F-22 vs J-20 - aka USA-made jet fighters vs China-made jet fighters

[Pepsi Cola]

I think you don't quite understand how stealth work.

Stealth is not being undetectable, rather, stealth work in hiding its signature with the background, which radar can detect it, but cannot pick up as a combat aircraft, or as the old saying goes, the best place to hide a tree is a forest.

The topic at hand have nothing to do with physics, because the way to detect stealth aircraft is the same, it have to do with how you can process the signal, which is the problem for mathematic. Radar can detect all aircraft, but how much it return to the radar is another matter altogether.

For example, to simplify, let's say there are 5 band of radar return in all flying object.

Band 1 : Small Bird (such as Sparrow)
Band 2 : Large Bird (such as Canadian Geese)
Band 3 : Small Aircraft (such as 2 seater cessna)
Band 4 : Military Aircraft (such as F-35)
Band 5 : Large Aircraft (such as B-52 or Boeing 747)

Now, stealth work by hiding your signature return and make your radar think its is a different band other than Band 4. Say a F-22 flying signature is equal to a small bird, which mean you have to tune your radar to locate every small bird in order to pick up a F-22

Problem is, at this stage, unless you are working in LM, you DO NOT KNOW what kind of Radar image F-22 return on a radar screen when they are in full stealth mode. Couple with the fact that there are 1600 different speices of bird and around 2 to 300 different type of aircraft, not know what the F-22 looks like in a radar screen would mean you cannot pick it up when you actually see it.

Radar design to pick up noise, and process it, but stealth design to fool it, if you do not know what is the parameter of what F-22 is like, or what other stealth aircraft is like, how can you say it is more suited than F-22?

Also, what you know in your parameter when you design a thing is one thing, what you ACTUALLY made is another. If you care to study what F-22 was to USAF as a Fifth Generation Aircraft Platform, you would find the two are VERY DIFFERENT. Even YF-22 and F-22 are two different aircraft, how can you say you "Know" what is the Parameter of 5th Generation when you design the first one yourself?

Also, whatever Chinese have in their menu is their own way to design 5th Gen Aircraft, what US did is different, and what is the rest of the world did is another different set of parameter. How can you say since Chinese design a 5th Gen Aircraft, then Chinese would UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE 5TH GEN AIRCRAFT SPECTRUM ACROSS THE WORLD? They aren't uniform, you know that, right?



How about an example from ~10 years ago?

1st Gen Clarkfield i7 (i7 870) would beat 2nd gen (sandy Bridge) i5 2300 in benchmark

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-870+@+2.93GHz
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2300+@+2.80GHz

I can give you any example in any year as long as there is a record for it on any benchmark site.

Again, Moore's Law only define the technology of making die would advance, not the die itself is a guarantee better than in the newer model.

There are many ways stealth can work, but the physics principles are the same. Big part of its is the airframe's configuration, so I'm saying you don't need to know what it's radar signature to design a counter systems, just like all other "anti-stealth" AA systems out there. You can design radars to counter these stealth characteristics. And being more suited can also mean that since it's hard to track a stealth aircraft due to its unstable radar signature (according to Gambit sometimes ago). Simply adding additional beams or bands of radar to track a stealth target can help solve that one specific problem.

You talked about birds. Birds don't fly at 1,963 km/h. lmao

I'm sure you know that most radars can detect stealth aircrafts (especially AESA), but a lot of them simply lack the range. Therefore, designing a radar that can detect stealth aircrafts at a longer range is not a monumental work.


The most important thing is that you have to look at is the trend, the trend is newer electronics are faster and more efficient than older one. I really don't know how you can argue against this.

And why are you comparing i7 and i5? They are not even on the same level.

China isn't completely without any knowledge of US's stealth capabilities either. There are many ways China can obtain how American stealth works including hacking and the F-117 wreckage pieces that were shot down in Serbia and sent to China for study.

Of course all the parameters aren't the same. But the basic requirements are still the same, that why F-22 and YF-23 can both compete in the same competition and are both are fifth gens even though they are two very different aircrafts.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

You gave principles that are not applicable. It tells me that you have no experience in R/D, manufacturing, and testing, let alone military experience.

What I say next is applicable to everything that is at the USER'S LEVEL.

