CAMUFLAJE, ARTE E ILUSTRACION MILITAR: Camuflaje pixelado, Los problemas
Su resolución actual es de pix. Para mejores resultados se recomienda 1440 x 900 pix.
.
.

Camuflaje pixelado, Los problemas

.
Cuando lo operativo no es considerado por lo logístico o viceversa…es solo cuestión de uso y de tiempo

Viene de: Camuflaje pixelado, mitos y realidades  del 08-04-2010

Las siguientes notas informativas dan cuenta de un presunto y enorme fiasco. En ellas dicen que un informe ha revelado que el uniforme de camuflaje a cuadros del Ejército de EEUU, introducido en el 2004 con una previsión de 20 años de duración, es en realidad una gran metedura de pata de 5 mil millones de dólares.




Miles de quejas operativas y de campos de batalla inundan los correos internos de los servicios logísticos de EEUU y no se entiende la solicitud de nuevos fondos (en apenas 8 años) para una supuesta “nueva generación” sin adicionales tecnológicos palpables. Al parecer, ese parapeto de “nueva generación” solo trata de tapar este revés.

El problema no se trata de tonos, patrones, la subjetividad de gustos o de un “Trade-Mark”. El problema real es que un camuflaje efectivo debe ser capaz de adaptarse a múltiples escenarios sin grandes cambios. (Incluso en un mismo lugar durante 24 horas los 365 días del año). El camuflaje y las técnicas de ocultación son menesteres para el acecho y la observación a la sazón de las operaciones de inteligencia y contrainteligencia. Su origen es de carácter interno y diseñado por los que conocen del terreno y sus particularidades. Esto definitivamente lo deslinda de las simplezas de una moda donde los errores, descuidos u omisiones cobran vidas.

Un estándar de tonos y patrones debe incluir la mayor suma de escenarios posibles en todas sus partes y es indispensable la uniformidad para que cumpla su propósito. Cuando no existe tal uniformidad, aumentan los peligrosos puntos llamativos y/o contrastantes. Esto se evitaría si exite una perfecta armonía entre lo operativo y lo logístico.

Como se desprende de la nota Camuflaje pixelado, mitos y realidades del 08-04-2010 y considerando que el cuerpo humano ocupa un pequeño volumen (71 Litros - con una densidad poco menos de 1 g/cm³ y un peso medio de 75 Kg) , su velocidad de desplazamiento es de 0 a un máximo de 12 Km/h (con carga adicional) y las distancias de percepción son más cortas en comparación con los equipos y sistemas, podremos darnos cuenta que esos equipos y sistemas con costosísimos e imprácticos “pixelados” también estarían en grandes dificultades para el ocultamiento.

Estas son las notas:



Estos uniformes pixelados convierten a los soldados estadounidenses en un blanco fácil
5/07/2012 08:24 | lainformacion.com | Redacción


Un uniforme de camuflaje que parece no cumplir con su función. Esa es la crítica que hacen los soldados norteamericanos a su traje militar, que combina la pixelación con colores grises y verdes.


Los militares estadounidenses parece que tienen un gran problema con los píxeles, pero su queja no tiene nada que ver con el mundo de los ordenadores.


Un informe ha revelado que el uniforme de camuflaje pixelado del Ejército de EEUU, introducido en 2004, es en realidad una gran metedura de pata de 5 mil millones de dólares.


De hecho, los expertos del sector hablan de que se trata de un "fiasco" y no están de acuerdo con la decisión que tomó el Ejército hace ocho años. Pero, ¿por qué? ¿Qué pasa con los uniformes?


Por lo visto, el patrón es muy fácil de detectar. Aunque el camuflaje está pensado para ocultar la presencia de los soldados en el desierto y en otro tipo de terrenos, militares de todas las categorías están criticando estos uniformes pixelados y de color gris-verde porque "llama la atención prácticamente en cualquier sitio en el que te lo pongas", dice Erik German a The Daily.


Es decir, la mezcla entre los colores gris y verde y el patrón pixelado no resulta una buena combinación para los soldados, porque da lugar a un traje muy llamativo que no es muy útil para camuflarse.


¿Qué problemas causan estos uniformes? "Se trata de un error épico que ha costado millones de dólares", dice Molly Oswaks en Gizmodo, y añade: "Y, por lo visto, también muchas vidas". Y el problema no es solo que los nuevos uniformes sean muy visibles, sino que como los estadounidenses han luchado ya dos guerras utilizando este traje, no resulta desconocido para el resto.
_____________________________________


$5B CAMO SNAFU
Army ditches failed combat uniform that put a target on grunts’ backs for 8 years


Sunday, June 24, 2012 | thedaily.com | By Erik German


Over the next year, America’s largest fighting force is swapping its camouflage pattern. The move is a quiet admission that the last uniform — a pixelated design that debuted in 2004 at a cost of $5 billion — was a colossal mistake.


