This is precisely why I said about being pointless. A plane that is still in development and with no details is hardly a starting point to be making comparison.
Its a plane that's already been testing some time ago.
On what basis are you making such assumptions?
Because that is all what it takes, a received signal is a signal no matter how faint. A signal can be amplified further during digital processing.
Unfortunately you are making plenty of assumptions - not me. A good starting point is to be more specific. What exactky does a more powerful AESA mean? According to Jane sources, ab APG-79 can detect a 1 m2 target up to 180 kms. Even with composites a J-15 in my view would be between 5 to 10 m2 RCS. Translated this mean an APG-79 can detect a J-15 from between 269 to 320 kms. Cionversely the F-18 has the lowest VLO feature of any US 4th gen fighters and rated with a 0.5 to 1 m2 RCS.
Its as simple as having a higher transmit and peak power, better transmit gain and receive gain, a more focused beam and propagation pattern, as well as the radar being able to continuously track and dwell on the target.
That's also true with slotted array. A Flanker's nose has a huge antenna and can carry a large and powerful transmitter. The analogy would be the F-14's radar which is a large slotted array. Unlike the Su-33 which uses the N001 inverse cassegrain, a J-15 would be using a slotted array, a version of the Type 1474 modified for sea clutter. This is the base radar from the J-11B and this radar also has a modern digital, microprocessor controlled back end with digital signal processors, at least circa 2010 electronics technology. But this is just for the initial batch of J-15s, and the next batch of J-15s may discard this set for something more up to date.
On the figures you throw about the RCS of the J-15, I don't think its anywhere stealthy but I don't see the mathematical basis for these figures other than "hunch".
On what basis is the RCS of the F-18 is that? Is this just a frontal head on aspect on an all clean aircraft? Marketing stuff always love to talk about the optimal. Do you assume that this is what the direction of the plane will be always relative to the threat fighter? RCS will begin to differ the moment the plane will turn on its axis. Its three dimensional. You are taking an extremely simplistic approach to RCS to assume frontal aspect applies to all aspects. Here's more, an F-18 or a Rafale is like to be shorter ranged without tanks, and would likely need external tanks. That would also increase the RCS. What about weapons load? What about the rim of the radome and the rim of the cockpit? Composite doesn't reduce RCS because RF that passes through will just bounce on the plane's innards. You need metamaterials that polarize the reflection to another direction.
A better way to reduce the Flanker's frontal RCS would be the intake diverter absorb the threat radar that goes into the engine tunnel. However, that won't work when the plane is on full power, when the diverter is fully lifted.
Large vertical tailplanes like on the Rafale doesn't help at all. At least the F-18's is canted. The Su-33 also has large tailplanes.