For every complex system, there are are four main items, in order of significance:

CAPABILITIES
FEATURES

FUNCTIONALITY
EFFICACY

Notice I paired them.

Capabilities are the foundation of features. Take the throttle and control stick, for examples. Every jet have a throttle, a control stick, and assortment of switches. These are capabilities. The throttle is related to propulsion, the control stick to the flight controls system, and the various switches changes certain aircraft conditions and even performance. To change aircraft configuration, the pilot must remove his hands from the throttle and/or control stick to activate the various switches. Hands-On-Throttle-And-Stick (HOTAS) changed all of that. HOTAS is a feature. HOTAS is a shortcut to configuration changes. With HOTAS, the pilot can change the jet's mission from air-air to air-ground to TOL or long distance cruise.

The definition of functionality is an operation. Companion to that is a range of that operation, such as the ordinary water faucet that have a range of flow from a trickle to an outpour. Your knee has a range of motion in its bending function. Efficacy is how much resources and time are necessary to execute that function. Usually, the less the better. An example is the radar system, as in how quickly can it change its mode of operation from air-air to air-ground.

So when we combine everything together, HOTAS made the jet better.

It does not matter if the various cockpit switches have the finest plastics and gold plated connections. If the pilot has to remove his hands from the throttle and control stick, all that grade A materials do not contribute one bit to his flying or fighting. Moore's Law has nothing to do with this. All that computing speed is useless if the pilot has to remove his right hand from the control stick, thereby temporarily not in control of the jet, to flip a switch on the radar control panel to switch from search (fan beam) to boresight (pencil beam). The electronics maybe the fastest in the world in changing modes, but the speed of the pilot's hand moving from control stick to radar panel and back to control stick is still the same, slower if he is under g.

I know what 9-g feels like in the F-16. How about you?

HOTAS is just one example of what make a '4th gen' fighter more advanced than a '3rd gen' fighter. Full Authority Engine Digital Control (FADEC) is another difference. So far, nothing is known about the J-20's capabilities. All we have are unverified claims.

The last pair -- Functionality and Efficacy -- is what can save or kill a pilot.

If you want people outside of Chinese language forums to believe the J-20 is 'more advanced' than the F-22, you must provide sources that at least outlined and explained how in terms of the above four items. Inside those Chinese language forums, anyone will believe anything you say as long as they are positive things about the J-20. They are that gullible. But you will not get away with that in this forum.


So when you guys post negative news and personal commentaries about US, it is fine? But if I challenge your claims about the J-20, it is not fine? What are you afraid of?

This is a publicly accessible forum. That means for every one forum participant, you can count on 100 silent readers out there. I do not posts to change you guys' minds. None of you are objective and mature enough to debate technical issues. When proven wrong, not one of you have even the courage to say something as simple as: " I will consider your points. "

I do not posts to 'win' but to counter falsehoods and misleading arguments. The silent readers out there can see the difference.

How is it not applicable? Moore's Law applies to all electronics. I believe I made very clear that J-20's advantages are mostly with its electronics. In my opinion, overall F-22 may still be a more capable aircraft at other things, but in terms of electronics, you really can't argue against it. Things like EOTS and EODAS for example that F-22 simply doesn't have but significantly adds to the aircraft's combat ability.

As with any good science, you look at the trend and you predict the next most likely outcome. Moore's Law is about newer electronics becoming faster and more efficient electronics and this is a trend that can observed everywhere, so my inference that J-20's electronics are better than F-22 is of course applicable. Do you have any other scientific support to base your claims? If you don't have the actual data to support your claims then the next best thing is to look at the trend.

Now you're saying that newer computing powers don't matter, of course they matter, if they don't matter why would F-35s and newer aircrafts also have more of them. F-35 is known to be effortless to fly, what do you think do that? And even if they don't matter you're still confirming my statement that J-20 does have more computing power than F-22.

 

[gambit]

How is it not applicable? Moore's Law applies to all electronics. I believe I made very clear that J-20's advantages are mostly with its electronics.

Just because you made it 'very clear' that does not mean what you claimed -- advantages -- is true.

Do you understand the illogic here? I can make it 'very clear' that the Moon is made of green cheese. My position is 'very clear' on that. But does that make it true that the Moon is made of cheese?

