So pilot will have to turn their head 180° to see whats behind on their HMS???

Well, for it to be any different from a conventional HUD, HMD or radar display, they’re gonna have to crank their head around no?

Get back to me when someone else can do that.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/Fiche%20Rafale%20Eng.pdf

Spectra also contributes to passive tactical situation awareness, all-weather long-range
detection, identification and location of threats, within a short response time. The system’s
cutting-edge defensive measures are based on combinations of omni-directional AESA
jamming, multi-band decoying and evasive manoeuvres, as well as on state-of-the-art
technologies such as Digital Radio Frequency Memory(DRFM) signal processing.

You think there’s no way of knowing just how much fuel is in an flying aircraft from remote observations?

Oh there is – but not from a single tactical aircraft that has not been devoted to shadowing said adversary without use of off-board sensors.

edit: Which I suppose, is sensor fusion… not in an immediate sense, but in a temporal sense.

A more important aspect of sensor fusion is determining your enemys’ intent and if he has the ability to adversely impact your mission objectives.

The former is attempting to predict the enemy’s thoughts and worse, assuming the enemy’s disposition. That is not something that can be done in mere software code. What happens if a concealed (as you know… armies like to hide things for the shear fun of it) decides to pop up the radar when your 15 miles out from your IP?

The latter is not so much fusing the data of various sensors as interpreting the minutia of the overall dataset (which admittedly, is far more extensive than the data from one sensor alone) to add detail to the picture… but it can only go so far. For example, just how much fuel is in that MiG-31?

In summary. To attempt to write software to achieve the former is foolish and to achieve the latter is challenging but has its uses.

It’s more complex than that. Fused avionics means that each piece of the puzzle (radar, ESM, IRST, etc) shares it’s final data solution (ie a plane track, a emitter location, etc).

The F-35’s APG-81 and ESM take this a step further by sharing and cross analyzing the raw data to come up with a unified solution. This allows pieces of a partial solution, that would likely be dismissed on their own, to be recognized for what it is and properly classified.

Are you taking the **** spud?

If it was the former paragraph “sensor fusion” could be knocked up by a couple of grad programmers in a couple of weeks. :rolleyes:

Everyone is superimposing raw sensor returns and using the data for subsequent evaluation and if require directed revisit from directed sensors… then presenting as a single unified picture.

That is sensor fusion at its most basic!

The tricker bit is (for instance) combining that raw sensor data (emission parameters and return parameters) with the raw sensor data (emission parameters and return parameters) of your 3 wingmen. An airborne multi-static radar if you will…

[thats before taking into account disparate sources of information from dissimilar aircraft, ground stations, soldiers on the ground, satellites etc]

I’m alluding to F-35 flying in an offensive role against DCA, any DCA including PAKFA or J-20. Think of what DCA has to deal with operationally in its own A2AD airspace and you will understand how easy they are to track.

So, ground controllers making global broadcasts requiring no response will require emission on behalf of the defending aircraft? Good stuff.

ASQ-239 is only an enigma to those without the initiative to learn about its capabilities and why it costs more than all the other sensors.

If you aren’t emitting any EM, then the only way to detect is via IR. No amount of bluster will change that basic fact.

[Unless you are actually trying to suggest the -239 can detect electrical activity within the circuitry of the target aircraft?]