SureFire XC3

Today’s Air Commandos Celebrate Tomorrow’s Legends

June 24th, 2023

CLOVIS, N.M. —  

Today’s Air Commandos…tomorrow’s legends was the theme throughout the week when the Air Force Special Operations Command Outstanding Airmen of the Year were brought to Cannon AFB, N.M., for two days of professional development, recognition and celebration at the annual OAY banquet held at the Clovis Civic Center, June 8, 2023.

“As America’s Air Commandos, we truly do stand on the shoulders of giants,” said Lt. Gen. Tony Bauernfeind, AFSOC commander, during his speech to the audience of more than 300. “We are each cut from the cloth from those who have come before us, and that’s something to be truly proud of.”

The Outstanding Airmen of the Year were nominated by their leadership and selected by board members based on their exceptional job performance, superior leadership and followership, and the epitome of the whole airman concept. The Airman, Non-commissioned Officer and Senior NCO now compete at the Air Force level-OAY competition. The first sergeant, base honor guard and honor guard manager also move on to compete for Air Force-level awards.

“The mindset of an Air Commando is not built around one specialty code,” the general said. “It runs in the blood of each of us. It pushes us forward to break boundaries and to exceed expectations. Tonight, these winners truly epitomize what it means to be an Air Commando.”

The general went on to thank the winners for their sacrifices and ensured the audience knew “Air Commandos are absolutely our competitive advantage… in every future conflict. And it is clear we are America’s Air Commandos; ready to fight tonight and pathfinding for tomorrow.”

The 2022 AFSOC Airmen of the Year are:

Airman
SSgt Emilee S. Underwood, 492d Special Operations Support Squadron, Duke Field, Fla.

Underwood served as an intelligence analyst in support of Pacific Eagle, backing five aircraft and 297 combat flying hours for Special Operations Command-Pacific’s number one counterterrorism priority. She deployed as the sole intelligence support for the Joint Special Operations Air Detachment-Singapore where she led 22 mission threat briefings, mitigating the risk of three C-146 aircraft and protecting 35 crew members for 431 sorties across 52 airfields. She also managed two major programs where she served as the vehicle control officer to oversee 120 inspection items while also providing quality assurance and preservation of 50 deployed communication assets worth $150,000.

Non-commissioned Officer
TSgt Kimberly R. Mastrocola, 1st Special Operations Wing, Hurlburt Field, Fla.

Mastrocola served as non-commissioned officer in charge of Project Integration for the Wing’s Innovation Cell. She was by-name requested as lead project officer for the Air Force Chief of Staff’s Bravo Hackathon series in addition to leading a liaison fellowship with the Air Force Installation Mission Support Center. She piloted 11 wing-level projects impacting 3,000 Airmen while also overseeing the planning of three Hackathon events that showcased 1,300 members across every branch of service. Mastrocola also led a non-profit STEM program for 10,000 students, facilitating 60 events and instructing 31 courses. Her dedication as a community partner culminated in the award of 41 educational youth grants valued at $161 million.

Senior Non-commissioned Officer
Master Sergeant Jerry M. Scott, 33d Special Operations Squadron, Cannon Air Force Base, N.M.

Scott served as the senior enlisted leader of the 1st Special Operations Support Squadronduring a five-month manning shortage of senior non-commissioned officers. Steering the command’s pivot to integrated deterrence and global power competition, he conquered a historical unit growth of 45 percent to create the Air Force’s largest OSS consisting of 503 Airmen from 75 career fields. He also oversaw 110 deployments embedding combat support into 204 exercises across five geographical areas and onboarded 154 Mission Sustainment Team members to lead agile combat employment efforts. His experience flying five aircraft across three major commands immersed him with tactical, operational and strategic-level experience.

First Sergeant
SMSgt Garrett A. Hetzel, 352d Special Operations Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Royal Air Force Mildenhall, United Kingdom

As the first sergeant, Hetzel shaped standards for 496 Airmen across and enabled 5,800 flight hours across three areas of responsibility which led to the maintenance group’s first MAJCOM-level Maintenance Effectiveness Award. He also authored a first sergeant management guidebook to assist U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa Command Chiefs in leading first sergeants. His efforts delivered a boots-on-the-ground perspective in direct support of 35,000 warfighters and their families. He also drove Air Force Southern Command’s initiative to educate the Colombian Air Force on benefits of the First Sergeant. He provided the baseline for a three-day course consisting of 100 senior enlisted leaders.

