so for reasons of time, cost, and weight, this was a hinderance. Secondly, nearing the end of the war, the importance of camouflaging aircraft against the ground became a lower priority. The Germans were either being challenged for or losing air superiority, as the Allies gained the upper hand. But the biggest factor was weight; without paint an aircraft’s slightly lighter weight gave a marginal speed advantage.

So, skipping the painting process not only produced lighter aircraft, but saved time and resources, speeding up the production process.

The Axis forces would – since they were on the defensive – continue to use camo schemes until the end of the war in a bid to disguise as many aircraft from air threats as possible. During this time, Japanese aircraft in the harsher pacific theatre suffered noticeably from weathering, which can be seen in many photos from the late war years. This would give the aircraft – if they had been in flat colours – a better profile against the ground.

COL D WAR ERA

By the late 1940s, into the early years of the Cold War, both major powers – Russia and the US – began to shift away from using aircraft camo altogether. There were various factors for this, but the main reason was that aircraft were becoming faster, flying higher, and travelling longer distances. Camo just didn’t seem that important now. Just as with late-war P-51s and B-29s, the trend of leaving aircraft in an unpainted silver finish became popular. During the late 40s and early 50s, most fighters and bombers had a silver finish. In fact, this style is now closely associated with this era of military aviation.

Another trend at the time – which has also become somewhat iconic – was the process of painting an aircrafts underside in ‘anti flash white’, a particular paint which would theoretically deflect harmful gamma rays in the case of a nuclear detonation.

Yet despite this trend, it became obvious, once again, that camouflage was still indeed important. During the Korean War, B-29s found themselves easy prey at night. Against the dark sky, the reflective airframes could be picked up by MiG pilots. These aircraft stood out like the proverbial sore thumb. Consequently, B-29s tasked with night missions would have their undersides painted black.

But the camouflage revival did not fully catch on during the Korean War and unpainted aircraft were still the norm. This would change, however, with the introduction of surface-to-air missiles – a technology that quickly levelled the playing field. Soviet SAMs – once perceived as niche weapons – were now capable of intercepting targets tens of thousands of feet in the air. It was during this period – from the mid to late 1950s – that doctrine once again shifted. Flying high and fast was no longer safe, a pilot was always at risk.

The British began to refocus on low level tasking. This meant developing aircraft which could fly low and fast, avoiding radar, and strike targets. This meant the reintroduction of camo to aid in hiding or distorting an aircraft’s profile.

VIETNAM

It would not be until the Vietnam war that camo paint schemes would see a reemergence on American and Soviet built aircraft. During the early days of the war, Navy and Marine aircraft were operating from carriers. Thus their white and grey schemes mattered little. However, as the Marines and the US Air Force began to operate from ground bases within Vietnam and the surrounding regions, the necessity of visual disguise became more important.

Given the environment, various disruptive camouflage schemes were adopted. Oftentimes these aircraft retained their anti flash white, but from the top they would blend into the environment. To assist with this, as the war continued, an air base tarmac would sometimes painted in disruptive schemes as well. This made it particularly difficult to identify aircraft from the tarmac.

By the late 1960s, various aircraft – such as the F-4 Phantom – began to drop the anti flash white underside in favour of plain black, and by the early 70s full camo undersides were more common. While there is less information about why this was the case, it seems obvious that in a dogfight, the darker top side and lighter underside allowed adversaries to easily distinguish the aircraft’s position in the sky, allowing for better countering.

POST VIETNAM ERA

By the mid 1970s, aircraft camouflage was once again on its way out. Most new western designs – like the F-16 and F-14 – were rolling off the production line with a new set of grey schemes. These particular colours were neutral; being both somewhat hard to spot against the sky and against the ground.

The harsh reality was that visual camo could not defend from the two primary threats; infrared and radar guided missiles. Stealth coatings could lower these threats, and these have only grown in popularity since then, however this was not a visual change.

In terms of visual camouflage, by the 1980s most paint schemes in the US had been dropped in favour of flat grey tones, or a subtle grey multicam look. There were some exceptions. Notably, early versions of the Warthog – particularly those deployed to Europe – were given a lighter green scheme, as were a variety of F-4s. Even early models of the F-15E were presented in camo, although this was dropped in favour of a dark grey scheme upon delivery.

By the 1990s, even low operating aircraft were repainted in greys. The only exceptions at this point were legacy aircraft like the F-111, which were on their way out. In fact helicopters, drones, tanks, LAVs, cars, and soldiers uniforms were leaving behind contrasty camos in favour of simpler, more neutral tones, although there are exceptions. The Gulf War played a part in reprioritising paint schemes. Ground threats could easily see the green painted Warthogs, Phantoms, and so on.

In modern times, practically all western aircraft have adopted flat grey tones on their aircraft. If anything is important, it is stealth coating to lower radar signature, and this is what is prioritised.

Many aircraft like the F-16 were delivered from factory in faint three tone light grey schemes. Repaints occurred at times, sometimes adopting what became known as Hill 1 and Hill 2 schemes, essentially dark single tone grey. Likewise, the B-1, F-15E, and B-52 had previously adopted darker grey schemes. Most of these feature radar absorbent coatings, minimising threats.

The most recent development of this is the Have Glass V scheme – a particularly dark scheme similar to the Russian black paint scheme found on the SU-34 – is now found on some F-16s. This was supposedly based on painting methods used on the F-22. Using radar reflectivity rather than absorption, the scheme scatters signals in all directions. This is paired with a gold tinted canopy, again scattering incoming signals rather than allowing them to bounce back off of flat surfaces in the cockpit.

However, Russia remains the primary operator of camouflaged aircraft, whilst the US, China, and others have largely normalised the various forms of grey low-reflectivity paints. The reasons for this are multifaceted.

Unlike traditional camouflage, Russian camo appears to prioritise the disruptive elements over concealment. Most are designed to work with low reflectivity stealth coatings, suggesting that the idea is disorientation. Early demo variants of the SU-35S appeared in a modernised dazzle camo – or more accurately a splinter scheme – whilst other aircraft in service use a variety of blue, aqua, and grey. These camos are supposed to warp an enemies perception of the aircraft’s shape, which could be beneficial in a dogfight.

These blue schemes – such as those found on Russian and Ukrainian Flankers – shorten the distance required for the aircraft to visually disappear into the sky. Some interesting schemes on the SU-57 also seek to warp the shape of the airframe to appear more like a Flanker, while also making the aircraft appear smaller.

It remains a matter of debate as to which method works better, especially if both visual camouflage and grey toned schemes both have infrared and radar absorption. Grey tones supposedly work decently in all weather, whilst disruptive schemes make visual ID more difficult. But without question, the playing field has changed completely since the first use of paint schemes in world war 1. Aircraft must still blend into their environment, or disrupt the perception of their adversaries, but now this must occur not only in the visible spectrum, but in infrared, and on radar.

Aircraft camouflage will always be important, the fundamental ideas behind camouflage remain the same and will continue to evolve.