Air superiority fighter camouflage patterns proposal

flx2-shark flx3-dazzle1 flx4-dazzle2 flx5-dazzle3

14 thoughts on “Air superiority fighter camouflage patterns proposal

  1. Shouldnt the lower part/belly of the plane be Blue Sky, or like the color of the sky? To prevent enemy soldiers with MANPAD & other AA hardware to detect visually the aircraft?


    1. I’m not sure it would actually make the difference for an aircraft flying at 30.000-60.000 ft. It would look like a dark shadow no matter the belly color.


  2. The dazzle should be hard to follow. Kind of reminds me of WWI ships.

    It should be light blue and dark blue, or perhaps the color of clouds though.

    Rangefinders back then were much more primitive of course. It’s not like lasers today.

    They also did this in WWII:


  3. Third block down. I like the pattern not the color. The black stands out in the sky. and I agree with Hinonhet on underbelly.


    1. Third block is dazzle camouflage, it is intended to confuse the enemy during the dogfight as opposed to concealment. Though blue shades might be better.


  4. 4 and 5 block look surprisingly similar to razzle-dazzle. ( ) And I don’t know how effective that would be for aircraft seeking as razzle-dazzle, and I quote here: “did not conceal a ship, it made it difficult for the enemy to estimate its type, size, speed, and heading. The idea was to disrupt the visual rangefinders used for naval artillery. Its purpose was confusion rather than concealment.[2] An observer would find it difficult to know exactly whether the stern or the bow was in view; and it would be equally difficult to estimate whether the observed vessel was moving towards or away from the observer’s position.[3]”
    In other words it was meant to confuse the operator of the optical range-fighters used on WWI ships and make it difficult to get an accurate range. It was not meant to conceal and make the ship harder to find on the contrary it drew attention to the ships. So for fighters it might be counter productive, by drawing attention to the fighter and not doing it’s primary job because fighters don’t use optical rangefinders, they use laser range finders or radar.


    1. The goal of dazzle in this case is dogfighting to try to confuse the enemy pilot during tight maneuvers. Even for a split second, that can be an advantage in a dogfight.

      The Russians use very similar tactics, only they paint false canopies under their fighters.


  5. Another consideration is that it is worth using inflatable decoys when the aircraft takes off from the ground.


    1. Yeah, I noticed the canopy issue, but I’m going to leave it as-is for now as I’m kinda short on time (all posts being published now are scheduled, I actually wrote them months ago).


  6. “The goal of dazzle in this case is dogfighting to try to confuse the enemy pilot during tight maneuvers. Even for a split second, that can be an advantage in a dogfight. ”

    Then if the goal is confusion there might be an idea to do something like this: and instead of simple lines use some simple shapes something like dragons, eagle, wings, sharks teeth etc painted using the principles of dazzle and thus bring back “nose art” ( ) but in a much more expansive way ( covering the whole aircraft ). Using shapes in addition to contrasting colors might help makes it will further confuse the opposing as his brain will not only try to make sense of the contrasting colors but also of the contrast between the shape of the aircraft and the shapes he sees on the wings and fuselage. Also it might be a boost for morale for friendlies and demoralize the opposition.


    1. I think the HMS President is a good idea as well.

      The only other thing is to make the background like the sky for aircraft as well.

      For CAS, I’d recommend sky underneath and ground color from above (harder for aircraft above to intercept).

      Other ideas:
      – Put bright lights on the aircraft in an attempt to temporarily blind them; flares can achieve a similar effect

      The Germans put whistles on their Stuka dive bombers to make noise – with modern speakers this should be possible – the person in the rear could turn them off when silence was desirable

      Whatever is used though has to be relatively light weight so that it does not adversely affect performance too much.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s