It is more complicated than "LOL LONG WAVE RADAR I WIN".
"The other problem that the defender must contend with is the fact that the L-band and most parts of the S-band have radar resolution cells that are too large to provide a weapons quality track. Effectively, even if a defender can detect and track an attacking stealthy fighter, that defender may not be able to guide a missile onto that target.
That being said, both the SPY-1 and the forthcoming Raytheon Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) operate in higher frequency portions of the S-band and are able to generate weapons quality tracks. If the Chinese system is similar—and there are indications that it is—it could generate fire-control quality guidance for the HQ-9B missiles."
Stealth provides some ability to evade however the most modern systems that are getting rolled out in the next 5 years are going to able to track a F-35 and engage it without significant hardship.
Stealth at this point is really just another layer of defense, like decoys. It'll decrease the distance at which you can truly kill a F-35. However, at 200 million each, you can afford to build a large number of missiles & mobile SAMs to take out a F-35.
Something people apparently generally don't realize is that the stealth claim has only ever been about the front profile of the aircraft. Nobody is claiming the F-22 is invisible, just that it's rather hard to see from a distance if it's coming straight at you. And going straight at enemy fighters and air defense radars is the role of the F-22. Radar onboard an enemy fighter is not going to be long wave. So I don't really get Sprey's claim that stealth is a scam. The stealth claims are modest and accurate as best I can tell.
The biggest problem is that stealth has always been surrounded by political demands all the way back to the first stealth aircraft. Given Sprey's target audience with the interview and the way he chose his words (particularly at first), I think it's likely that he was addressing the prevailing belief that stealth aircraft are invisible aircraft. That said, you've hit the nail on the head in terms of the difference between being stealth (re: invisible, such as what Sprey's railing against) and being low-observable.
Public comments about the JSF program by Lockheed, military spokespersons, and congressional supporters alike have all touted the plane's stealth capabilities to an extent that makes me wonder how many actually understand the difference between the two. Given the likelihood that operational demands (particularly close air support for the Marines with the F-35B... not that CAS missions could every be very stealthy) will make the entire point moot, I really don't understand all the emphasis on it.
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/stealth-tech-obsolete/
It is more complicated than "LOL LONG WAVE RADAR I WIN".
"The other problem that the defender must contend with is the fact that the L-band and most parts of the S-band have radar resolution cells that are too large to provide a weapons quality track. Effectively, even if a defender can detect and track an attacking stealthy fighter, that defender may not be able to guide a missile onto that target.
That being said, both the SPY-1 and the forthcoming Raytheon Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) operate in higher frequency portions of the S-band and are able to generate weapons quality tracks. If the Chinese system is similar—and there are indications that it is—it could generate fire-control quality guidance for the HQ-9B missiles."
Stealth provides some ability to evade however the most modern systems that are getting rolled out in the next 5 years are going to able to track a F-35 and engage it without significant hardship.
Stealth at this point is really just another layer of defense, like decoys. It'll decrease the distance at which you can truly kill a F-35. However, at 200 million each, you can afford to build a large number of missiles & mobile SAMs to take out a F-35.