bdt13 Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 There is much written on this site about the usage and matching of FS 36375 and 36320. However, I have yet to see anything on the history of the colors or their name. Who first determined that none of the available gray colors were what was needed for fighters anymore? What was the process for finding new colors that would do the job? What other colors were tried, and what type of experiments were done to ensure their effectiveness (I'm sure there were some test planes painted in one-off schemes - pics please!!)? What were the first aircraft with an official technical order mandating their use? How did they get the name "compass ghost", even unofficially? Any real data at all is better than speculation. I'm thinking that if anyone at all knows, it will be someone with connection to this site. Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 Man, those are some really interesting questions. I with Ben here, anyone know about this stuff. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantom Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 Most countries do their own cam tests over the environment they expect to fly in. Guess those colours worked for the USN. However.........Canada did its own tests, on the same airframe (Hornet) and found the 36320 was too light for where we fly and went with 36237. I do believe Australia did the same. At the same time Spain, went the USN way. Kuwait, well, using the same airframe as everyone else, they went their own way. This example the Hornet in the 80s is just one example. Why did Spain go the same as the US and not Kuwait? Beats me. Sale at the paint store maybe? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
camus27 Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 I know that coming out of Vietnam, the Air Force did tests and found that fighters in the air to air role were much better concealed in the medium-light grays. The F-15 was probably onr of the first with this in mind, originally painted in 35450 blue on various gloss and flat attempts. This was quickly changed to Ghost Grays, which is about the same range without the tint. I'm not sure how much 36375 and 36320 were used before the 70s but they seemed to easily fit the new standard. Over the last few decades though, everything has shifted darker, with Mod Eagle, deletion of LGG on the F-16, and now Have Glass. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 The question I have is if paint is really even necessary? In today's BVR environment, if you can see what color the enemy is painted in, does it really matter? The closing speeds are so eye-wateringly fast that is acquiring them visually necessary, or even possible, until you hit the merge? I guess they have to be painted something, and gray is better than yellow and red. It just seems the paint is more for radar absorption than actually concealing the aircraft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 45 minutes ago, Darren Roberts said: The question I have is if paint is really even necessary? In today's BVR environment, if you can see what color the enemy is painted in, does it really matter? The closing speeds are so eye-wateringly fast that is acquiring them visually necessary, or even possible, until you hit the merge? I guess they have to be painted something, and gray is better than yellow and red. It just seems the paint is more for radar absorption than actually concealing the aircraft. Interesting thought. I’d say that camouflage still is valid. Can’t make the mistake of thinking that dogfighting is passé. If an effective paint job buys a pilot even a couple of seconds advantage over the bad guy, it’s money well spent. Plus, some tones have lower IR-reflective properties. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GW8345 Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Darren Roberts said: The question I have is if paint is really even necessary? In today's BVR environment, if you can see what color the enemy is painted in, does it really matter? The closing speeds are so eye-wateringly fast that is acquiring them visually necessary, or even possible, until you hit the merge? I guess they have to be painted something, and gray is better than yellow and red. It just seems the paint is more for radar absorption than actually concealing the aircraft. It is commonly misconstrued that the paint on an aircraft is for the sole purpose of camouflage, the number one reason most aircraft are painted is for corrosion control, camouflage is secondary. If an aircraft is not painted it will become the worlds largest museum to rust in a matter of months. Even in dry areas like the southwest area of hte US, aircraft will still corrode due to many factors so the paint job isn't really for camouflage, it's for corrosion prevention, especially for Naval aircraft. As far as paint lowering an IR signature, not really, no amount of paint is going to hide the engine heat and IR caused by friction of the aircraft "cutting" through the air. An aircraft's leading edges will create IR and you can still see an aircraft's engine even when viewed from the front. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BillS Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 Here I go again. I was a maintenance officer for 30 years but am NOT an expert on anything. I was a serious model builder for my whole tenure and paid a lot of attention to corrosion control and even got to develop a paint scheme for F-16s participating in a fighter meet. But I only know and remember dribs and drabs of stuff. Here’s what I know for sure. 1. I think the Systems Program Office (SPO) probably directed the color choices for their respective weapons system. I’m sure a 4 star had the final word though. 2. Each aircraft had its own Technical Order (TO) governing corrosion and paint systems along with other general TOs governing paint application etc. TO 1-1-4 was one of those but there were others I can’t remember. 