Base Honor Guard Member
SrA Asawna A. Thomas, 727th Special Operations Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Cannon Air Force Base, N.M.

Thomas developed 18 Honor Guard members through instruction on 60 standing manuals necessary in the execution of colors and final military funeral honors maneuvers. She pushed two training flights and molded 10 Airmen into elite base honor guardsmen through 855 detail man hours which spanned over 15,000 miles. She was hand-selected to be a pallbearer for Cannon Air Force Base’s first active-duty send-off resulting in establishment of a new wing standard. Her dedication to the community was evident in her 15 hours of service feeding the less fortunate with her church, preserving four lives by dedicating 50 hours to the Airmen Against Drunk Driving program and volunteering at an assisted living facility which created community cohesion and showcased the Base Honor Guard.

Base Honor Guard Member Program Manager
TSgt Jorge Ochoa, 1st Special Operations Force Support Squadron, Hurlburt Field, Fla.

As program manager for Hurlburt Field’s Base Honor Guard, Ochoa led the command’s largest Honor Guard program by guiding 87 Airmen with six elements and overseeing the execution of 2,100 training hours. His efforts delivered 334 military funeral honors across two states and 20 counties. He synchronized Honor Guard and Airmen Leadership School personnel to establish and solidify ceremony sequences and events that resulted in five classes graduating 434 members and the presentation of 55 awards for 22 units. As a mentor, he fostered leadership qualities in his Airmen that empowered his team to train tenant wing personnel and enabled 13 retirement ceremonies and 284 years of service being honored. He was recognized by the community for his work with Junior ROTC students.

Company Grade Officer
Captain Seamus G. Feeley, Detachment 2, 24th Special Operations Wing, Duke Field, Fla.

Feeley served as Mission Commander, Combat Aviation Advisor & Chief of Intelligence when he led 17 advisors on a critical mission to Eastern Europe in an effort to increase unconventional warfare capabilities. He directed the administration of the Air Force’s only Irregular Warfare group where he managed 423 Airmen across four squadrons and earned 17 MAJCOM awards. He also led the first integration of Estonian Special Operations Forces into three multinational exercises, resulting in 26 sorties and the promotion of allied joint civil military activities and Secretary of Defense strategic objectives. He also oversaw a $940,000 communications node, sustaining four secure networks, 25 multiband radios and 15 classified systems without degradation.

Individual Reservist Officer
Major Caesar X. Baldemor, 27th Special Operations Security Forces Squadron, Cannon Air Force Base, N.M.

Baldemor served as the Defense Force Flight Commander at Al Asad Air Base, Iraq, where he led 47 defenders charged with airfield defense. He planned and executed 16 base-wide exercises for 89 quick-reaction force personnel from multiple services. His rehearsals were tested when his team responded to multiple hostile fire events resulting in detecting and deterring enemy ground attacks to the base and zero interruptions to airfield operations. On only his fifth day in country, he led his flight through two complex attacks to the air base. His expedient actions established a southern facing perimeter and thwarted enemy ground efforts. His team’s robust security operations vetted 5.6 million gallons of water and fuel, and 100 tons of food for critical life support of 2,800 base personnel and $3.3 million in airfield infrastructure upgrades.

Civilian Category One
Jennifer L. Post, 1st Special Operations Medical Group, Hurlburt Field, Fla.

Serving as a pharmacy supply custodian, Post managed 232 contracts and a $5 million budget to supply 162,000 life-saving medications for 71,000 patients. She developed and implemented several process improvements that saved 1,000 labor hours and reduced patient wait times by 27 percent. Her attention to detail recouped $541,000 and earned the unit a Defense Health Agency Market’s best contract compliance score. She also powered a highly visible Special Operations Forces Generation tasker quickly staging 450,000 deployment medication kits in support of two combatant commands ensuring 378 deployers were ready and cementing her unit’s recognition as Air Force Special Operations Command’s Surgeon General Clinic of the Year.

Civilian Category Two
Jana L. Brown, 23rd Special Operations Weather Squadron, AFSOC Operations Center, Hurlburt Field, Fla.

