By: swerve
- 21st January 2010 at 13:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was just using his own words, showing that his way of reasoning was incorrect. Just because something hasn't been done isn't proof enough that it can't be done.
Sorry, I can't have made it clear enough. I meant to support your post, not criticise it. I agree completely with what you wrote.
By: swerve
- 21st January 2010 at 13:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have some questions about these figures!
STOBAR T/O - fuel - empty weight = payload right?
But wouldn't it be only 4t payload for CATOBAR then and what is the MTOW and the payload for the air force version of Gripen NG?
I found the following specs from Saab, but I have some doubt about them, because MTOW - empty weight - payload would mean only around 3t internal fuel right?
Internal fuel is given by SAAB as about 3.3-3.4 tons. You say 'only', but that's about the same as Rafale or Typhoon in proportion to empty weight. Don't forget that Gripen is smaller & lighter.
SAAB are saying that catapult launch would allow Gripen to take off at the same maximum weight as on land, i.e. 16.5 tons (it's been increased by 500kg since the release of the figures you give). That gives a maximum external load (assuming full internal fuel) of about 6 tons for the land based version, & 5.5 tons for Sea Gripen.
Total external load + internal fuel is about 9 tons for catapult launch. For STOBAR, at 13.5 tons MTO, it's 6 tons. With full internal fuel, that allows 2.6 tons external. If it's going to top up after launch, it could take off with reduced internal fuel, & increased external load.
By: Sancho78
- 21st January 2010 at 14:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Internal fuel is given by SAAB as about 3.3-3.4 tons. You say 'only', but that's about the same as Rafale or Typhoon in proportion to empty weight. Don't forget that Gripen is smaller & lighter.
SAAB are saying that catapult launch would allow Gripen to take off at the same maximum weight as on land, i.e. 16.5 tons (it's been increased by 500kg since the release of the figures you give). That gives a maximum external load (assuming full internal fuel) of about 6 tons for the land based version, & 5.5 tons for Sea Gripen.
Total external load + internal fuel is about 9 tons for catapult launch. For STOBAR, at 13.5 tons MTO, it's 6 tons. With full internal fuel, that allows 2.6 tons external. If it's going to top up after launch, it could take off with reduced internal fuel, & increased external load.
Thanks for the explanation!
So for a STOBAR carrier the payload of Sea Gripen could be less than half of the land based Gripen NG. Is safe to assume that the difference between LCA and N-LCA payload could be the similar?
How useful will it be then, or what role do you see for N-LCA if it is even more limited than the Sea Gripen?
By: Sign
- 21st January 2010 at 17:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
seems I don't speak english around here... or people just don't take time to read what I say... :confused:
I never said it's impossible to make "a carrier aircraft for the first time"
I said that making a carrier aircraft which is first such aircraft for the company and adapted from a terrestrial version and best performer and cheap and almost identical to the terrestrial version all at the same time is nonsense...
Nobody ever succeeded in doing so, even nations that had much bigger experience and budgets to do so, never
Etendard was a nice aircraft, but as Dassault made it, the US carriers were receiving stuff besides which the etendard looked as a little toy (Phantoms II, Crusaders, A-6s... Last thing, the Etendard has been built from the beginning with possible navalization in mind, which helped bringing it to the carriers. In the end, it was the first dassault carrier aircraft, but it wasn't a world beater as what gripen PR pretend to build..
So, one last time: you can make a first carrier aircraft, but you won't make it at the same time cheap, easy, best aircraft, etc...
The thing is you never read up, it kind of annoying..
The original requirements for the gripen is very similiar to a navy fighter and not as much to a terrestrial one. Its allready there!?...so its 400-500kg of structural changes, defined at high level in posts in this thread.
READ UP or STOP ARGUEING without the information at hand.
By: Hammer
- 21st January 2010 at 18:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry to interrupt your discussion. What about the Hawk / T-45? It just crossed my mind. :) OK it's not supersonic. :D
The T-45 is totally differnent case from all the other recent examples cited before because it has never been intendes for the use as a full naval fighter aircraft so id doesn`t have many of the more fragile and complex avionics items that make ub the modern naval fighter and at the same time is NOT fitted to do take-offs and landings while carrying armament (missiles and bombs as some of the other hawk derivatives have.
