No problem, friend.
True.
However, important characteristics of F-22A, and F-35 variants, CANNOT be RETROFITTED in any legacy aircraft; omnidirectional VLO characteristics, internal components of every character being electronically fused (superior multi-mode operations capability and situational awareness for the pilot), specialized communication technologies (alien to other platforms), and platform-specific technologies. These characteristics cannot be ported in full to legacy platforms, and cannot be undermined with a series of retrofits in legacy platforms. Take a look at the course of evolution of F-16 from Block 15 to Block 70 - a massive leap in its war-fighting capabilities over the course of time - but even the latest F-16 Block 70 does not stand a chance against the aforementioned aircraft because their inherent characteristics.
Since US have invested a great deal in F-22A and F-35 variants, Pentagon will be willing to go to extreme lengths to keep these aircraft much ahead of any other including the prospects of costly internal changes (if necessary). Already, their are reports about F-22A and F-35 variants* receiving significant set-of-enhancements in the 2020s.
*To give you an idea; F-35 variants will receive 2nd generation EODAS capability from Raytheon in the 2020s; changes in relevant hardware (sensors to be replaced), and software-related updates in the avionics. Even its current EODAS capability (AN/AAQ-37) have no peer in the world, but USAF is not taking any chances.
Actually, F-22A - in its current configuration - is not even close to stressing its airframe:
The Raptor’s airframe is incredibly robust due to the Air Force’s extreme requirements for the design during the closing years of the Cold War. Though the F-22 was designed with an 8000-hour airframe life, real life-flying experience shows that the jet can be safely flown without modifications out to 12,000 hours at the low-end and as many as 15,000 hours on the high-end.
“Way back in the late 80s and early 90s when we designed the F-22, we had about 10 design missions that we built the structure of the aircraft around,” McIntyre said.
“That’s what during EMD [engineering, manufacturing, development] we did the full scale testing on against those missions. We came to find out we have not been flying the Raptor nearly as hard as those design missions nor as what we found out during the structural testing, so actually the airframe itself—without any service life extension program—is good out to approximately 2060.”
Details in here:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...2-raptor-will-fly-until-2060-21329?nopaging=1
F-22A was not feasible for mass production because it costed up to 216 million USD per product to develop. Still, 100+ of these being operational at a time is a HUGE FORCE, and a major source of headache for a potential opponent. Just this force would be sufficient to wipe out an air force of any other country, if complemented with the right kind of support structures.
Below are some examples for comparison:
As you can see, 1xx figure for detecting an F-22A is unlikely with any X-band AESA radar platform. The 92N2E is among the most powerful X-band AESA radar systems outside American and European.
The FRONTAL rcs of F-22A fall within 0.0001 m^2 - 0.0002 m^2 range while the REAR rcs of F-22A fall within 0.01 - 0.001 m^2 range (Global Security & Kopp, 2012); these figures are subject to improve over time due to [innovation] in RAM coating treatments. However, in view of these figures, the 92N2E can notice an F-22A from its REAR at up to 75 KM distance (best case scenario; 0.01 m^2 figure), but this is unlikely in actual war; an S-400 system will not be ignored as a potential target, and F-22A would be rather tasked to eliminate an S-400 system (frontal rcs becomes valid), and not pass by (rear rcs becomes valid). F-22A is also expected to super-cruise in each sortie in order to reduce its rear emissions to bare minimum.
You also mentioned L-band frequency range; only SU-57 incorporate L-band AESA radar extensions (N036L x 2) on its wings, among all combat aircraft thus far. J-20 does not have these extensions.
Nevertheless;
Active and Passive detection systems are expected to be electronically fused in the J-20 (5th generation characteristic), and this could be the reason for picking an F-22A in the 1xx range in terms of distance, but this would be possible in the scenario of an F-22A transmitting its signals (actively), and not otherwise. Therefore, your sources are highlighting best case scenario for detection, grounded on certain set of assumptions. Marketing 101.
They might have surpassed the original AN/APG-77 configuration [in certain aspects], but the current AN/APG-77(v)1 configuration have pulled ahead.
AN/APG-77(v)1 is also FOURTH GENERATION among X-band AESA solutions, but it is not for export. They do not export their most capable hardware to other countries, not even to NATO member states and Israel.
I had a discussion on these lines before, in another thread:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-french-navy-stands-up-to-china.564811/page-11
You are a fairly realistic man, and this is why your friends do not appreciate your conventional wisdom at times. Believe me! I am in the same boat. My fellow brothers also dislike my views at times, because I do not subscribe to POLITICALLY CORRECT mentality. I understand your position.
Yes, China is a superpower now. Its advances - in all aspects - are in front of all. I would say that China is a very powerful country, and a dangerous adversary to any other force. American war-machine is relatively advanced but this does not suggest that it will have an easy time with Chinese defenses in an actual war (God forbid). I do not know, honestly.
Anyways, I enjoyed having this conversation with you. Good day to you.