As a Supervisory Lead Meteorological Technician, Brown led a global operations team of 27 forecasters in creation of 2,500 products supporting 21,000 flight hours. She identified and corrected a weather forecast briefing deficiency by creating five scenario-based training requirements to enhance certification and qualification standards, reducing errors by 25 percent. In response to a commander priority, she led her section in creating four environmental intelligence training packages that aligned the technical capability of the unit with the National Defense Security Strategy for maritime, arctic, space and tropical forecasting. She also incorporated lessons learned from a leadership course into the squadron’s resiliency day training, promoting team building and unit cohesion.

Civilian Category Three
David Saugstad, 1st Special Operations Civil Engineer Squadron, Hurlburt Field, Fla.

Saugstand served as a structures foreman and maintenance mechanic supervisor when he led four elements of 28 military and three civilian personnel in the completion of more than 2,000 projects val. His team completed 2,000 repairs in support of 1,000 facilities and 77 Special Operations aircraft. When faced with a 25 percent manning reduction, he established a $124,000 gutter repair contract which diverted 1,500 hours of preventative maintenance and uncovered 159 at risk facilities. He also pioneered AFSOC’s small unmanned aircraft system inspection program by analyzing 377 buildings to capture 1,500 data points and preserving $1.5 billion in roof systems. Readying the force for the future, he steered a $448,000 contingency training project and focused the efforts of 22 engineers in the construction of a 2,400 square foot Resiliency Center which enhanced 281 mission-ready Airman’s skills and morale.

Civilian Category Four
Sharon A. Brewer, 1st Special Operations Force Support Squadron, Hurlburt Field, Fla.

Serving as the Flight Chief and Child Development Specialist in the Child and Youth Services Flight, she led 191 civilians, five child development operations and 14 licensed providers to cut wait lists by two months and uphold daily childcare needs for 605 personnel and saving $45,000 through Air Force subsidy. She was hand selected to lead 16 subject matter experts in development of service and program strategies, impacting 72 youth programs and improving quality of life for 265,000 children Air Force wide. Teaming with Florida’s Early Learning Coalition, she amplified six Child Development Programs and received $63,000 and increased grants by 25 percent with a volunteer pre-Kindergarten program. Her efforts resolved childcare needs for 523 families and surpassed national standards by 130 percent.

Air & Space Force Key Spouse
Lina M. Arenas 752d Special Operations Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Royal Air Force Mildenhall, United Kingdom

Arenas was critical to the success of 235 Airmen and their families as part of a high-demand, rapidly deployable unit, supporting 13 deployments. She provided food and clothing packages for deployment teams and led the creation and distribution of seven newborn care packages enhancing quality of life for impacted members. While attending the annual key spouse symposium, she briefed 96 leaders on the communication limitations between leadership and tri-base area spouses. Her dedication to resolving issues positively impacted families across four wings and their surrounding communities. She also leveraged her emergency management expertise to impart disaster action knowledge in support of a first-of-its-kind, dual-wing crash recovery exercise, readying the installation for crisis response actions.
*It was announced at the banquet that Arenas was also selected as the 2022 Air Force Key Spouse of the Year Award winner.

CMSgt. Anthony Green, AFSOC command chief, closed out the evening by thanking all the supervisors, leaders, families, friends and community members for “pouring into our award winners and supporting them each and every single day to make us the best version of ourselves.”

By Dawn Hart

Air Force Special Operations Command Public Affairs

KAK Industry K-SPEC BCG

June 23rd, 2023

The K-SPEC BCG combines multiple key features focused on increasing the reliability of your AR15 style firearm no matter if you are running suppressed or unsuppressed, and regardless of conditions.  The K-SPEC is a truly plug and play BCG that will accommodate whatever configuration your mission requires.

For those running suppressed, the K-SPEC requires no additional tuning or tweaking of the gas or recoil systems to run reliably.  Like all KAK BCGs, the K-SPEC is machined to the M16 full auto profile.

Both the K-SPEC Carrier and K-SPEC Bolt are backwards compatible with all standard mil-spec BCG components.  The K-SPEC bolt can be used in any AR15 style direct impingement system, and the K-SPEC Carrier will function perfectly with any standard AR15 bolt.

Because we manufacture our BCG components in house and do not rely on outsourcing, KAK is able to offer the K-SPEC complete BCGs and components in over 50 combinations from 5.56 NATO all the way to .458 SOCOM, in multiple finishes, and left-hand versions as well.