By: swerve
- 21st January 2010 at 21:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I find it odd that so many amateurs think that they know more about what is needed for a naval fighter than SAAB. Do they think that SAAB engineers & management (people who spend their whole lives working on, & studying the requirements for, aircraft) have not spent any time examining what changes need to be made? Do they think SAAB has done no modelling of the stresses on airframes of catapult launches & arrested landings? No analysis of what that would do to a Gripen airframe?
From what some people here are saying, they appear to believe that nobody in SAAB has ever looked outside their factory walls.
Now, I don't know if Sea Gripen will ever be built - and I think the odds are that it won't - but if it is, I expect SAAB to do a proper professional job, & approach it with eyes wide open, knowing what they're getting into. I don't expect some half-arsed not thought out bodge.
By: Sign
- 21st January 2010 at 21:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think you (and saab, if they are serious about it) realise how big are the requirement for a navy fighter...
@+, Arka
without knowing, from the ideas started, the have seen at least requirements from 3 different countries... so i think they know what it takes. And hopefully they do that sincerly...
If theres a problem SAAB i a firm that handles risks well, probably the hire some good people externally that are competent on the subject.. They have tackled problems before, and gotten out on top.
By: TooCool_12f
- 21st January 2010 at 23:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The thing is you never read up, it kind of annoying..
The original requirements for the gripen is very similiar to a navy fighter and not as much to a terrestrial one. Its allready there!?...so its 400-500kg of structural changes, defined at high level in posts in this thread.
READ UP or STOP ARGUEING without the information at hand.
By: MadRat
- 22nd January 2010 at 00:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With proper shipboard tankers you could takeoff with minimal fuel reserves and load more underwing. The usefulness of any stobar aircraft will be a factor of this kind of support. The safety factor increases linearly when you steer well below the maximum weight allowances.
By: Bager1968
- 22nd January 2010 at 01:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No one has ever done a "successful carrier aircraft" from a "terrestrial aircraft" "the first time" they tried....
North American? FJ-2 (from Sabre).
Ummm I wouldn't call that successful... the USN decided it would stick with the lower-performing, but more carrier-suitable Grumman F9F-6 Cougar instead.
Most of the 200 FJ-2s built went to land-based Marine Corps units, with the F9F-6s going to carrier-based units. Very few FJ-2s ever went to sea.
It was not until the FJ-3 Fury, with its more powerful J65 engine replacing the J47 of the F-86/FJ-2 and with more modifications, that it was considered "satisfactory".
The only truly "successful" Fury was the FJ-4... which had an all-new fuselage and an all-new wing to go with the J65 engine!
By: Spitfire9
- 22nd January 2010 at 17:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It sounds to me that Gripen has the right characteristics (short take off / landing and good low speed handling) to be considered for adaptation as a carrier aircraft. It seems to me that SAAB has a good record in developing this aircraft (no big delays / no big budget overruns). On that basis Sea Gripen sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.
What is the likely world market (excluding US, Russia, China and France) for carrier-borne fighters in the next 25 years? Could Brazil be involved in Sea Gripen development if it opted for Gripen in the current competition?
By: Grim901
- 22nd January 2010 at 17:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It sounds to me that Gripen has the right characteristics (short take off / landing and good low speed handling) to be considered for adaptation as a carrier aircraft. It seems to me that SAAB has a good record in developing this aircraft (no big delays / no big budget overruns). On that basis Sea Gripen sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.
What is the likely world market (excluding US, Russia, China and France) for carrier-borne fighters in the next 25 years? Could Brazil be involved in Sea Gripen development if it opted for Gripen in the current competition?
I think all potential customers have been mentioned at some point:
India, Brazil and if all hell breaks loose, the UK. Unless we drop our arms embargoes on China, nowhere else is operating/building flattops large enough for a STOBAR/CATOBAR aircraft.
The post highlights the contribution of graphic design towards defense service. (Urban camouflage digital pattern)
In this post we can see a fighter jet of 4.5 generation
SAAB Gripen E with
Digital camouflage urban pattern.
Understanding Urban Camouflage.
Part of providing low contrast to the background is the ability to break up or distort those recognizable features of the armour, its silhouette and its outline. Urban camouflage combat pattern must be effective across the widest variety of urban environments.
Introduced in the mid-90s, the Digital Urban camo is a digital version of a classic Urban camouflage, a 'black-and-white' version of the popular 4-color woodland pattern.