3. The major commands participated in corrosion conferences every now and then to discuss paint issues by system and what fixes would be implemented. I remember notes published at one F-4 conference authorized intakes to be painted with rollers vs. spray. 4. Names such as “Ghost Gray” were never used by anyone and only painters would even know what an FS number was. Light gray was light gray, yellow was yellow etc. 5. There are standards for reflectance and IR signature. 6. Every pilot I talked to about gray camo liked it. It provided some concealment in the air and from above. I used to love watching F-15s at Holloman during sunset. That scheme took on the same color as the twilight. The F-16s dark gray upper was fairly hard to see from above. Concealment with camo is important enough that pilot’s helmets went to gray and I knew a pilot in one of my squadrons who could see a colored helmet at distance. During one deployment we were told to not shine any bare metal (tail feathers) as the glint could expose a guy. 7. Paint DEFINITELY prohibits corrosion in the eyes of the AF and we never let bare or worn paint go long without scheduling touch ups and not with a rattle can. in fact I never saw anything but wheels and a pitot tube get rattle canned. Everything went in the paint barn, preped, masked sprayed and allowed to cure. 8. The AF is VERY strict about standardization, no wild stuff etc. Even color tail flashes denoting squadron are approved by the MAJCOMS 9. As a general rule” full paints” (ie the airframe is bead blasted down to the skin, primed and sprayed) occur or used to at 5 year intervals. Wash, lube, and corrosion inspections were/are every 90 days. Full paints are done in a special closed hangar with ventilation etc and depending on the age of a paint job and degree of maintenance, the depot for a particular weapon system does the full paint. All of these activities are subject to inspection by an evaluator. 10. TAC in the 1980s went wild with major touch ups, washes, wipe downs etc under General Creech. It became such a problem that jets were “putting on weight” during periodic weight and balance checks and it became apparent there was an environmental impact from all this activity. 11. In my experience none of the fighter schemes were generally truly dead flat but kind of satin-like. I give all my model jets a shot of Micro Scale satin to “wake up” the final finish. So, there is a short history on everything you never wanted to know about USAF corrosion control from 1977-2007! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 6 hours ago, BillS said: So, there is a short history on everything you never wanted to know about USAF corrosion control from 1977-2007! That's fascinating info. Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 14 hours ago, GW8345 said: As far as paint lowering an IR signature, not really, no amount of paint is going to hide the engine heat and IR caused by friction of the aircraft "cutting" through the air. An aircraft's leading edges will create IR and you can still see an aircraft's engine even when viewed from the front. Not sure where you got that it was suggested that any available paint was going to "hide" an aircraft's IR signature. However, as noted in the post above, this paint is designed to (at least by some amount) have some reduction in IR reflections. May not be by a huge amount but as with visual detection, even a small reduction may make all the difference. Also, not every aircraft has it's engine visible from a frontal aspect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
seawinder Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 According to one article I found— https://medevacmatters.org/2012/04/05/aerial-camouflage-why-its-not-easy-being-green-with-white-patches-and-red-crosses/ —Project Compass Ghost was initiated during the Vietnam War and was in essence a resurrection of Project Yehudi which dated from 1943 and was a USN attempt to better camouflage ASW planes by using leading edge spotlights to brighten the under surfaces. The incentive for Project Compass Ghost was the large size of the F-4 Phantom, which made it very easily visible (along with its smoke trail). The lights were fairly quickly deemed inefficient, but the blue-tinted grays were retained. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GW8345 Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 hours ago, 11bee said: Not sure where you got that it was suggested that any available paint was going to "hide" an aircraft's IR signature. However, as noted in the post above, this paint is designed to (at least by some amount) have some reduction in IR reflections. May not be by a huge amount but as with visual detection, even a small reduction may make all the difference. Also, not every aircraft has it's engine visible from a frontal aspect. No, not every aircraft has it's engine visible from the front, think F-117 and F-22. As far as paint reducing IR signature, it doesn't reduce it, it just doesn't add to it and it doesn't add to the radar reflectivity (unless it the new special coatings). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mizar Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 On 9/29/2019 at 5:08 PM, bdt13 said: There is much written on this site about the usage and matching of FS 36375 and 36320. However, I have yet to see anything on the history of the colors or their name. Who first determined that none of the available gray colors were what was needed for fighters anymore? What was the process for finding new colors that would do the job? What other colors were tried, and what type of experiments were done to ensure their effectiveness (I'm sure there were some test planes painted in one-off schemes - pics please!!)