In my opinion, overall F-22 may still be a more capable aircraft...

Why is that your opinion? What compelled you to that position?

Perhaps these four items...

CAPABILITIES
FEATURES

FUNCTIONALITY
EFFICACY

...at other things, but in terms of electronics, you really can't argue against it.

Yes, I can. For starter, you have not even evidence, let alone proof, that the base electronics in the J-20 is later/newer. What you have is an assumption.

Things like EOTS and EODAS for example that F-22 simply doesn't have but significantly adds to the aircraft's combat ability.

The F-22 have a modular airframe, that much is well known since its debut. Same with its avionics. When the F-22 came out, certain technologies were either not available or were still in early stages of development. Lockheed was well conscious of the need for continuous upgrades as technologies progresses. So who says that the F-22 is 'locked-in' as it is? You speak from extensive personal experience in aircraft design?

As with any good science, you look at the trend and you predict the next most likely outcome. Moore's Law is about newer electronics becoming faster and more efficient electronics and this is a trend that can observed everywhere, so my inference that J-20's electronics are better than F-22 is of course applicable. Do you have any other scientific support to base your claims? If you don't have the actual data to support your claims then the next best thing is to look at the trend.

FYI...The base technologies in military hardware is preferably at least 5 yrs behind the civilian sector. For US, we are conservative so we want 10 yrs of civilian debugging before we will risk our pilots' lives. The SR-71 have a mystique to be an aircraft of esoteric technologies aided by the secrecy about it, when in reality, literally %90 of the jet is dated back to the 1950s.

What you are doing is gross exaggeration or inference. You take one thing you like -- electronics -- added in a famous quote -- Moore's Law -- and made a leap of faith that the J-20's avionics must be newer/later, therefore, superior to everything else flying. Honest researchers do not do that.

Now you're saying that newer computing powers don't matter, of course they matter, if they don't matter why would F-35s and newer aircrafts also have more of them. F-35 is known to be effortless to fly, what do you think do that? And even if they don't matter you're still confirming my statement that J-20 does have more computing power than F-22.

Newer or latest?

When I transitioned from the F-111 to the F-16, MacDill was still flying and training with the A/B models, which were analog avionics. And yet, those analog electronics controls an unstable airframe. When the YF-16 came out in 1973, digital electronics were already 10 yrs old. But the F-16 continued to fly with analog avionics until...

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=23

With Block 40/42, the F-16 gained capabilities for navigation and precision attack at night and in all weather conditions and traded its original analog flight controls for a digital system and new core avionics.

Production of Block 40/42 began in 1988 and ran through 1995.

The F-16 set the standards for fly-by-wire flight controls with analog avionics for 15 yrs. By the time the F-16 flew with digital avionics in the late 1980s, children can get a cheap digital watch in breakfast cereal boxes.

https://www.pcmag.com/feature/296609/the-digital-watch-a-brief-history

...the price of the average digital watch dropped drastically; they would regularly retail for under $10 a piece. And in the 1980s, they became a novelty. You could even find them in cereal boxes as cheap giveaways.

Newer/Later =/= Superiority.

Let us be blunt about your arguments...

So much of the J-20 is unknown that people, meaning non-Americans, are DESPERATE for anything to use as one-up the F-22. Nothing more to it.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

Just because you made it 'very clear' that does not mean what you claimed -- advantages -- is true.

Do you understand the illogic here? I can make it 'very clear' that the Moon is made of green cheese. My position is 'very clear' on that. But does that make it true that the Moon is made of cheese?


Why is that your opinion? What compelled you to that position?

Perhaps these four items...

CAPABILITIES
FEATURES

FUNCTIONALITY
EFFICACY


Yes, I can. For starter, you have not even evidence, let alone proof, that the base electronics in the J-20 is later/newer. What you have is an assumption.


The F-22 have a modular airframe, that much is well known since its debut. Same with its avionics. When the F-22 came out, certain technologies were either not available or were still in early stages of development. Lockheed was well conscious of the need for continuous upgrades as technologies progresses. So who says that the F-22 is 'locked-in' as it is? You speak from extensive personal experience in aircraft design?


