Manufacturers paying lip service to IRR? How important is it anyway?

#1
To cut a long story short we decided to do some IRR testing on new products and were surprised to find that some kit advertised as "IRR treated" is not. The attached picture is from a new MOLLE compatible multicam rucksack. The multicam itself is retains its camoflage and is dark, but the MOLLE tape is very clearly not. Fancy wearing that on your back when someone with an image intensifier is looking for something to shoot?

A couple of questions fall out:

Do the Taliban or other potential near-future enemies use Image Intensifiers? I would be surprised if not, given how cheap they are, whether new or ex-Soviet.

How important, over a reasonable range, is the IRR crime in the photo?

Would you buy equipment that you knew wasn't well IR camouflaged? ie. should we stock these, but include the IR photo in the description.

ir1.jpg
________

Now a bit of background. Firstly a two sentence IRR lesson for those who heard about it, but never paid much attention (I was one!). Camouflage makes sure that you look similar to a likely military background. All IRR tuning attempts to achieve is the same in light that's not visible to the human eye, but is used by image intensifiers - Near Infra-Red. And since II kit is readily available for a £100 up on ebay, this is clearly as issue. It is not related to thermal imaging where the IRR qualities of your kit will make no difference.

Out tests were far from perfect and are not done with an image intensifier and therefore I am not going to post which bit of equipment is in the photo. Testing was with a video camera modified to record (only) near-infra red light. As a result the light is not from stars or the moon - the most likely sources of light when you're out and about, but with good old daylight.

Despite those flaws, the results should be similar - both our (now buggered!) video camera and an II will use the same Near IR light to get an image. If people find the subject interesting then I will probably ask if we have any serious scientists on the site who can comment on the validity of the testing, and if necessary we'll get an image intensifier.
 
#2
Illuminating though your post is, could I suggest that you delete it and draw the issue to the attention of the MoD. You've maybe discovered something that may be of benefit to unfriendlies. The equipment you've used is unlikely to be subject to customs controls etc. the way that the intended equipment is.
 
#3
The equipment I used is a video camera. It's no use at all at night and is no longer much use during the day. Even if it were I think you underestimate the enemy if you don't think they know what II is nor where you can buy II equipment. It's standard issue hunting / hobby / airsoft kit: image intensifier | eBay

Also about the MoD. The rucksack in question is not an MoD item. What response do you think I'll get if I phone up the MoD and say "I'd like to tell someone about a commercial rucksack that is not very well camoflaged"? And I'd need to be a lot brighter than I am to "have discovered" image intensification and IR camouflage.

Far better to find out here if IRR is a real concern to anyone and put information on product descriptions if necessary. When I was in, as an NI warrior mostly, we generally ignored it as something that people whod been on istar courses bored people with.
 
#4
I was thinking more along the lines that they can use a common piece of equipment and overcome the daylight properties of the item in your image.
 
#6
Isn't this the main reason why non-issue kit is 'banned' or at least not encouraged in theatre?

(I'm not sure what IR/NV capability Terrance has but I heard a rather good rumour that our light blue friends lost a pallet or two of image intensifying gear out the back of a cab. True or false; never let the truth get in the way of a good story!) :)
 
#7
I'm just wondering whether the issue kit has been put through TTR's test method. His site is full of stuff that states that it's made from MoD specification materials.
 
#8
I'd also like to take a look at the issue kit, particularly after washed and worn. Aside from practical considerations and making sure that we don't sell sub-standard equipment, the subject has quite caught my interest. I think Bad CO thinks I'm off on a time wasting exercise, but I'm not so sure.

Some kit freaks use spray on treatments to rejuvenate the IRR qualities of their worn kit. Has something like that ever been issued?

CCTA, interesting that kit is being banned for this reason. It shouldn't need to be if manufacturers and retailers are open and whipped in to line. Especially Multicam kit with fabric made by Crye. You can see in that picture how good it is - even the actual camouflage pattern is retained to some extent. To do a thorough test you would need to put it against a mix of backgrounds, but I'm sure they've done as good a job on the IRR as they have on visible camouflage.
 
#9
Interesting point.
All my major assemblies are made from IRR materials. It's not difficult to source the stuff and I think people who don't are being lazy. The only bits that aren't are bindings that are only 10mm wide.

I know Fatmini uses IRR too - we buy from the same suppliers!

BTW - Yes the opposition has access to NV equipment.

I'd be interested in seeing Blackhawk or Eagle equipment testedin the same way - I'm pretty sure a lot of their stuff is NOT IRR.

Here's a question. Are Weapons IRR?
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#11
Anyone that's been to Afghanistan and been frontline knows that unfortunately, that's not who we're fighting.

