Aggressors

[Mossie]

Mav,

I see your reasoning behind the ghost schemes, my only point was that it doesn't have to be the case.  There are other schemes to choose from even by the late 80's, F-16's in Euro I for instance & many European fighter aircraft retained tactical schemes well into the 90's, even they were starting to change.

Also, I think one of the reasons that US Aggressor aircraft have never worn Soviet/Russian grey schemes is more simple than it first seems; they just weren't different enough from their own aircraft.  If they were trying purely to replicate the the defensive thinking of the Soviet Union, why didn't they go grey too?

[Maverick]

Simon,

A few things come to mind. 

F-16s didn't fly in Euro 1 from an operation point of view.  They were tested in the scheme in the 80s (a B out of Hill AFB if I'm right) as part of the CAS role but it wasn't taken up. 

As for other aircraft wearing tactical schemes, Aggressor training is about DACT, which means fighters which means grey or shades thereof in most instances in the late 80s plus.  Pretty much any air defence roled aircraft that comes to mind comes up Grey, JA-37 Viggen, Tornado, Typhoon, F-16, F/A-18, F-14, etc, etc.  The simple reality is that tactical aircraft (unless it's the whole "Red Flag" deal) won't make a mention as they shouldn't be 'turning & burning' with the fighters in the first place.

Finally, Frontal Aviation fighters like the MiG-21 & 23 wore tactical camouflage even though there were tasked with an air defence role.  The US' attempt at Aggressor schemes has been, in my opinion, quite odd.  The USAF Aggressor units in particular flew in Soviet style, used Soviet tactics and yet had all manner of outdlandish and definitely non-Soviet schemes adorning their aircraft.

Recent US aggressor/adversary schemes have attempted to redress this (eg: 'Fulcrum' & 'Flanker' painted Bugs, Vipers & Turkeys).

Regards,

Mav

[Shasper]

Unfortunatly Mav, sometimes the "Best Guess" comes out wrong, and lets not forget that the Soviets weren't the only badguys in town. Others like North Korea, China, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and list goes on, have added their influence to the REDAIR color charts, along with other non-threat states that had a cool-looking scheme (the USN Swede splinter scheme worn by a single NFWS F-16N is a prime example of that). Also there were a number of experiments with camouflage that involved the REDAIR community ( "Heater - Ferris" is one) that had nothing to do with anything the badguys were working on.

Just because we're training to take on country X doesnt mean our REDAIR guys should have to look the part down to their jockeys. If we have a/c done up in camo borrowed from Botswana or India doesnt mean we considered those countries a threat. And as far as the Arctic F-16 scheme goes. . . well, every other scheme the AF had would have been easy to spot against the unique Alaskan topography.

And btw, there were about a dozen or so F-16s done up in the euro-1 'lizard' scheme as a part of the A-16 trials.


Shas  

[Maverick]

Fair enough Shas.  I was aware of the various Ferris schemes trialled by the USN & the USAF and knew of the A-16 trials but I'd read that only one or two aircraft were actually painted up in Lizard whilst the trials were underway.

Either way, Lizard isn't a valid 'Aggressor' scheme for the Sovs to use in my opinion, as it remains a 'mud mover' scheme.

As for looking the part, that's kinda odd because I've read a rather in depth article about USAF Aggressor squadrons who go to quite a degree (maybe not their 'unmentionables') but certainly Red stars hither & yon.

I still believe that for DACT, visual cueing to the point of instinctively realising that the colour & shape of an aircraft is 'enemy' could save vital seconds within combat.  A lot has been said of BVR and the like, but given the politicians habit of drawing up ROEs that are plain ridiculous (Vietnam being a prime example), I don't think it will be the last time that aircraft 'turn and burn' against each other.

Regards,

Mav

[Gary]

Somehow, I am having a vision of Hooters girls all weilding mops with grey and green paints slopping paint over an F-15 and... each other.



Mmmmmm, gives new meaning to air supremecy grey

[philp]

Mav has added a couple nice profiles to his thread.

[Shasper]

I still believe that for DACT, visual cueing to the point of instinctively realising that the colour & shape of an aircraft is 'enemy' could save vital seconds within combat.  A lot has been said of BVR and the like, but given the politicians habit of drawing up ROEs that are plain ridiculous (Vietnam being a prime example), I don't think it will be the last time that aircraft 'turn and burn' against each other.

I'll agree w/you there Mav

Shas

[Jschmus]

Here I go again dredging up another old thread, but I wasn't sure where else to post these.

From the archives of the National Museum of Naval Aviation

"An F-4S Phantom II from Fighter Squadron (VF) 301 casts its shadow on the California desert during a low level tactics training flight on May 18, 1984, twenty-seven years ago today. Flying "Inferno-103" were LCDR Don "Buff" Buffington and LCDR Dave "Face" Gato."

VF-301 were not an Aggressor unit, but I was trying to drop this in a thread relevant to "Heater-Ferris" schemes.

Also, someone said that American DACT aircraft aren't ever painted in Russian grey schemes?  Au contraire.

From airliners.net (but not hot-linked)




Two F/A-18A+ belonging to VFA-204.  You may remember them from earlier this year when one of their birds was painted in a midnight blue 50s scheme.

[Taiidantomcat]

That Hornet rocks thanks for posting