? Slotted Angled Carrier Rails

For enhanced functionality in adverse and rugged conditions such as sand, mud, dirt, and grime. These rail cuts are designed for debris disbursement, resulting in ultra-high functionality in the toughest conditions, including suppressor fouling and foreign contaminates. Strategically located angle cuts in the rails result in fouling and debris being moved into noncritical areas that are not in contact with the receiver and do not affect the function of the firearm.

? Downward Gas Vents

In an effort to reduce the amount of debris and gas vented towards the shooters face, the two standard gas relief ports have been relocated from the ejection port side of the K-SPEC carrier and placed underneath, in the magazine feed lip channels.  Two additional emergency relief ports have also been added to the bottom of the carrier to mitigate structural damage in the event of a case head separation.  Testing has shown that venting the gasses through the magazine well has no negative impact on the feeding or function of the magazine nor ammunition, and any added heat is negligible. A quick side by side comparison video of a standard BCG and the K-SPEC BCG can be viewed HERE. *Note, standard BCG on top (lots of gas to face) and K-SPEC BCG on bottom (no gas to face).

Dual ejectors 

The K-SPEC dual ejector system uses mil-spec ejectors and springs that require no proprietary parts.  Ejector holes are centered on the lugs to avoid any reduction in strength of the bolt.  The dual ejector system increases the ejection reliability and adds consistency to the ejection pattern. KAK Industry has been manufacturing dual ejector bolts for the AR10/LR308 platform for over a decade and has used that experience to create a durable and reliable dual ejector system for the AR15 platform.

KAK Industry K-SPEC BCG

Designed to function reliably in the toughest conditions

Optimized for both Suppressed and Un-suppressed use, All uses – All Conditions

Dual Ejectors for enhanced reliability

Angled Carrier Rail Cuts for flawless function in adverse conditions and prolonged suppressed use

Downward Gas Ports to reduce gas blowback to shooter

Full Auto Profile

Permatex added between Gas Key and Carrier Mating Surface

Carrier- 8620 steel, outside rails, bolt runs, and gas bores ground to .0002 tolerances, nitride finish

Bolt- 9310 steel, outside diameters ground to .0002 tolerances, MPI test, nitride finish

Firing Pin- 8740 steel, Swiss turned, heat treated, precision ground, chrome plated

Cam Pin – 4140 steel, Swiss turned, heat treated, nitride finish

Extractor- 4140 steel, fully machined, Phosphate coated

Extractor pin- S7 tool steel, ground, heat treated

Ejector- S7 tool steel, ground, heat treated

Gas key – 4130 steel, heat treated, secured with T25 torx fasteners, torqued to spec, staked with in house hydraulic staking machine.

Available for purchase on Friday Jun 23, 2023: kakindustry.com/k-spec-ar15-bcg-5-56-300-blackout

Machined in house and assembled using only the finest steels and components.

KAK Industry takes pride in producing some of the finest Mil-Spec/ Enhanced AR15 bolt carrier groups available, made 100% in house at our MO facility using Doosan machining centers, Tsugami Swiss turning, and the latest in FANUC robotics combined into an automated cell giving us lights out production capability.  In house automated CMM Inspection processes ensure consistent quality.

MultiCam Arid: Safariland Launches Exclusive Holsters

June 23rd, 2023

Jacksonville, Florida – Safariland®, a brand of The Safariland Group®, a leading global provider of safety products designed for the public safety, military, professional and outdoor markets and one of Cadre Holdings, Inc.’s (NYSE: CDRE) (“Cadre”) key brands announced their latest limited edition pattern, Multi-Cam Arid™ for the 6354RDS, 6304RDS and 6354RDSO holster models.

“Multi-Cam Arid has been highly requested by our customers and is a great fit for our limited edition lineup. Our team is excited to bring these limited edition holsters to the market,” said Eric Gasvoda, GM of Duty Gear for Safariland.

Originally designed to significantly minimize the visibility of individuals operating in desert environments, MultiCam Arid has become a popular choice for firearm accessories in recent years. The MultiCam Arid palette compliments and overlaps portions of the main MultiCam® pattern, seamlessly integrating gear and apparel for a well-coordinated concealment system.