Soldiers have roundly criticized the gray-green uniform for standing out almost everywhere it’s been worn. Industry insiders have called the financial mess surrounding the pattern a “fiasco.”


As Army researchers work furiously on a newer, better camouflage, it’s natural to ask what went wrong and how they’ll avoid the same missteps this time around. In a candid interview with The Daily, several of those researchers said Army brass interfered in the selection process during the last round, letting looks and politics get in the way of science.


“It got into political hands before the soldiers ever got the uniforms,” said Cheryl Stewardson, a textile technologist at the Army research center in Natick, Mass., where most of the armed forces camouflage patterns are made.


The researchers say that science is carrying the day this time, as they run four patterns through a rigorous battery of tests. The goal is to give soldiers different patterns suitable for different environments, plus a single neutral pattern — matching the whole family — to be used on more expensive body armor and other gear. The selection will involve hundreds of computer trials as well on-the-ground testing at half a dozen locations around the world.


But until the new pattern is put in the field — a move that’s still a year or more away — soldiers in Afghanistan have been given a temporary fix: a greenish, blended replacement called MultiCam. The changeover came only after several non-commissioned officers complained to late Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, and he took up the cause in 2009. Outside of Afghanistan, the rest of the Army is still stuck with the gray Universal Camouflage Pattern, or UCP. And some soldiers truly hate it.


“Essentially, the Army designed a universal uniform that universally failed in every environment,” said an Army specialist who served two tours in Iraq, wearing UCP in Baghdad and the deserts outside Basra. “The only time I have ever seen it work well was in a gravel pit.”


The specialist asked that his name be withheld because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press.


“As a cavalry scout, it is my job to stay hidden. Wearing a uniform that stands out this badly makes it hard to do our job effectively,” he said. “If we can see our own guys across a distance because of it, then so can our enemy.”


The fact that the government spent $5 billion on a camouflage design that actually made its soldiers more visible — and then took eight years to correct the problem — has also left people in the camouflage industry incensed. The total cost comes from the Army itself and includes the price of developing the pattern and producing it for the entire service branch.


“You’ve got to look back and say what a huge waste of money that was,” said Lawrence Holsworth, marketing director of a camouflage company called Hyde Definition and the editor of Strike-Hold!, a website that tracks military gear. “UCP was such a fiasco.”


The Army’s camouflage researchers say the story of the universal pattern’s origins begins when they helped develop a similarly pixilated camouflage now worn by the Marine Corps. That pattern, known as MARPAT, first appeared in 2002 after being selected from among dozens of candidates and receiving plenty of input from Marines on the ground at the sniper school in Quantico, Va. The Marines even found one of the baseline colors themselves, an earth tone now called Coyote Brown.


“They went to Home Depot, looked at paint swatches, and said, ‘We want that color,’ ” said Anabelle Dugas, a textile technologist at Natick who helped develop the pattern. That particular hue, she added, was part of a paint series then sold by Ralph Lauren.


Around the same time, the Army was on the hunt for a new camouflage pattern that could solve glaring logistical problem on the ground in Iraq. Without enough desert-specific gear to go around, soldiers were going to war in three-color desert fatigues but strapping dark green vests and gear harness over their chests. At rifle distances, the problem posed by the dark gear over light clothing was as obvious as it was distressing.


Kristine Isherwood, a mechanical engineer on Natick’s camouflage team, said simply, “It shows where to shoot.”


The Army researchers rushed to put new camouflages to the test — several in-house designs and a precursor of MultiCam developed by an outside company. The plan was to spend two years testing patterns and color schemes from different angles and distances and in different environments. The Army published results of the trials in 2004, declaring a tan, brushstroke pattern called Desert Brush the winner — but that design never saw the light of day.


The problem, the researchers said, was an oddly named branch of the Army in charge of equipping soldiers with gear — Program Executive Office Soldier — had suddenly ordered Natick’s camouflage team to pick a pattern long before trials were finished.


“They jumped the gun,” said James Fairneny, an electrical engineer on Natick’s camouflage team.


Researchers said they received a puzzling order: Take the winning colors and create a pixilated pattern. Researchers were ordered to “basically put it in the Marine Corps pattern,” Fairneny said.


