Is there a kind of camo like this but against laser range finders and target lock systen?
>>64699476Of course not. Dazzle camo was psychological, meant to confuse a human observer. Tech like laser range finding isn't dependent on visually identifying the target in order to be useful.
>>64699476Just cover your shit in mirrors pointed in random angles, the range finder won't be able to get a return.
>>64699781>salt dew>becomes even more visiblenah
>>64699476>>64699749>Dazzle camoMy favorite, next to tiger stripe.
>>64699792>windshield wipers everywhere
OP, did you even consider for a moment reading up on how a laser rangefinder works?
>>64699807They just work. What's to read?
>>64699476Maybe not against lasers, but maybe infrared, thermal, and/or lidar?
there was a thread last week where a saab test piltot said low observability coatings were expensive and laborious to maintain compared to active jamming/EW. for a plane that is a dubious claim since theyre so expensive anyways but for a boat it probably makes sense because repainting a boat/fighting corrosion is a major PITA for normal coatings
>>64699807>Different materials dont scatter lights differently
>>64699901What does that have to do with anything?The point of dazzle camo was entirely psycological. In order to estimate range with a mechanical rangefinder the operator needs to know how big the target is. The point of dazzle camo is to make it hard for that person to identify the target, which means they don't know how big it is, which means they can't range it correctly. Radar, lasers, infrared, etc, don't require knowing how big the target is in order to work. Scattering isn't even part of the discussion.
>>64699912The other thing dazzle could do is make it difficult to determine a ship's speed and heading because you couldn't tell which end was the bow and which was the stern. Many dazzle paint schemes had fake 'bow waves' painted on the stern to do that. But that doesn't matter for electronic ranging equipment which can constantly track the relative speed of the target.
>>64699943LMAO
>>64699927Can't determine ship's speed without the range to it. Can't measure the range without having identified the ship. Sure dazzle could make it hard to gauge heading, but hindering identification was the main goal.
>>64699749Kind of. "Dazzle Camo" kept a spotter from accurately determining range and direction of movement. it what physiological, not psychological.
>>64700018>Can't determine ship's speed without the range to itFor calculations, sure. But you can estimate its heading and approximate speed by looking at its direction of travel, bow wave, and wake.
>>64700075>For calculations, sureThats the point. Don't pretend to be retarded.
>>64700101>Thats the pointYes, I said that in >>64699912But that's not the only point or benefit, as the false bow wave thing makes clear.
>>64700038One is a mental disturbance, the other is using actual, physical limitations.Dazzle camo plus optical rangefinders and the human eye just confounded the spotters abilitiy to image match a straight line. A psychological defense would have said spotter questioning their sexuality and the nature of their relationsip with their mother and sister.
>>64699901may be, but the light travels between the target and the detector at the same speed so as long as some light is reflected back, the range value is the same. Regardless of what you cover a tank with, the laser return is at best attenuated in power, not delayed in the time of return in any way that would disrupt the range calculation.The medium the laser travels through between the emitter and the target has more impact on the quality of lasing than the surface of the target. We already have soft-kill APS to interrupt laser ranging by putting smoke between the target and the laser source.