Safariland’s 6354RDS, 6304RDS and 6354RDSO holsters include the Automatic Locking System (ALS®) to secure the firearm. They are red dot sight compatible, with the 6304RDS also employing the proven self-locking system (SLS) pivoting hood. The new RDSO series utilizes an open pocket design that protects the optic without the use of a flip-up dust cover. Now available in the MultiCam Arid exclusive design, these holsters provide peak protection and performance.

To purchase and learn more about Safariland’s limited edition line of holsters, visit Safariland.com.

Low Vis Gear – Raider Rear Bag

June 23rd, 2023

The new Raider Rear Bag from Low Vis Gear can be tethered directly to your rifle thanks to the adjustable and stowable QD sling strap.

It’s manufactured by SORD from ATACS iX pattern 500D Cordura. The filling is Spexlite 5064 and the amount can be adjusted thanks to the food-away fill funnel.

www.lowvisgear.com/en-us/products/mk4-fox

Visit EXO Charge At Modern Day Marine And The Power Sources Conference

June 23rd, 2023

From 27-29 June 2023 the EXO Charge division of Xentris Wireless will be showcasing its next-generation, mission-ready power solutions at two events in the Washington D.C. area.

MODERN DAY MARINE

EXO Charge will be exhibiting our latest developments at booth number 2455 (Hall B) at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington D.C. Visit us to see the Small Tactical Universal Battery (STUB) series – and find out about our other latest developments!

POWER SOURCES CONFERENCE

EXO Charge will be exhibiting at booth number 808 at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center, National Harbor, Maryland. Our white paper, entitled “The Small Tactical Universal Battery Series – Helping To Solve Modern Tactical Power Challenges”, will be included in the conference proceedings, and we will also be conducting a poster presentation on Wednesday morning the 28th at 10am. We look forward to seeing you there!

At both MODERN DAY MARINE and the POWER SOURCES CONFERENCE EXO Charge will be highlighting the Small Tactical Universal Battery (STUB) series – the next-generation in the evolution of dismounted Warfighter power – plus two new kits designed to assist with the selection and integration of the STUB into tactical electronics:

STUB Sample Kit – the STUB Sample Kit gives engineers, program managers, OEMs, and end users an example of each type of STUB – both single and double cell stack varieties.

STUB Developer Kit – the STUB Developer Kit is designed to help electrical engineers create systems and devices optimized for interoperability with a STUB power source.

Whichever event you’re attending, we look forward to your visit. If you would like to book a specific day and time for a conversation, please reach out to us through our website, at www.exocharge.com – or LinkedIn.

Eco Defense Group Uses StarLink to Stop Poachers

June 23rd, 2023

Eco Defense Group is a unique consultancy designed to develop and implement solutions in areas of poaching crisis in Africa.

In the past, they’ve created, supplied and mentored marine and special operations units, built and guided training programs, partnered with the most important parks in Africa and even helped firefighters jump out of helicopters on fast ropes. We’ve just been shown that this past month, Eco Defense Group has taken an interesting step to use satellites — and the ingenuity of Elon Musk — to make possible communications where they have never before been available.

Pursuing a unique partnership last month, the non profit deployed field teams to remote areas of national parks in Africa with portable Starlink devices to aide in countering specific poaching crises. Where they go, even the group can’t admit to—and that’s the point of how effective.

Certain areas in Southern Africa are wild — truly wild — and necessarily the home of the endangered and threatened species that wildlife Rangers professionals work tirelessly to protect. In these areas, infrastructure is limited, communications sometimes impossible and the execution of counter-poaching strategies to defend wildlife can be remarkable difficult, even with the training and tools that groups like Eco Defense Group provide.

Now the group has started to deliver sponsored Starlink devices as the Starlink “Constellation” has begun to glitter the night sky over Africa. One can imagine that this will be a game changer for wildlife protection along with a variety of unconsidered industries working in remote places.

Eco Defense Group is one of the more innovative non-profits that we’ve seen (even if you rarely see much of them), and this kind of intelligent thinking is exactly why they are both effective and invisible.

