Strykers Adopt Desert Tan Color

[Clavicula_Nox]

CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar – Stryker armoured combat vehicles will soon receive a cosmetic makeover for better concealment in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current deep green colour will be phased out in favour of desert tan. The first to adopt the change was revealed inside the Stryker battle damage repair facility at Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar, Oct. 5, an infantry carrier vehicle that had been restored after deterioration during enemy engagement in Iraq.

"Safeguarding soldiers is the primary purpose for this colour change," said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Peter Butts, 1st Battalion, 401st Army Field Support Brigade commander. "Strykers will blend into surroundings better. They're less likely to stand out like silhouettes." Produced by General Dynamics Land Systems, the eight-wheeled armoured combat vehicles have been painted a foliage green colour since their combat debut in 2003, supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"Talks about changing the colour have been ongoing since 2004," said Butts. "Painting this first Stryker helped us understand the necessary man hours, material needs and unit coordination to finally make it happen – it's our proof of principle." Every Stryker vehicle sent to the Qatar repair site will depart desert tan, once administrative requirements are complete.

Tan 686A is a paint meant for desert camouflage. It's the same solid colour covering most military equipment throughout Southwest Asia, where encountering dust storms and sand dunes are far more common than thick jungles and rolling prairies. To lighten the current tint while in sandy terrain, Central Command war fighters have relied on dust collected in the abrasive texture of the vehicle's hull and slat armour.

The planned transition to desert tan represents the latest survivability retrofit since Stryker vehicles moved into Afghanistan this summer. Since then, GDLS welders and mechanics have installed mine protection kits, tire fire suppression kits, cameras, engine enhancements and software upgrades.

Stryker combat vehicles provide CENTCOM military operations with the following ten configurations: infantry carrier vehicle; command vehicle; fire support vehicle; engineer support vehicle; reconnaissance vehicle; medical evacuation vehicle; anti-tank guided missile vehicle; mortar carrier; nuclear, biological and chemical reconnaissance vehicle; and mobile gun system. Additional variants and improvement options are constantly explored by GDLS and U.S. government officials.

"This first tan vehicle is for soldiers in Afghanistan," said Rick Hunt, GDLS site manager at the battle damage repair facility in Qatar. "Soon, everything we receive from Iraq and Afghanistan for retrofit and repairs will leave here tan."

Better late than never, right?

[JonS]

Better late than never, right?

If you say so, although I doubt it'll make a lick of difference. Basically, it's the TSA model of homeland security applied to the battlefield: "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."

As I wrote to a friend about a month ago when this was initially reported; Strykers are so big you can't hide them at the kinds of engagement ranges being encountered, plus at the tactical level US forces are usually moving which makes them easier to see, plus at the strategic/operational level they are doing a police type role so they should be highly visible to friend & foe - painting them tan offers the illusion of protection but detracts from what they supposedly trying to acheive. And it makes the US look weak: "The Taliban are so scary we need to hide from them. We cannot protect you. Sorry" rather than "Taliban? Bunch of pussies. They're so useless we paint our vehicles white!"

Also: this

[Pvt. Ryan]

It's an extra layer of protection.

[Clavicula_Nox]

If you say so, although I doubt it'll make a lick of difference. Basically, it's the TSA model of homeland security applied to the battlefield: "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."

As I wrote to a friend about a month ago when this was initially reported; Strykers are so big you can't hide them at the kinds of engagement ranges being encountered, plus at the tactical level US forces are usually moving which makes them easier to see, plus at the strategic/operational level they are doing a police type role so they should be highly visible to friend & foe - painting them tan offers the illusion of protection but detracts from what they supposedly trying to acheive. And it makes the US look weak: "The Taliban are so scary we need to hide from them. We cannot protect you. Sorry" rather than "Taliban? Bunch of pussies. They're so useless we paint our vehicles white!"