After numerous repeated attempts at innovating the design to produce a better version of the pattern, digital camouflage was created. Digital camouflage was named as such because of the pixelated graphics that were used to create the pattern. By 2002, this new and improved version was being used by the Marines.
Pioneered by the Canadian forces in 1996, CADPAT was the world’s first digital camouflage pattern. Traditional camouflage like the ones listed above use macropatterns which have sharp outlines and are easier to see. Digital camo, however, uses pixelated micropatterns which blur together and dither at a distance making them more difficult to pick out. This breakthrough revolutionized military camouflage and almost all modern armed forces use some form of pixelated camo.
MARPAT was the United States Marine Corp’s first digital camo and was implemented throughout the entire Marine forces in 2001. The colour scheme seeks to update the US Woodland pattern into a pixelated micropattern. Although the Marines will tell you they came up with it independently, CADPAT’s influence is pretty obvious.
The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) is a digital military camouflage pattern formerly used by the United States Army in their Army combat uniform. The pattern was chosen after laboratory and field tests from 2003 to 2004 showed it to provide the best concealment in many different operational environments.
The post highlights the contribution of graphic design towards defense service. (Urban camouflage digital pattern)
In this post we can see a fighter jet of 4.5 generation
SAAB Gripen E with
Digital camouflage urban pattern.
Understanding Urban Camouflage.
Part of providing low contrast to the background is the ability to break up or distort those recognizable features of the armour, its silhouette and its outline. Urban camouflage combat pattern must be effective across the widest variety of urban environments.
Introduced in the mid-90s, the Digital Urban camo is a digital version of a classic Urban camouflage, a 'black-and-white' version of the popular 4-color woodland pattern.
After numerous repeated attempts at innovating the design to produce a better version of the pattern, digital camouflage was created. Digital camouflage was named as such because of the pixelated graphics that were used to create the pattern. By 2002, this new and improved version was being used by the Marines.
Pioneered by the Canadian forces in 1996, CADPAT was the world’s first digital camouflage pattern. Traditional camouflage like the ones listed above use macropatterns which have sharp outlines and are easier to see. Digital camo, however, uses pixelated micropatterns which blur together and dither at a distance making them more difficult to pick out. This breakthrough revolutionized military camouflage and almost all modern armed forces use some form of pixelated camo.
MARPAT was the United States Marine Corp’s first digital camo and was implemented throughout the entire Marine forces in 2001. The colour scheme seeks to update the US Woodland pattern into a pixelated micropattern. Although the Marines will tell you they came up with it independently, CADPAT’s influence is pretty obvious.
The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) is a digital military camouflage pattern formerly used by the United States Army in their Army combat uniform. The pattern was chosen after laboratory and field tests from 2003 to 2004 showed it to provide the best concealment in many different operational environments.
It beat ten other patterns (though UCP may still have been adopted without field testing against other patterns because senior military leaders liked it). Its pixelated pattern is similar to the MARPAT and CADPAT camouflage patterns used by the United States Marine Corps and the Canadians, respectively.
dark blue and light blue colors with names and html, rgb, hex codes.
Saab announces new camouflage
PRESS RELEASE
05 September 2019
Saab has developed a new type of camouflage called ARCASe (Advanced Reversible Camouflage Screen emissive), with the first briefing on the new product at the annual Barracuda User Group at DSEI, London.
The ARCASe offers true multispectral protection and gives the user complete protection, even in changeable environments. ARCASe is the first reversible thermal pattern camouflage system from Saab. It protects vehicles or other assets by masking and disrupting their thermal signature to blend in with the background.
The ARCASe’s visible pattern is reversible which means it has different colours on each side allowing the user to choose which is most effective without comprising the thermal protection.
“Saab has a long and distinguished history in development of camouflage systems. The ARCASe is our best camouflage for use in broken terrain and is a valuable addition to our broad camouflage portfolio,” says Görgen Johansson, Head of Saab business area Dynamics.
The world famous multispectral camouflage systems from Saab Barracuda will also be on display at DSEI on various vehicles.
Saab’s advanced camouflage technology products have been exported to more than 50 countries. Saab offers a unique package of camouflage systems and force protection solutions developed to limit an enemy’s ability to detect and engage. Various solutions and configurations are available to protect camps, vehicles as well as individual personnel in any type of terrain or environment.