FYI...The base technologies in military hardware is preferably at least 5 yrs behind the civilian sector. For US, we are conservative so we want 10 yrs of civilian debugging before we will risk our pilots' lives. The SR-71 have a mystique to be an aircraft of esoteric technologies aided by the secrecy about it, when in reality, literally %90 of the jet is dated back to the 1950s.

What you are doing is gross exaggeration or inference. You take one thing you like -- electronics -- added in a famous quote -- Moore's Law -- and made a leap of faith that the J-20's avionics must be newer/later, therefore, superior to everything else flying. Honest researchers do not do that.


Newer or latest?

When I transitioned from the F-111 to the F-16, MacDill was still flying and training with the A/B models, which were analog avionics. And yet, those analog electronics controls an unstable airframe. When the YF-16 came out in 1973, digital electronics were already 10 yrs old. But the F-16 continued to fly with analog avionics until...

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=23

The F-16 set the standards for fly-by-wire flight controls with analog avionics for 15 yrs. By the time the F-16 flew with digital avionics in the late 1980s, children can get a cheap digital watch in breakfast cereal boxes.

https://www.pcmag.com/feature/296609/the-digital-watch-a-brief-history

Newer/Later =/= Superiority.

Let us be blunt about your arguments...

So much of the J-20 is unknown that people, meaning non-Americans, are DESPERATE for anything to use as one-up the F-22. Nothing more to it.

Ok so now your argument against mine is that even though my logic makes sense doesn't make true.

Okay, I can take that. I'm not saying that my opinion is 100% correct either, but based on logic and some scientific laws, that's what I concluded. I atleast have some scientific facts to back my claims, do you?

Okay, not saying they can't add those newer electronics onto F-22 either, but for now F-22 don't have those capabilities.

Let me quote Stefaan Vanhastel F-16.net Webmaster.

"FBW alone doesn't improve maneuverability, although the pilot has to apply almost no force at all to move the control surfaces, which makes the aircraft controlable in situations where manual control wouldn't.

The next step is quite obvious: since you have electrical signals controlling your aircraft, you can easily run these signals through a computer before you feed them to the actuators. So everything a pilot does is checked by a computer, and it will not allow control inputs that would damage the aircraft (e.g. pulling too many Gs) or exceed the aircraft's flight envelope. This frees the pilot from worrying about exceeding the aircraft's limit so he can concentrate on flying.

Even more, the F-16 is an inherently instable design - when flying it, you would need to make constant control adjustments. In the F-16, the Flight Control System computer does this for you. It's constantly moving the control surface (ever so slightly) to keep the F-16 stable.

Of course, if you have an unstable system, you need to have extremely reliable computers. That's why the F-16 has multiple computers that "vote" for the best action (control input) to take. If one computer fails or suggests a wrong solution, it is out-voted by the other computers.
"
So in the end they converted most F-16 flight control system to digital. Am I mistaken? So are you saying that these computers still don't matter?

I'm not even trying to compare which aircrafts is overall better. I'm simply stating facts. Get your American superiority complex out of here.

 

[Shamsher1990]

“Moore's prediction proved accurate for several decades, and has been used in the semiconductor industry to guide long-term planning and to set targets for research and development.[10] Advancements in digital electronics are strongly linked to Moore's law: quality-adjusted microprocessor prices,[11]memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras.”

I have a question for you, Which do you think is capable of performing more calculations per second? A Cray YMP from late 1980s or 90s running at 200 Mhz Or a 2017 or 18 PC having i7 running at 2-3 Ghz? You will be surprised at what the reality is. PS: Modern day computers have more RAM than late 80s super computers, they have massive transistor density and their CPU operate at much higher frequency.

Moore's law only predicts transistors density and NOTHING ELSE. Not every thing scales with it smoothly.

 

[gambit]

I atleast have some scientific facts to back my claims, do you?

Your 'scientific facts' are not applicable. Not that they are false, but simply not applicable to the subject at hand.

Here are the TRUE reasons why one complex system is superior to others...

CAPABILITIES
FEATURES

FUNCTIONALITY
EFFICACY

They are just as valid and powerful as any scientific principle. As I stated earlier, they are sorted in order of significance. A deficiency in capability will have an immediate effect on how a feature can perform. A deficiency in functionality will reduce efficacy, a desired outcome. A deficiency in the first pair will reduce the available options for the second pair. This is not component level design but system/process engineering. The Big Picture, if you will.

