I am not denigrating Chinese avionics, just that we don't know anything about its state of development to make any reasonable assessment relative to the US.
Yes, I've never interpreted your post as denigrating Chinese avionics, and I'm well aware of how much and how little we know regarding Chinese avionics developments.
Whilst you are saying it is simply theoretical, IMO you are conveniently by passing a key component in 5th gen. attributes i.e. sensors and SA. In any case, what we are discussing is probably off course from Tidalwave's post. I think, the poster is conflating two issues i.e. utility of net worked sensors and vulnerability of AWAC's emission to passive sensors. The post itself is rather confusing because its talks about AWAC and F-35 sensor network which typically would be two different issues. I thought what the poster was alluding to is the utility of the J-20 in breaking the AWAC and tanker chain that supports the F-35 mission sets. In such a scenario, IMO the J-20 has to actively emit to seek targeting solution as passive read would be insufficient to generate a solution.
I see.
I was interpreting Tidalwave's post as a general question as to why the F-35+network centric operations would be considered a "threat," and his mentioning of counter AEW&C via passive ESM sensors was his own suggestion for a possible "counter".
I was answering his more general question in regards to the F-35 -- that is to say, the reason it is a "threat" is because of the way it will be employed (in relatively large numbers, and integrated into an existing large C4ISR apparatus).
I was not making any statement about the practicality of J-20 using passive sensors to acquire a weapons quality targeting solution for long range missiles. But now that it's been mentioned again, I obviously agree that with present technology it is probably infeasible for such a weapon to be developed within the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, the reason I compared F-35 vs a "mature J-20" or an "upgraded F-22" was in relation to plawolf's post about F-35 vs J-20/F-22, as my own suggestion for how it would be truly "fair" to compare the respective aircraft (i.e.: that any comparison must be done so with various factors on both sides held equal, including equal offboard support aircraft, and relatively equal avioinics levels, with the only differences being more physical differences such as their kinematics and configurations).
So no, I was not "conveniently by passing" the importance of sensors and situational awareness, in fact I strongly recognized the importance of sensors and situational awareness, which was why, that for the purposes of plawolf's original comparison I specifically said it would be necessary to give both sides equal sensors and situational awareness (such as equal number and quality of AEW&C, equal level of technological advancement in regards to sensors and datalinks etc), with the only difference being parameters dictated by the more physical differences between the respective aircraft.