The modern world, having ignored the crisis of African animals that are being poached to extinction, has arguably now offered a tool that could, in places, change the game against the poachers that seek rhino, lion, elephant and other species for black market exploitation.

www.ecodefensegroup.org

FirstSpear Friday Focus – No Bubbles, No Troubles v3 T-shirt

June 23rd, 2023

• Limited Edition

• Performance and Comfort Tri-Blend

Meet the new No Bubbles, No Troubles v3 T-shirt from FirstSpear – the ultimate summer tee for those who want to look good without sacrificing comfort and performance. It’s got all the features you want without any of that pesky bubble trouble.

Command a little style with our eye-catching design on the back and the bold FirstSpear skull logo on the chest that says you have great taste but don’t need to brag about it. So forget the bubbles and grab the No Bubbles, No Troubles v3, because it’s time to look good and feel even better this summer.

Visit FirstSpear to find American Made kit and accessories, Built For The X.

Look Back: Olive Drab, Haze Blue and Jet Black: the Problem of Aircraft Camouflage Prior to and During WWII

June 23rd, 2023

Camouflage, in the form of paint applied to aircraft, has been regularly studied and experimented with since the First World War. The use of ground-based or airborne radar to detect enemy aircraft did not have significant application until the British used it successfully during the Battle of Britain in 1940. Until that time and even after, until radar was in widespread use, visual detection of aircraft was the primary means. The Army Air Corps and the wartime Army Air Forces wrestled with a number of aircraft camouflage concepts during the pre-war and wartime years. The final standards, schemes and colors were a compromise, and balanced a number of factors. All of this work was indicative of an air arm that now contemplated the task of executing new, world-wide, missions and operations.

The basic problem of how to camouflage any object starts with the concept of visibility. An object such as an aircraft is visible because it contrasts with its background – either the sky or the ground. The contrast may be in shape, shadow, texture, color, shine (flat to gloss), movement, or any combination of those characteristics. A regular or known shape will identify an object. Shadow and contrast also define it. A light-colored aircraft on a light runway is visible because of its shadow. A dark aircraft on a light runway or a light aircraft on a dark runway is visible because of its contrast. A dark aircraft on a dark runway helps to obscure both conditions. A moving aircraft seen against the sky or against the static terrain is visible because it attracts attention. All these physical factors need to be accounted for to some degree when deciding on camouflage schemes.

Similar to other tradeoffs in aircraft design, when dealing with the practical decisions regarding aircraft camouflage, there are many alternatives to be considered. A single-color scheme is not going to be suitable for all weather and seasonal variations and regular repainting during combat operations is not practical. What works well to hide an aircraft on the ground may be the opposite of what works well for the same aircraft in flight, so a compromise is necessary. The aircraft shape cannot be changed, so experimenting with different painting designs may determine what helps to “break up” the shape and make it less conspicuous.

Paint adds weight to an aircraft which can lower the performance; however, paint does improve resistance to corrosion which reduces maintenance and lengthens the aircraft service life. The paint itself must be durable enough to withstand field use and weather/sun exposure without significant fading or chipping which would reduce the overall camouflage effect. Painting an aircraft adds both material and labor costs, as well as schedule, to aircraft production – a non-trivial consideration during the rapid mass production executed during World War II. National insignia must be applied and must be visible – in some ways defeating the main purpose of camouflage to begin with. Finally, industry must be able to produce the paint in enough quantity and to required finish specifications in order to meet the needs of the Service and a very large aircraft fleet.

As far back as World War I, camouflage schemes were considered for aircraft. One disturbing factor that moderated the search for an effective concealment approach for U.S. aircraft was a report of a high number of “friendly fire” shootdowns of Allied planes by other Allied airmen because they could not distinguish their markings. As a result, the U.S. decided to err on the side of safety adopt the U.K. practice of painting, or “doping,” the fabric aircraft with one solid color, hoping this would reduce the number of accidental shootdowns.

After WWI, the U.S. Army and Navy continued extensive, parallel, and in some cases overlapping, experiments with aircraft camouflage. The research initially was focused on dying different materials and dopes for use on fabric-covered aircraft. As these fabric-covered aircraft gradually gave way to metal-skinned aircraft in the U.S. fleet, the focus changed to evaluating different paint formulations for metal surfaces. In the late 1930s, the Air Corps experimented with a number of camouflage schemes and measured their effectiveness in limited engineering testing. Additional practical trials were then conducted with temporary finishes as part of nation-wide exercises and war games. These temporary finishes were in a wide range of blues, greens, whites, grays and even purple!