I guess so, but it's not like they're the first tan vehicles in Afghanistan. I know the article quotes "survivability" as a motivator behind the paint job, but I assumed that "uniformity" was the actual driving force. Everyone else is tan. We must also be tan to fit in. Hooah Big Army. etc.

[souldierz]

Funny,I thought this was already done.The tanks looked tan, the Bradleys were tan, the humvees were tan, The MRAPs are tan, just about every vehicle you see except for a Toyota was tan and only now they tan the strykers?

Maybe there's a good reason for it, and then again maybe there's not, who know's.

[John Kettler]

Clavicula_Nox,

Much appreciate the info and the pics!

JonS,

Meanwhile, the Taliban whiz around in white Toyota pickups. No way to see one of those!

Regards,

John Kettler

[theFightingSeabee]

I think vehicle camo is more for reducing visual identification from aircraft. Maybe they don't like the idea of foreign satellites watching what we're doing in Afghanistan. Or maybe the paint has some super secret quality to it.

[silverstars]

Let's face it. this was obviously done so modders had another paint job to work on. And with that thought, lets start a letter writing campaign to the DOD for them to adopt a German WWII ambush pattern for all AFVs.

[Bigduke6]

Or maybe, the company with the paint contract has a good salesman, and there's money left over in the budget under "force protection."

Although Souldierz' theory is pretty good too, uniformity trumps logic, that sort of thing.

[MikeyD]

Strykers aren't being painted for 'engagement ranges', they're being painted to lower the identification ability at extended range. Now you see some hulking green shapes 4km below in the valley you know its Strykers because what else is green? After the paint job you'll see hulking tan objects 4km below in the valley and what are they? Admittedly, once you get to engagement ranges it becomes plain enough what they are. But that holds true for just about everything.

[Mord]

Well, in my parallel universe they'er staying green...I hate the desert paint jobs. I still pine for the days of plain old OD...something comforting in it.

Though, silverstars has a nice little idea there.

Mord.

[Thomm]

They paint them tan for the invasion of Iran!

How can you all fail to see the obvious!!

Best regards,

Thomm

[John Kettler]

"Restored after deterioration in an enemy engagement..." What an astounding new euphemism! I think Armed Forces Journal International will now have to create a Non-phrase of the Month to go with the existing Non-word of the Month.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Clavicula_Nox]

Well, in my parallel universe they'er staying green...I hate the desert paint jobs. I still pine for the days of plain old OD...something comforting in it.

Though, silverstars has a nice little idea there.

Mord.

Dude, I wish they would get rid of the damn ACUs. I long for the days of BDUs/DCUs.

"Restored after deterioration in an enemy engagement..." What an astounding new euphemism! I think Armed Forces Journal International will now have to create a Non-phrase of the Month to go with the existing Non-word of the Month.

Well, they can't say "It was ****ed up by some insurgents" because that would imply we were fighting a war and not an "overseas contingency operation" responding to a "Man-made disaster".

[Praetori]

Tanned vehicles attract way less heat than the greenstuff. Alot nicer on the crew and it could possibly lessen Thermal sig during daylight hours (not that it matters much due to the exhaust) but could possibly make identification through thermo optics harder.

[SSG Grymm]

I'm just wondering why it took this long to do, no matter the reason. Every other vehicle type has been tan for some time.

I know we'd either paint everything tan before we left or draw tan stocks once in theater. I just don't understand why the Stryker was treated different for the past few years?

I will say that as a scout I always hated solid colored vehicles. I used to cut camo netting and zip tie it up on the turrets just to break up the pattern. Or drape it on the trucks when moving anywhere other than extremely built up areas. I felt like there should be some sort of 3 tone or more camo pattern on the vehicles.

[Battlefront.com]

Clavicula_Nox,

Dude, I wish they would get rid of the damn ACUs.

You might get your wish They are testing a new uniform at the start of this year. Dunno if they are going to change the lightweight ripstop or not.