? What were the first aircraft with an official technical order mandating their use? How did they get the name "compass ghost", even unofficially? Any real data at all is better than speculation. I'm thinking that if anyone at all knows, it will be someone with connection to this site. Thanks! If you are looking for one off schemes F-16 FSD one was painted in a compass-ghost~camouflage while a two seater and another single seater were painted in a better Hill scheme that was never applied F-4D Coonass Militia one had an F-15ish inspired scheme other two or three were randomly painted F-4C/D ROKAF I don't know how many of them served with that camouflage, Cutting Edge had one decal set with that F-4EJ Kai I think it was applied after they parted ways with the grey/white scheme F-104G/S AMI Reparto Sperimentale 37-23 camouflage was similar to JDASF F-104J 635 655 706 etc scheme A-7D possibly? A-10 maybe ab FSD with experimental scheme? Luigi Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bdt13 Posted October 5, 2019 Author Share Posted October 5, 2019 All- Thanks for the information in your responses. I now understand that there was a Project Compass Ghost (PCG), and that they were using lights to hide an F-4 in a similar way that Project Yahudi did in the 1940's. I'm still curious to know where things went when the lighting approach was discontinued. Were the gray colors a product of PCG, or were they developed separately and then given the name? If so, was the name meant as disinformation or was it simply as misunderstanding? What colors were tested in the project to arrive at the finished product? What, if any, aircraft were they tested on first? Are there any photos? Perhaps the lack of information hints that parts of this effort are still classified in some manner. Perhaps those involved did not feel their efforts were of sufficient interest to document them. Perhaps in time we will know the story. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eric2020 Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 Not sure but Dana Bell could help us out as he is specialist in colours and markings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bill C Posted February 13, 2022 Share Posted February 13, 2022 In reference to "Compass Ghost" paint. The blue on the F-15 was only part of a camouflage scheme. The other part was a camera a light projector. It was tested on an F-4 at Eglin AFB in the early 70's. The camera was mounted just behind the cockpit and lights were under the nose and outer wings. The idea was to the shade and intensity of the projected light to match the sky color behind the aircraft. The idea didn't work and project was cancelled. The F-15 paint was already in the contract, the AF kept it. I was stationed at Eglin AFB when the test was done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quixote74 Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 On 2/12/2022 at 9:56 PM, Bill C said: In reference to "Compass Ghost" paint. The blue on the F-15 was only part of a camouflage scheme. The other part was a camera a light projector. It was tested on an F-4 at Eglin AFB in the early 70's. The camera was mounted just behind the cockpit and lights were under the nose and outer wings. The idea was to the shade and intensity of the projected light to match the sky color behind the aircraft. The idea didn't work and project was cancelled. The F-15 paint was already in the contract, the AF kept it. I was stationed at Eglin AFB when the test was done. That's the first I've heard of the Eagle being fitted with such a system, but it may be of interest to you & other readers of this thread that Wolfpak Decals did markings for two different test schemes for the F-4C that ran the "Yehudi light" tests at Eglin circa 1972 (which ultimately led to the countershaded Compass Ghost scheme). Unfortunately it was only offered on their 2017 "Thank You" set, but the markings themselves are pretty simple - the trickiest part to duplicate being the red diamond tail band used by the weapons test squadron at that time. http://www.millcreekconsultants.com/WP72-12-17.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AD-4N Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 Quote 4. Names such as “Ghost Gray” were never used by anyone and only painters would even know what an FS number was. Light gray was light gray, yellow was yellow etc. I love this part and it rings so true with me. Modelers are the only ones obsessed by "this FS is for this, during the period May 73 to Apr 74 and only at Cannon AFB" and "RLM 27 was only used on Arado AR 196 tails in December 1939." It is hilarious. I was in the Army from the 70s to the 90s and I saw our vehicles painted in strict accordance to pattern right next to another that looked like it was painted with whatever green and tan they had in the motor pool at 1645 on Friday. The variability was enormous. MERDC schemes side by side with NATO three tone. Now days you will find sand painted vehicles with all sorts of NATO green doors or tailgates or wheels. Now I expect some branches of the service are more standardized than others, like BillS said above. A peacetime stateside Eagle probably has a more standardized paint job than one deployed during Desert Storm. And the patchwork schemes of deployed USN and USMC aircraft are legendary, each one has 345 shades of gray on them. That is always why I try to find a photo of the subject I am building and I laugh at model shows when someone is clicking their tongue over a Tomcat saying "That's the wrong shade of red or no F-14 would be that weathered." Yeah, right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikar Posted February 18, 2022 Share Posted February 18, 2022 During my second tour for the Vietnam war the C-130 gunships used mostly black with a camoflaged top on the A models and the H models were black overall. Then one day a H was flying around the base and eventually landed that was a light grey with its tail markings, WP, painted a slightly darker color. This aircraft would show up a few more times and never again. Some time after that the H models started getting a grey paint job that was darker. I have a shot of they original grey model as well as a H with just one engine nacelle grey and the rest black, and then there was grey with a black radome. This was in 1974 and makes for some unusual photos in my collection, glad I spent so much time taking pictures on the flight line after duty hours. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.