This frees the pilot from worrying about exceeding the aircraft's limit so he can concentrate on flying.

Actually, the FLCS does the flying to allow the pilot to become more a killer than a pilot.

I was told by an IP that with modern day fighters, if you want to enjoy flying, do it on your own time and dime, but the moment you strap into the cockpit of a modern day fighter, you must become a killer. The joy of flight is secondary. And he was correct. The USAF -- or any air force -- is a 'killer' organization. Defend by destruction, or at least the threat thereof.

So in the end they converted most F-16 flight control system to digital. Am I mistaken? So are you saying that these computers still don't matter?

Of course the move to the digital was needed. A digital avionics allows greater flexibility in terms of long term upgrades. Plus -- and this is reality talking -- the maker(s) of the analog avionics were either gone or leaving.

I'm not even trying to compare which aircrafts is overall better. I'm simply stating facts. Get your American superiority complex out of here.

Do not pull that 'stating facts' on me. Of course you were trying to say the J-20 is 'superior' to the F-22, albeit in an offhanded way via the claim of superior electronics and Moore's Law.

 

[jhungary]

There are many ways stealth can work, but the physics principles are the same. Big part of its is the airframe's configuration, so I'm saying you don't need to know what it's radar signature to design a counter systems, just like all other "anti-stealth" AA systems out there. You can design radars to counter these stealth characteristics. And being more suited can also mean that since it's hard to track a stealth aircraft due to its unstable radar signature (according to Gambit sometimes ago). Simply adding additional beams or bands of radar to track a stealth target can help solve that one specific problem.

You talked about birds. Birds don't fly at 1,963 km/h. lmao

I'm sure you know that most radars can detect stealth aircrafts (especially AESA), but a lot of them simply lack the range. Therefore, designing a radar that can detect stealth aircrafts at a longer range is not a monumental work.

First of all, radar contact is not that "Smart" their process start with sending Microwave and end with receiving the Microwave. This is not transponder we are talking about, where it report Speed, Heading and Squawk code, any radar system will not know the target they are tracking is flying at 1963km/h. It will just show up on your radar as a dot, you can tag information in it, but the radar itself will not know anything other than this is a radar contact, and the size of Radar Contact.

Secondly, you are still assuming Stealth can be hidden from radar. It does not, any radar can pick up any signal, how to process these signal is another business. And the most important question of any Radar Operator is you know what is that signal. Stealth Aircraft made their leading edge reflection similar to something else but not the fighter itself, which mean the F-22 can be looking like anything but a F-22.

While the principal of stealth is the same, the EXECUTION of stealth is not, which mean the signal return vary between different stealth platform. And no, if you don't know what the signature looks like, how do your AA know what are they shooting at? It maybe a F-22, it maybe a Boeing 727, or it may even be a Cessna which return similar radar signature.

The most important thing is that you have to look at is the trend, the trend is newer electronics are faster and more efficient than older one. I really don't know how you can argue against this.

And why are you comparing i7 and i5? They are not even on the same level.

China isn't completely without any knowledge of US's stealth capabilities either. There are many ways China can obtain how American stealth works including hacking and the F-117 wreckage pieces that were shot down in Serbia and sent to China for study.

Of course all the parameters aren't the same. But the basic requirements are still the same, that why F-22 and YF-23 can both compete in the same competition and are both are fifth gens even though they are two very different aircrafts.

That is because you still don't understand the point.

Comparing i7 to i5 is to demonstrate how starting point is different and the outcome is different even with moore's law progress, which is my point.

And if you think US stealth is still linger in the F-117 era, then you are dead wrong, also you cannot study a wreckage to determine how stealth work, because the structure is compromised. Stealth work as a whole, form engine noise, engine heat signature, leading edge shaping and Electro-Magnetic emission. It does not work if you just have a piece from a wreckage, you may know what kind of Radar Absorption Paint F-117 use back then but I can guarantee you, this is not the same paint currently on F-22, F-35 and B-2.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[gambit]

...so I'm saying you don't need to know what it's radar signature to design a counter systems, just like all other "anti-stealth" AA systems out there.

And you are partially wrong.

An airframe CONFIGURATION produces a unique radar signature. See the illustration above.

