• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Camouflage and detection

T

Thunderbolt

SOC-12
I'm working on a new piece of artwork which will feature a new cruiser design.

It got me thinking about colours. Arguably, it should be pitch black with a 99.999% absorbant coating to soak up every possible wavelength of light and radiation out there.

But a dark outline, a picture does not make.

There doesn't seem to be anything in High Guard about detecting other ships, and given the distances involved, I wonder how much use colour would be.

And let's not forget the rather prominent fusion flare pulling a full 6 gees pouring superheated gas out the back, I'm not sure any stealth technologies will get round that one.

It all started after reading this article on so called "Razzle Dazzle" camouflage.

http://www.gotouring.com/razzledazzle/articles/dazzle.html

Thoughts and ideas ??
 
Hi !

I had a similar "design" question a couple of weeks ago, and finally decided to use a greyish style. In fact this results into some lightning/visibility problems, I still try to deal with. Maybe its just to use a pretty background (gas giant surface etc.).

Well, Traveller combat usually happens at vast distances and the VIS part of the spectrum is perhaps a less important aspect of the long range detection process. So color perhaps doesnt matter at all.

If we would talk about low tech stuff, I could think of using white or a highly reflective surface, in order to be less sensible to outside radiation (just like the Spaceshuttle).
But as we are dealing with high TL stuff....it really might just be up to the designer.

Besdies, wasnt there a carmouflage option for starships in CT ????

Regards,

Mert
 
I too encountered this on making a model for a TNE game. What are the precedents? I went with a black underside countershaded scheme with gold and red upper hull surfaces. The ship is also supposed to be old and sitting in a junkyard for 80 years or so.

I am not sure about the effectiveness of physical camoflage in space combat, but as the mentioned ship had a lower mounted turret, I decided that a black underside would aid in gound target strikes.
I think in combat, if you are in visual range, camoflage ain't gonna save you. Most of those cool dazzle schemes were the most effective when the ship was at extreme range, on the horizon.
 
I'm wondering if orbit and lower atmosphere is where colour really starts to count.

Whilst your ultra-black surface is an asset in deep space, it's bad news when observed against the background of clouds and bright blue seas.

On the other hand, when seen from below, black is still a good thing.

Below cloud cover however, black becomes a problem and silver or grey is required.

How much for a ship wide chameleon colour surface ?
 
i can give you some actual physics. in space, stealth does not work. space is big, empty and extremely cold. in contrast, any ship with a drive and life support emits so much heat that it looks like a giant beacon that can be seen across entire systems with a simple infrared telescope. a ship would also leave a huge trail as it enters an atmosphere.

so you can make a ship any color you want. put a giant mural on it if you wish. :D
 
For the longest time, aircraft like the B-52 (after it started doing low-level runs) were painted black on the bottom and a ground camouflage scheme on top. Even in daylight against a blue sky, the black is harder to see from the ground, and the ground camouflage was supposed to make it harder to be seen by fighters in high cover orbits.

Several years ago, though, somebody came to the conclusion that something called "low-observability gray" actually worked better - for both top and bottom. The entire USAF fleet was repainted. (So, Mert, you are spot on with your choice.) The stealth aircraft are painted black primarily because of their use at night - its not a factor of camouflage in flight so much as rolling out of the hangar in the dark.

I would go with an older way of thinking, though. Since the paint job probably matters little for space combat ranges, I would paint them colors that would stand out significantly when in dock or close orbit. I want folks in the spaceport to know exactly who is out there protecting them from the bad guys (take your pick). And, of course, it would be changeable to some extent - you don't want to be "flying" that Jolly Roger when you pull into most spaceports......
 
If you look at WWII aircraft camo, they tended to be camoflauged (Tree/ ocean / whatever) on top and either light blue or light grey on the bottom.

Black would be a good "bottom" camoflauge only on vaccum worlds or after dark, and after dark any drive emissions flare (HEPLAR) is going to be pretty noticeable....

From Fritz' post I guess that the USAF "rediscovered" the visual camo basics in the 50's / 60's...

Scott Martin
 
Originally posted by Scott Martin:
If you look at WWII aircraft camo, they tended to be camoflauged (Tree/ ocean / whatever) on top and either light blue or light grey on the bottom.

Black would be a good "bottom" camoflauge only on vaccum worlds or after dark, and after dark any drive emissions flare (HEPLAR) is going to be pretty noticeable....
Click to expand...
Trivia: RAF heavy bombers during WWII were a sort of woodland camo above, black below, as most of their missions were flown at night.


Would visual camouflage be of any real use in space where electromagnetic radiation across a wide range of frequencies can be used for passive detection purposes (to say nothing of more active methods such as radar)? I'm inclined to believe that a black ship would be more of an affectation than a practical means of avoiding detection in all but the most low-tech of circumstances.

EM masking and stealth surface covering would be far more important than the paint job, I think - except perhaps to a Vargr. ;)
 
Passive sensors detect radiation emitted or reflected. Black reflects less. On its own, it'll do very little, but combined with other methods it'll help.
 
Greetings and salutations,

Would the similar building materials and/or paints used for American stealth fighters and bombers be of use as a reference?
 
Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
FF&S2 says TL10+ hulls can change colour at will.
Click to expand...
To combine this comment with Fritz88's idea on flying the flag, why stick with simple static color schemes? If you have the resolution and refresh rate you could really "fly the flag" or maybe a nice potrait of the Emperor? Merchants might go for flashy advertising. The wealthy will of course commission one of a kind art works to display across there hulls.


In a more serious vein, I imagine camo ship hulls to display a pattern similar to what is behind them, typically a star field on black. The more sophisticated the hull, the larger a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum they can cover, as well as possibly gravatic and other emmisions. Such camo is to prevent occlusion and differentiation from the background due to emissions. It might be a little thing but making something hard for a sophont to see, even up close, has a psycological effect all its own.
 
I thought that EM masking and camouflage were covered in MegaTraveller Starship design. I think it was covered a little in the Starship Operator's Manual, too.
 
Actually, Scott, my point above was that the USAF went the other way in the 90's: gray all 'round. It was determined (scientifically, even!) that the gray was no worse than the camo patterns they had been using and had the advantage of being cheaper to buy and use (no masking, the airplane, and all).

I think the variability would be limited on a hull's surface. After all, it is exposed to searing heat and cold, micro-meteorites and sand clouds, lasers and missiles, the occasional spaceport dock as you clumsily dis/engage, etc. You also have an issue with "interruptions": airlocks, turrets, sensors, jump grids, etc.

I think there would be some variability, but I think it would be somewhat limited - like maybe each location ("pixel") would have three colors it could reproduce, and you would mix and match these to give you three different patterns (including "low-observability gray" ;) ).

You could also only get a very limited counter-emissions use out of any kind of paint or hull covering. he kind of emissions you are putting out are going to overwhelm something like a paint job. (NB: Unless you believe in emissions sinks (like heat sinks) that you can use to "run silent" or a super-nano-surface that can do just about anything. It is YTU after all.)

For me, I continue to use the "age of sail" paradigm, and camouflage won't be terribly useful IMTU. :D
 
On a sidebar, anyone know what the deal is with "Radome Tan" Why was that adopted? What's it do? I feel as if I asked this sometime before, but it may be the senility...
 
Go with pink. Because when the sensor guys report they see a pink starship their captain is going to throw them in the brig for drink on duty.
 
There was a Vargr Scout in my game who used to paint her ship pink. She said it was so she could find it in the car park...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top