All I know is that these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made my uniform collecting hobby VERY expensive. Even the minor nations have been through 2-3 iterations of uniforms since the start, despite having perhaps as few as 50 soldiers in theater at a time!

SSG Grymm,

I just don't understand why the Stryker was treated different for the past few years?

Same here. OK, the first batch I could understand... but that was back in 2004! I can also understand not wanting to send replacement vehicles in a different color than the ones already in theater. However, they've had several rotations of vehicles in/out since then so probably by 2005 or 2006 this could have all been cleaned up.

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

Yeah, I know about the UCP-D vs Multicam tests. What I don't understand is how they're even justifying the test. UCP-D looks like someone took the regular UCP and randomly smeared dog **** over it. It looks -ok- on a swatch, but the whole uniform looks terrible. It's actually worse, in my opinion, than regular UCP. I say go with Multicam. ****, go with tan jumpsuits for all I care, they'd still be better than what they have now!

[John Kettler]

Clavicula_Nox,

I'm curious about the rather desert pink rear shown on an otherwise tan Stryker. Do they take the Stryker down to bare metal and reprime and paint, or overspray the existing green, resulting in the desert pink before the final coat's applied?

Praetori,

I agree that going to lighter paint should both lower the thermal load on crew and electronics, but also limit reradiation after sunset, thus lowering thermal emissions.

SSG Grymm,

If you like breaking up the silhouette and hiding the paint, then you're going to love this.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Clavicula_Nox]

I have no idea what the process is. I would assume they first strip the paint, then prime, and then apply the paint. That is simply a guess, but I personally would not want to paint over paint.

[John Kettler]

Thought about the hiding the hulking Stryker issue a bit more. If we can't actually hide from observation, then maybe we should go back to dazzle pattern, making it hard to tell what's there and possibly giving the Taliban watching a headache.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

Regards,

John Kettler

[panzermartin]

Pff, its so much easier to do this by d/ling a tan mod in your "z" fodler.

[Praetori]

SSG Grymm,

If you like breaking up the silhouette and hiding the paint, then you're going to love this.

John Kettler

This one's also good. But not the craziest I've seen.

[Wicky]

They could have used Magnolia as a nice neutral colour

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8321657.stm

Currently, strippable - or peelable - coatings are used when a new camouflage is required, changing a vehicle's colour from green to, for example, "light stone" in order to blend with desert terrain.

But even if something is not visible from far away, it may reveal itself by reflecting sunlight; the paint can also alter the vehicle's "glint signature", helping conceal it from hostile troops.

Under the skin

DSTL has been collaborating on the technology with industry partner AkzoNobel Aerospace Coatings.

"There are a number of advantages to this technology. One is its flexibility; it is easy to apply and easy to remove. You can change your colour or your signature in theatre in a relatively straightforward manner," Dr Mitchell told BBC News.

The coating is applied just like normal paint, often using commercially available spray guns.

The paint can be used to temporarily change a vehicle's camouflage

"It's a single pack emulsion. It looks much like paint you'd find in a DIY store for painting your house. So you could apply it with a paint brush, or you could apply it with a roller. It's really flexible," Dr Mitchell explained.

"That's important for potential use in theatre because you might not have a sophisticated paint spray system available."

On the grounds of DSTL's headquarters, Dr Mitchell demonstrated how to remove the coating from a battlefield ambulance which had been painted for desert camouflage.

The coating on a rear door had been pre-scored with a knife; Dr Mitchell reached up to the raised tab and peeled back the rubbery skin by hand. The coating came away easily and largely in one piece.

While paint remained stuck to some raised areas such as bolts, he said remaining residue could be removed with a water power washer.

Before long, the whole door was stripped to the vehicle's dark green base colour. Dr Mitchell squashed the peeled coating into a lump and dropped it on the grass.

[John Kettler]

Praetori,

Far superior 'flage job, and man, is that AFV fast!

Wicky,

Nice find! First I've heard of it.

Regards,

John Kettler