The post highlights the contribution of graphic design towards defense service. (Urban camouflage digital pattern)
In this post we can see a fighter jet of 4.5 generation
SAAB Gripen E with
Digital camouflage urban pattern.
Understanding Urban Camouflage.
Part of providing low contrast to the background is the ability to break up or distort those recognizable features of the armour, its silhouette and its outline. Urban camouflage combat pattern must be effective across the widest variety of urban environments.
Introduced in the mid-90s, the Digital Urban camo is a digital version of a classic Urban camouflage, a 'black-and-white' version of the popular 4-color woodland pattern.
After numerous repeated attempts at innovating the design to produce a better version of the pattern, digital camouflage was created. Digital camouflage was named as such because of the pixelated graphics that were used to create the pattern. By 2002, this new and improved version was being used by the Marines.
Pioneered by the Canadian forces in 1996, CADPAT was the world’s first digital camouflage pattern. Traditional camouflage like the ones listed above use macropatterns which have sharp outlines and are easier to see. Digital camo, however, uses pixelated micropatterns which blur together and dither at a distance making them more difficult to pick out. This breakthrough revolutionized military camouflage and almost all modern armed forces use some form of pixelated camo.
MARPAT was the United States Marine Corp’s first digital camo and was implemented throughout the entire Marine forces in 2001. The colour scheme seeks to update the US Woodland pattern into a pixelated micropattern. Although the Marines will tell you they came up with it independently, CADPAT’s influence is pretty obvious.
The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) is a digital military camouflage pattern formerly used by the United States Army in their Army combat uniform. The pattern was chosen after laboratory and field tests from 2003 to 2004 showed it to provide the best concealment in many different operational environments.
It beat ten other patterns (though UCP may still have been adopted without field testing against other patterns because senior military leaders liked it). Its pixelated pattern is similar to the MARPAT and CADPAT camouflage patterns used by the United States Marine Corps and the Canadians, respectively.
dark blue and light blue colors with names and html, rgb, hex codes.
Saab announces new camouflage
PRESS RELEASE
05 September 2019
Saab has developed a new type of camouflage called ARCASe (Advanced Reversible Camouflage Screen emissive), with the first briefing on the new product at the annual Barracuda User Group at DSEI, London.
The ARCASe offers true multispectral protection and gives the user complete protection, even in changeable environments. ARCASe is the first reversible thermal pattern camouflage system from Saab. It protects vehicles or other assets by masking and disrupting their thermal signature to blend in with the background.
The ARCASe’s visible pattern is reversible which means it has different colours on each side allowing the user to choose which is most effective without comprising the thermal protection.
“Saab has a long and distinguished history in development of camouflage systems. The ARCASe is our best camouflage for use in broken terrain and is a valuable addition to our broad camouflage portfolio,” says Görgen Johansson, Head of Saab business area Dynamics.
The world famous multispectral camouflage systems from Saab Barracuda will also be on display at DSEI on various vehicles.
Saab’s advanced camouflage technology products have been exported to more than 50 countries. Saab offers a unique package of camouflage systems and force protection solutions developed to limit an enemy’s ability to detect and engage. Various solutions and configurations are available to protect camps, vehicles as well as individual personnel in any type of terrain or environment.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 21st January 2010 at 13:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, I can't have made it clear enough. I meant to support your post, not criticise it. I agree completely with what you wrote.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 21st January 2010 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Internal fuel is given by SAAB as about 3.3-3.4 tons. You say 'only', but that's about the same as Rafale or Typhoon in proportion to empty weight. Don't forget that Gripen is smaller & lighter.
SAAB are saying that catapult launch would allow Gripen to take off at the same maximum weight as on land, i.e. 16.5 tons (it's been increased by 500kg since the release of the figures you give). That gives a maximum external load (assuming full internal fuel) of about 6 tons for the land based version, & 5.5 tons for Sea Gripen.
Total external load + internal fuel is about 9 tons for catapult launch. For STOBAR, at 13.5 tons MTO, it's 6 tons. With full internal fuel, that allows 2.6 tons external. If it's going to top up after launch, it could take off with reduced internal fuel, & increased external load.
Posts: 243
By: Sancho78 - 21st January 2010 at 14:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the explanation!