Airliners do not have wing sweep like jet fighters do -- that is one major contributor to a configuration.

Airliners have engines below the wings which produces a unique radar signature as shown in Fig 2 above. Jet fighters may or may not fly with external stores under their wings, therefore, an F-16's radar signature can radically differ from day to day, base upon what it carries -- or do not -- under the wings.

The B-52 bomber is comparable to the airliner in many major structures, which produces a similar radar signature to that of the airliner's radar signature.

You are partially wrong in that it helps immensely if the radar system have a library of known COMMON CONFIGURATIONS of major airframes in the world. That way when it 'sees' a target WITHOUT a cluster of voltage spikes like the examples above, it can immediately raise the priority level of that target. The target could be an F-15 or an F-16, but at least you can rule out an civilian airliner or a B-52 bomber. Do you understand?

You talked about birds. Birds don't fly at 1,963 km/h. lmao

You mean using the Doppler component of a radar return to track a 'stealth' fighter flying at 1900 km/h? That would be the 'Moving Target Indicator' (MTI) radar as an option.

You joined this forum May 2016. I posted a rebuttal to the MTI argument yrs ago...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinas-blitzkrieg-on-u-s-carrier.54955/page-29#post-3309403

That was in Aug 2012. If it was that easy to exploit the Doppler component (MTI) as a 'counter-stealth' method, that would have been proven after the F-117, and the F-22, F-35, and the B-2 would have never came to be. The MTI counter-stealth argument was nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by various anti-US Internet trolls ignorant of basic radar detection principles, and used more to attract attention to themselves than to enlighten the readers.

The MTI method does not work.

I'm sure you know that most radars can detect stealth aircrafts (especially AESA), but a lot of them simply lack the range. Therefore, designing a radar that can detect stealth aircrafts at a longer range is not a monumental work.

Then why are Russia and China still trying to deploy their 'stealth' fighters?

If it is that easy to defeat 'stealth', especially with the AESA technology, that mean ANYONE can defeat 'stealth' on the cheap. So why are Russia and China struggling to deploy their 'stealth' fighters?

But I will say this about US -- that we have effectively defeated 'stealth'. Forty+ yrs of flying various publicly known and unknown 'stealth' aircrafts provided US with plenty of data on how a certain structural layout will produce a certain RCS signature. Your China is still trying.

The J-20 is Dead-On-Arrival (DOA).

China isn't completely without any knowledge of US's stealth capabilities either. There are many ways China can obtain how American stealth works including hacking and the F-117 wreckage pieces that were shot down in Serbia and sent to China for study.

Which was %99 useless to China.

The current low radar observable technique is shaping. If you do not have the FINAL shape, then you are gambling, and when that F-117 crashed, its final shape with that low RCS value was essentially lost to China. The curvature method on the B-2, F-22, and F-35 are superior to the angled faceting method used on the F-117.

 

[HariPrasad]

F 22 is real fifth generation fighter whereas J20 is SO called fifth generation fighter plane.

 

[UKBengali]

F 22 is real fifth generation fighter whereas J20 is SO called fifth generation fighter plane.

J-20 is 5th generation in all areas apart from the engine.

Just think China rejected Russia's proposal to join SU-57 project back in 2002 in order to produce their own 5th gen fighter which became the J-20.

 

[HariPrasad]

J-20 is 5th generation in all areas apart from the engine.

Just think China rejected Russia's proposal to join SU-57 project back in 2002 in order to produce their own 5th gen fighter which became the J-20.

Hu hah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Ultima Thule]

Hu hah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

You live in you own delusional Carry on ,infact J-20 is more stealth oriented/finished product than SU-57, Su-57 is basically a Su-27 series of jets modified for stealth @HariPrasad

 

[HariPrasad]

You live in you own delusional Carry on ,infact J-20 is more stealth oriented/finished product than SU-57, Su-57 is basically a Su-27 series of jets modified for stealth @HariPrasad

Ya, that is why sukhoi could detect it from a long distance even without AESA.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Ya, that is why sukhoi could detect it from a long distance even without AESA.

And your Sukhoi would detect and tracked 200 KM by J-20 AESA @HariPrasad

 

[LKJ86]

Ya, that is why sukhoi could detect it from a long distance even without AESA.

Can you prove it?
What radar?
How long?