By February 1940, with the war in Europe now raging, the Air Corps embarked on a comprehensive, service-wide initiative to test “protective coloration of aircraft, both in the air and on the ground.” The Air Corps had already decided by 1940 to specify a uniform design and color for tactical/combat aircraft, so the question to be answered was, which schemes would be adopted? Several Army and Air Corps organizations, with different and specific responsibilities, contributed to the effort. This extensive study considered many of the factors previously discussed: visibility, application, national insignia, durability, cost, materials, and both in-flight and ground effectiveness. They studied both U.S. Army and Navy and British systems to arrive at the best consensus.

What resulted, in April 1942, was a general standard adopted by both the Air Corps and the Navy. On the Navy side, ship-based aircraft and flying boats would be camouflaged with Non-Specular (lightdiffusing) Medium Blue Gray on the upper surfaces and Light Gray on the undersurfaces. For the Air Corps, Army land-based planes would be Olive Drab on the upper surfaces and Neutral Gray on the lower surfaces. The Army Ground Forces also adopted Olive Drab as the basic camouflage for all of their vehicles during WWII. (Olive Drab, although it appears “green” to the eye, is technically a mixture of black and yellow, Neutral Gray is a mixture of pure black and white only).

The main categories of aircraft considered for application of camouflage were roughly: combat or combat support aircraft (such as transports), high-altitude photographic reconnaissance aircraft that operated alone or in small formations; and night fighters or night bombers which required a special degree of invisibility in the night sky. A separate sub-category of combat aircraft early in the war was anti-submarine patrol planes which needed to be hidden from surfaced submarines so they could make their approach and attack before they were detected, and the sub had a chance to submerge and escape.

During operations overseas in different theaters, local variations of standard schemes were also used. Olive Drab aircraft were also later painted with Medium Green “splotches” or “blotches” around the upper surface leading and trailing edges to better conceal them when parked. Fighters and bombers in desert regions also used colors more suited to the surrounding terrain to break up the shape of the aircraft. In some areas of the world where U.S. Army Air Forces supplies were not available, units applied British Royal Air Force colors to their aircraft, as closely approximating the U.S. standard schemes as they could.

So-called “Haze Paint” for photo-reconnaissance aircraft was an interesting problem. These aircraft normally operated at high altitude, often alone, and required them to fly specific controlled flight patterns to get the necessary photographic coverage of targets. This made them especially vulnerable to interception by fighter aircraft or ground-based air defenses. Considerable efforts on the part of the U.S. Army Air Forces and industry were expended to make these aircraft as invisible as possible through passive defense measures. The aim with this was to increase their chances of mission success. Several special formulas and techniques for haze painting were tried out, principally on reconnaissance versions of the P-38 fighter, known as the F-4 or F-5. The development and use of this special paint was probably studied more extensively than any other aircraft finish during the war. Haze Paint was intended to vary the appearance of the aircraft from blue to white depending on the viewing angle. The scheme was successful at reducing the visibility of the aircraft at high altitudes, but it was highly dependent on application method and expertise of the painter. As a result, to allow the application of these finishes to large numbers of mass-produced aircraft, a synthetic or simpler-to-produce haze paint was developed and used by Lockheed. Over time, scuffing and weathering of Haze Paint on operational aircraft reduced its effectiveness. Further, an additional drawback to sporting a haze finish is that it highlights to the enemy the fact that this is a special reconnaissance aircraft, and therefore potentially unarmed. Other than applications to a small fleet of photo aircraft, Haze Paint and synthetic Haze Paint was only used for a limited period during the war.

Night fighter paint schemes were also heavily researched, and the resulting “best approach” ended up being counter-intuitive to initial assumptions about what finish would work best to hide the aircraft from ground or air observation and reflection of search light beams. After extensive testing on many airframes, it was determined that either a glossy black finish or a standard Olive Drab was actually more effective at this objective than a flat black finish. This was standardized by 1944, when it was directed that all night fighters (P-61s, P-70s and later P-38Ms and P-82s) were to be painted with glossy black and, if possible, polished to a mirror-like finish. (The specification for this gloss black was Jet Finish No. 622, probably where we get the name “Jet Black”). Because of their unique mission, night fighters were the notable exception to the late war AAF directive to cease camouflage painting. In fact, night fighters remained in their glossy black finish even through the Korean War, after which the mission ceased, and the aircraft left the USAF inventory.