So for a STOBAR carrier the payload of Sea Gripen could be less than half of the land based Gripen NG. Is safe to assume that the difference between LCA and N-LCA payload could be the similar?
How useful will it be then, or what role do you see for N-LCA if it is even more limited than the Sea Gripen?
Posts: 3,094
By: Gerard - 21st January 2010 at 15:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry to interrupt your discussion. What about the Hawk / T-45? It just crossed my mind. :) OK it's not supersonic. :D
Posts: 1,577
By: Sign - 21st January 2010 at 17:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The thing is you never read up, it kind of annoying..
The original requirements for the gripen is very similiar to a navy fighter and not as much to a terrestrial one. Its allready there!?...so its 400-500kg of structural changes, defined at high level in posts in this thread.
READ UP or STOP ARGUEING without the information at hand.
Posts: 742
By: Hammer - 21st January 2010 at 18:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The T-45 is totally differnent case from all the other recent examples cited before because it has never been intendes for the use as a full naval fighter aircraft so id doesn`t have many of the more fragile and complex avionics items that make ub the modern naval fighter and at the same time is NOT fitted to do take-offs and landings while carrying armament (missiles and bombs as some of the other hawk derivatives have.
Regards,
Hammer
Posts: 91
By: Arka_Voltchek - 21st January 2010 at 19:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think you (and saab, if they are serious about it) realise how big are the requirement for a navy fighter...
@+, Arka
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 21st January 2010 at 21:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I find it odd that so many amateurs think that they know more about what is needed for a naval fighter than SAAB. Do they think that SAAB engineers & management (people who spend their whole lives working on, & studying the requirements for, aircraft) have not spent any time examining what changes need to be made? Do they think SAAB has done no modelling of the stresses on airframes of catapult launches & arrested landings? No analysis of what that would do to a Gripen airframe?
From what some people here are saying, they appear to believe that nobody in SAAB has ever looked outside their factory walls.
Now, I don't know if Sea Gripen will ever be built - and I think the odds are that it won't - but if it is, I expect SAAB to do a proper professional job, & approach it with eyes wide open, knowing what they're getting into. I don't expect some half-arsed not thought out bodge.
Posts: 1,577
By: Sign - 21st January 2010 at 21:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
without knowing, from the ideas started, the have seen at least requirements from 3 different countries... so i think they know what it takes. And hopefully they do that sincerly...
If theres a problem SAAB i a firm that handles risks well, probably the hire some good people externally that are competent on the subject.. They have tackled problems before, and gotten out on top.
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 21st January 2010 at 23:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yeah sure.. whatever... :rolleyes:
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 22nd January 2010 at 00:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With proper shipboard tankers you could takeoff with minimal fuel reserves and load more underwing. The usefulness of any stobar aircraft will be a factor of this kind of support. The safety factor increases linearly when you steer well below the maximum weight allowances.
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 22nd January 2010 at 01:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ummm I wouldn't call that successful... the USN decided it would stick with the lower-performing, but more carrier-suitable Grumman F9F-6 Cougar instead.
Most of the 200 FJ-2s built went to land-based Marine Corps units, with the F9F-6s going to carrier-based units. Very few FJ-2s ever went to sea.
It was not until the FJ-3 Fury, with its more powerful J65 engine replacing the J47 of the F-86/FJ-2 and with more modifications, that it was considered "satisfactory".
The only truly "successful" Fury was the FJ-4... which had an all-new fuselage and an all-new wing to go with the J65 engine!
Posts: 1,577
By: Sign - 22nd January 2010 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
why, do the usual trolling? when you also can be rude at the same time? :rolleyes:
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 22nd January 2010 at 17:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It sounds to me that Gripen has the right characteristics (short take off / landing and good low speed handling) to be considered for adaptation as a carrier aircraft. It seems to me that SAAB has a good record in developing this aircraft (no big delays / no big budget overruns). On that basis Sea Gripen sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.
What is the likely world market (excluding US, Russia, China and France) for carrier-borne fighters in the next 25 years? Could Brazil be involved in Sea Gripen development if it opted for Gripen in the current competition?
Posts: 1,142
By: Grim901 - 22nd January 2010 at 17:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think all potential customers have been mentioned at some point:
India, Brazil and if all hell breaks loose, the UK. Unless we drop our arms embargoes on China, nowhere else is operating/building flattops large enough for a STOBAR/CATOBAR aircraft.