It's also common knowledge that the enemy has access to freely available and highly effective kit which they employ against us when we're on night operations and evidence has been obtained which proves this point. (Not to mention what we've lost out there)

As such, any bit of kit that claims to be IRR and isn't needs to be relabelled and clearly highlighted as not IRR, otherwise troops buying their own kit could effectively be giving themselves and the rest of their squad away if they're shining like a beacon in amongst everyone else.

It is a serious matter in my eyes and one sorely overlooked.

I'd also like to take a look at the issue kit, particularly after washed and worn. Aside from practical considerations and making sure that we don't sell sub-standard equipment, the subject has quite caught my interest. I think Bad CO thinks I'm off on a time wasting exercise, but I'm not so sure.
Also, I don't know where to find it now, but I read a very interesting article on exactly that subject. In one picture was the issue kit, fresh from the packet, and in the other picture was kit that had been washed, ironed, etcetcetc repeatedly, to simulate what a soldiers kit goes through.

The washed / ironed kit was like a lighthouse. It was ridiculous. The fresh issue stuff, could barely see the guy. Fantastic.
 
#12
Thanks for the feeback. New vs worn is an interesting one. I'll get on the case and see what the results are and what we can do about it.
 
#14
One of the worst I've seen is the fine nylon fabric that covers a softie or Duvet jacket. They glow like Chernobyl. Cover the thing with a windproof!
It'll last longer!!
 
#15
Also a very good point. I wonder what some Afghan dust does - it's quite possible that no IRR enhancement survives contact with your first patrol! Another one for me to test, although I think I'll stick with some good old UK dust.
 
#16
To cut a long story short we decided to do some IRR testing on new products and were surprised to find that some kit advertised as "IRR treated" is not. The attached picture is from a new MOLLE compatible multicam rucksack. The multicam itself is retains its camoflage and is dark, but the MOLLE tape is very clearly not. Fancy wearing that on your back when someone with an image intensifier is looking for something to shoot?

A couple of questions fall out:

Do the Taliban or other potential near-future enemies use Image Intensifiers? I would be surprised if not, given how cheap they are, whether new or ex-Soviet.

How important, over a reasonable range, is the IRR crime in the photo?

Would you buy equipment that you knew wasn't well IR camouflaged? ie. should we stock these, but include the IR photo in the description.

View attachment 52279
________

Now a bit of background. Firstly a two sentence IRR lesson for those who heard about it, but never paid much attention (I was one!). Camouflage makes sure that you look similar to a likely military background. All IRR tuning attempts to achieve is the same in light that's not visible to the human eye, but is used by image intensifiers - Near Infra-Red. And since II kit is readily available for a £100 up on ebay, this is clearly as issue. It is not related to thermal imaging where the IRR qualities of your kit will make no difference.

Out tests were far from perfect and are not done with an image intensifier and therefore I am not going to post which bit of equipment is in the photo. Testing was with a video camera modified to record (only) near-infra red light. As a result the light is not from stars or the moon - the most likely sources of light when you're out and about, but with good old daylight.

Despite those flaws, the results should be similar - both our (now buggered!) video camera and an II will use the same Near IR light to get an image. If people find the subject interesting then I will probably ask if we have any serious scientists on the site who can comment on the validity of the testing, and if necessary we'll get an image intensifier.
One of the points I always wonder about.
The webbing in the photo is 25mm.

At what range does a pixel in the night sight become bigger than the width of the webbing?

If Terry is close enough to see that level of detail you may have bigger problems.
 
#17
" In inferred, the British four-colour DPM is reduced to a two element pattern with the black and dark brown dyes as low-reflectants and green and khaki as high level reflectants' and thus still retains its Disruptive Pattern." nicked from Brassey's Book of Camouflage. Leaves and grass and that are high IR reflectors and come up bright, mud, rock and sand are low reflectors and are dark. I think if there close enough to see the molle tape on your daysack then your fucked any way.
 
#19
One of the points I always wonder about.
The webbing in the photo is 25mm.

At what range does a pixel in the night sight become bigger than the width of the webbing?

If Terry is close enough to see that level of detail you may have bigger problems.
I think the issue in that picture is that there is a lot of thin webbing in relation to the overall area of multicam, so the effect from a distance won't be as bad of course, but you would think that it would significantly lighten the overall bergan. The effect would presumably get worse as the ratio of non-IRR-tuned webbing to IRR-tuned multicam increases.

By the way, about the softee jackets. I just happen to be improving our product photos of the black Keela Belay jacket (a budget windproof duvet similar to a softee) so I took an IR one. The material over the right shoulder is treated OD fabric which is slightly darker than multicam through the IR camera. The jacket reflectivity is actually not as bad as you might think, although I would need to take it out in to the woods to really judge that. Certainly no problem as a base layer under a smock with just the collar showing.

keela_belay.jpg
 
#20
Hm. All good stuff. I really would like to see some Blackhawk gear. I'm positive their older stuff wasn't IRR.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top