Because the Atlantic U-Boat threat to the U.S. East Coast and Great Britain was so immediate, significant resources were put against finding an effective paint scheme for sub-hunting aircraft. The main threat to the aircraft in this mission was not from enemy aircraft, but rather surfaced submarines. The working assumption for these studies was that the aircrew had no more than 30 seconds to strike a sub on the surface before it executed a crash dive. This made visual “stealth” essential. After a series of tests of different finishes at various altitudes, sky conditions and viewing angles, the optimum scheme proved to be: Insignia White on the undersurfaces, leading edges and sides of the aircraft and either Olive Drab or Neutral Gray on the top surfaces. Variations of this specific type of camouflage for the submarine search mission were used by both the U.S. and the U.K. and proved effective for allowing the patrol aircraft approaching from head-on to avoid detection until the last possible moment – and strike submarines on the surface before they had a chance to escape below the surface. The scheme was clearly specified to be used only on aircraft that operated in a theater where “no enemy air opposition is to be expected” because this new design was not optimized for air-to-air concealment.

A special technical concern arose during the war involving detection by infrared (IR) photography. IR aerial photography could be employed to detect and defeat camouflage and “see through” natural haze to find objects on the ground. This technology was still in the early stages, but enough of a concern that the AAF examined families of paints and finishes that would frustrate infrared detection. By July 1942, this work eventually led to the development and application of a special shade of “high infrared-reflecting Olive Drab,” (based on a chromium oxide pigment) that promised the highest degree of protection against IR photography. Aircraft upper surfaces were to be painted with this new finish to mask them from detection by enemy aerial reconnaissance. During the period, the USAAF sourced aircraft paint from as many as a dozen or more different suppliers to ensure they had sufficient stocks on hand to cover the vast wartime fleet.

Throughout the war, there was a continual debate over the overall value of camouflage finishes versus leaving the aircraft in natural metal or unpainted, which offered a bit more extra speed due to either polishing of the surfaces or reduction in weight. There is a speed penalty imposed by rough painted surfaces that increases aircraft drag contrasted against smooth polished metal.

Within the USAAF, there was never a consensus about which property was more important— concealment or speed – so instead they settled the issue by directing that manufacturers cease camouflaging most combat aircraft as of 1943. This instruction applied to most combat aircraft, except some tactical fleets, such as transports or gliders. In light of the progress of Allied forces it also made sense operationally – air superiority over the battlefield was now changing over from Axis to Allied air forces; German progress in radar surveillance and detection made visual concealment less vital, especially in the case of large fleets of hundreds of strategic bombers daily hitting the Third Reich. Additionally, Allied bases in the U.K. and on The Continent were less threatened by surprise air attack because of our own radar coverage. The AAF summarized the situation in April 1943, “Due to the early warning and vectoring capabilities of radar, camouflage is losing its importance when weighed against the cost in speed and weight.” Some local commanders in the Pacific still felt camouflage was necessary for use in some geographic areas.

Reducing the aircraft weight and increasing performance was now offered a better tactical advantage to fighters and bombers. The piston-driven fighter aircraft particularly needed all the speed they could get to deal with the threat from the German jets. There was also the secondary benefit of reduced cost and production time, which facilitated quicker replacement of lost airframes.

Ironically, in spite of all the years of studies and experimentation, at the end of the conflict in 1945, camouflage finishes had almost entirely disappeared from USAAF and then USAF aircraft through the 1950s. By then, radar detection had almost totally eclipsed visual means. Camouflage finishes only made a significant reappearance after operations in Southeast Asia in the 1960s brought back the need to conceal aircraft against the jungle terrain in that particular theater.

The majority of the text for this Look Back is adapted from the Air Materiel Command Historical Study No. 115., Case History of Camouflage Paint, Volumes 1 and 2, January 1947 (research completed to November 1945.) For Further Reading: Bell, Dana: Air Force Colors, Volumes 1, 2, 3., (Nos. 6150, 6151, 6152.) Carrollton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications Inc. 1979-1980.

 By Brian J. Duddy

Air Force Materiel Command History Office

Full Text:  media.defense.gov/2023/Jun/21/2003245250/-1/-1/1/LOOKBA_1.PDF/LOOKBA_1