Posts: 3
By: Rudy11 - 5th December 2019 at 04:45 Permalink
The post highlights the contribution of graphic design towards defense service. (Urban camouflage digital pattern)
In this post we can see a fighter jet of 4.5 generation
SAAB Gripen E with
Digital camouflage urban pattern.
Understanding Urban Camouflage.
Part of providing low contrast to the background is the ability to break up or distort those recognizable features of the armour, its silhouette and its outline. Urban camouflage combat pattern must be effective across the widest variety of urban environments.
Introduced in the mid-90s, the Digital Urban camo is a digital version of a classic Urban camouflage, a 'black-and-white' version of the popular 4-color woodland pattern.
After numerous repeated attempts at innovating the design to produce a better version of the pattern, digital camouflage was created. Digital camouflage was named as such because of the pixelated graphics that were used to create the pattern. By 2002, this new and improved version was being used by the Marines.
Pioneered by the Canadian forces in 1996, CADPAT was the world’s first digital camouflage pattern. Traditional camouflage like the ones listed above use macropatterns which have sharp outlines and are easier to see. Digital camo, however, uses pixelated micropatterns which blur together and dither at a distance making them more difficult to pick out. This breakthrough revolutionized military camouflage and almost all modern armed forces use some form of pixelated camo.
MARPAT was the United States Marine Corp’s first digital camo and was implemented throughout the entire Marine forces in 2001. The colour scheme seeks to update the US Woodland pattern into a pixelated micropattern. Although the Marines will tell you they came up with it independently, CADPAT’s influence is pretty obvious.
The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) is a digital military camouflage pattern formerly used by the United States Army in their Army combat uniform. The pattern was chosen after laboratory and field tests from 2003 to 2004 showed it to provide the best concealment in many different operational environments.
Refrences
https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/news/2019-09/saab-announces-new-…
https://www.military1st.eu/colours/urban
https://www.heddels.com/2015/01/understanding-camo-13-patterns-know/
https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/99524-sea-gripen-me…
Posts: 3
By: Rudy11 - 5th December 2019 at 04:53 Permalink
The post highlights the contribution of graphic design towards defense service. (Urban camouflage digital pattern)
In this post we can see a fighter jet of 4.5 generation
SAAB Gripen E with
Digital camouflage urban pattern.
Understanding Urban Camouflage.
Part of providing low contrast to the background is the ability to break up or distort those recognizable features of the armour, its silhouette and its outline. Urban camouflage combat pattern must be effective across the widest variety of urban environments.
Introduced in the mid-90s, the Digital Urban camo is a digital version of a classic Urban camouflage, a 'black-and-white' version of the popular 4-color woodland pattern.
After numerous repeated attempts at innovating the design to produce a better version of the pattern, digital camouflage was created. Digital camouflage was named as such because of the pixelated graphics that were used to create the pattern. By 2002, this new and improved version was being used by the Marines.
Pioneered by the Canadian forces in 1996, CADPAT was the world’s first digital camouflage pattern. Traditional camouflage like the ones listed above use macropatterns which have sharp outlines and are easier to see. Digital camo, however, uses pixelated micropatterns which blur together and dither at a distance making them more difficult to pick out. This breakthrough revolutionized military camouflage and almost all modern armed forces use some form of pixelated camo.
MARPAT was the United States Marine Corp’s first digital camo and was implemented throughout the entire Marine forces in 2001. The colour scheme seeks to update the US Woodland pattern into a pixelated micropattern. Although the Marines will tell you they came up with it independently, CADPAT’s influence is pretty obvious.
The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) is a digital military camouflage pattern formerly used by the United States Army in their Army combat uniform. The pattern was chosen after laboratory and field tests from 2003 to 2004 showed it to provide the best concealment in many different operational environments.
It beat ten other patterns (though UCP may still have been adopted without field testing against other patterns because senior military leaders liked it). Its pixelated pattern is similar to the MARPAT and CADPAT camouflage patterns used by the United States Marine Corps and the Canadians, respectively.
dark blue and light blue colors with names and html, rgb, hex codes.
Saab announces new camouflage
PRESS RELEASE
05 September 2019
Saab has developed a new type of camouflage called ARCASe (Advanced Reversible Camouflage Screen emissive), with the first briefing on the new product at the annual Barracuda User Group at DSEI, London.