For a decision that could ultimately affect more than a million soldiers in the Army, reserves and National Guard, the sudden shift from Program Executive Office Soldier was a head-scratcher. The consensus among the researchers was the Army brass had watched the Marine Corps don their new uniforms and caught a case of pixilated camouflage envy.


“It was trendy,” Stewardson said. “If it’s good enough for the Marines, why shouldn’t the Army have that same cool new look?”


The brigadier general ultimately responsible for the decision, James Moran, who retired from the Army after leaving Program Executive Office Soldier, has not responded to messages seeking comment.


It’s worth noting that, flawed as it was, the universal pattern did solve the problem of mismatched gear, said Eric Graves, editor of the military gear publication Soldier Systems Daily, adding that the pattern also gave soldiers a new-looking uniform that clearly identified the Army brand.


“Brand identity trumped camouflage utility,” Graves said. “That’s what this really comes down to: ‘We can’t allow the Marine Corps to look more cool than the Army.’ ”
_____________________________________




US Army’s Pixellated Camo Uniform Is a $5 Billion Failure


Whereas pixillation is usually very successful at obscuring images otherwise unfit to be seen, the US Army is $5billion in the hole, with its pixellated camo uniform (introduced in 2004) being dubbed a colossal mistake.






June 26, 2012 | gizmodo.com | By Molly Oswaks


The Daily reports that soldiers have "roundly criticized the gray-green uniform for standing out almost everywhere it's been worn."


"Essentially, the Army designed a universal uniform that universally failed in every environment," an Army specialist who served two tours in Iraq told The Daily.


Now, Army researchers and textile technologists are working feverishly to design a new, less conspicuous camo pattern.


The goal is to give soldiers different patterns suitable for different environments, plus a single neutral pattern - matching the whole family - to be used on more expensive body armor and other gear. The selection will involve hundreds of computer trials as well on-the-ground testing at half a dozen locations around the world.


It's incredible that the government could spend $5billion on a failing design... and absurd that they'd stick with this long. The Daily reports that the pixel pattern—known as Universal Camouflage Pattern, or UCF—originated with the US Marines, who called it MARPAT.


The Marines even found one of the baseline colors themselves, an earth tone now called Coyote Brown.


"They went to Home Depot, looked at paint swatches, and said, ‘We want that color,' " said Anabelle Dugas, a textile technologist at Natick who helped develop the pattern. That particular hue, she added, was part of a paint series then sold by Ralph Lauren.


The Army at the time was low on matching pieces—making due with forest green vests over their desert-specific gear, essentially walking targets—and MARPAT was considered a trendy new cut, so the Army, with what The Daily calls "a case of pixilated camouflage envy," decided it would sport the fancy new gear, too.


An epic mistake that cost billions of dollars and, ostensibly, many lives.


Until a new pattern is settled upon and issued—which may be as much as a year away—soldiers in Afghanistan will wear "a greenish, blended replacement called MultiCam." [TheDaily - Image via Getty Images]

_____________________________________

Ver también: Camuflaje pixelado, mitos y realidades del 08-04-2010


votar

7 comentarios:

Gabriel Ortega @skonek dijo...

Muy buena, siempre buenas sus publicaciones, yo ya casi termino el dibujo del CF-5A, estoy de vacaciones y con mucho tiempo libre para hacer mas... Saludos, espero nuevas ilustraciones :-D

Adolfo Alfonzo dijo...

Gracias por la preferencia Gabriel. Tengo muchas solicitudes de copias acumuladas de casi o más de un año. Tratare de ponerme al día en este periodo de vacaciones y publicar nuevos artículos.

Gabriel Ortega @skonek dijo...

Note que ya no aparece el pequeño aviso amarillo en la parte superior izquierda del blog... Saludos

Adolfo Alfonzo dijo...

Tomando un respiro ;-)

Gabriel Ortega dijo...

Hola Sr. le dejo el link de un nuevo dibujo especial por el 29 aniversario del GAC-16 http://gabofav.blogspot.com/2012/08/dibujo-por-el-aniversario-del-gac-16.html

Gabriel Ortega dijo...

Estoy dibujando al "León Quinto"... Saludos.

HUNTER dijo...

JA Y DESPUES SALEN A CRITICAR A NUESTRO UNIFORME PATRIOTA POR ALGO SERA QUE SE ELIGIO EL PATRIOTA Y NO EL PIXELADO

Publicar un comentario

________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Total general de la revista

En la Web desde el: 20 de Febrero de 2010. Se han publicado artículos. La revista tiene. comentarios
________________________________________________________

Ultimos comentarios en la revista

________________________________________________________

Ultimos temas desde el foro

________________________________________________________
.
    ________________________________________________________

    .

    .