The ARCASe offers true multispectral protection and gives the user complete protection, even in changeable environments. ARCASe is the first reversible thermal pattern camouflage system from Saab. It protects vehicles or other assets by masking and disrupting their thermal signature to blend in with the background.
The ARCASe’s visible pattern is reversible which means it has different colours on each side allowing the user to choose which is most effective without comprising the thermal protection.
“Saab has a long and distinguished history in development of camouflage systems. The ARCASe is our best camouflage for use in broken terrain and is a valuable addition to our broad camouflage portfolio,” says Görgen Johansson, Head of Saab business area Dynamics.
The world famous multispectral camouflage systems from Saab Barracuda will also be on display at DSEI on various vehicles.
Saab’s advanced camouflage technology products have been exported to more than 50 countries. Saab offers a unique package of camouflage systems and force protection solutions developed to limit an enemy’s ability to detect and engage. Various solutions and configurations are available to protect camps, vehicles as well as individual personnel in any type of terrain or environment.
Posts: 3
By: Rudy11 - 5th December 2019 at 04:53 Permalink
The post highlights the contribution of graphic design towards defense service. (Urban camouflage digital pattern)
In this post we can see a fighter jet of 4.5 generation
SAAB Gripen E with
Digital camouflage urban pattern.
Understanding Urban Camouflage.
Part of providing low contrast to the background is the ability to break up or distort those recognizable features of the armour, its silhouette and its outline. Urban camouflage combat pattern must be effective across the widest variety of urban environments.
Introduced in the mid-90s, the Digital Urban camo is a digital version of a classic Urban camouflage, a 'black-and-white' version of the popular 4-color woodland pattern.
After numerous repeated attempts at innovating the design to produce a better version of the pattern, digital camouflage was created. Digital camouflage was named as such because of the pixelated graphics that were used to create the pattern. By 2002, this new and improved version was being used by the Marines.
Pioneered by the Canadian forces in 1996, CADPAT was the world’s first digital camouflage pattern. Traditional camouflage like the ones listed above use macropatterns which have sharp outlines and are easier to see. Digital camo, however, uses pixelated micropatterns which blur together and dither at a distance making them more difficult to pick out. This breakthrough revolutionized military camouflage and almost all modern armed forces use some form of pixelated camo.
MARPAT was the United States Marine Corp’s first digital camo and was implemented throughout the entire Marine forces in 2001. The colour scheme seeks to update the US Woodland pattern into a pixelated micropattern. Although the Marines will tell you they came up with it independently, CADPAT’s influence is pretty obvious.
The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) is a digital military camouflage pattern formerly used by the United States Army in their Army combat uniform. The pattern was chosen after laboratory and field tests from 2003 to 2004 showed it to provide the best concealment in many different operational environments.
It beat ten other patterns (though UCP may still have been adopted without field testing against other patterns because senior military leaders liked it). Its pixelated pattern is similar to the MARPAT and CADPAT camouflage patterns used by the United States Marine Corps and the Canadians, respectively.
dark blue and light blue colors with names and html, rgb, hex codes.
Saab announces new camouflage
PRESS RELEASE
05 September 2019
Saab has developed a new type of camouflage called ARCASe (Advanced Reversible Camouflage Screen emissive), with the first briefing on the new product at the annual Barracuda User Group at DSEI, London.
The ARCASe offers true multispectral protection and gives the user complete protection, even in changeable environments. ARCASe is the first reversible thermal pattern camouflage system from Saab. It protects vehicles or other assets by masking and disrupting their thermal signature to blend in with the background.
The ARCASe’s visible pattern is reversible which means it has different colours on each side allowing the user to choose which is most effective without comprising the thermal protection.
“Saab has a long and distinguished history in development of camouflage systems. The ARCASe is our best camouflage for use in broken terrain and is a valuable addition to our broad camouflage portfolio,” says Görgen Johansson, Head of Saab business area Dynamics.
The world famous multispectral camouflage systems from Saab Barracuda will also be on display at DSEI on various vehicles.
Saab’s advanced camouflage technology products have been exported to more than 50 countries. Saab offers a unique package of camouflage systems and force protection solutions developed to limit an enemy’s ability to detect and engage. Various solutions and configurations are available to protect camps, vehicles as well as individual personnel in any type of terrain or environment.