I’m sure the sale of AESA equipped F-15s, will help Israel’s decision on the F-35, not to mention upgrades to it’s F-15s/F-16s.

Please DON’T INVENT ,ok ? That don’t aid a serious discussion on the subject.
The maximum range of GBU (around 60 Nm) is linked to the thresholds of its lifting and contra-parasytic/interference drag aerodynamics surfaces for a controlled gliding ,absolutely uncompatible ,like you well know to,with a high speed/high rarefaction altitude delivery, clear ? Very likely its effective operative range is much ,much lower than that.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/sdb/docs/SDB_overview.pdf
You’ll note that the range given is greater than 60nm. F-22s have hit targets at near 100 miles, with high altitude supersonic launches.

Now the VLO aircraft question.
For begin to talk seriously of the subject please forget ridiculous figures like 0,001 or 0,0001 square meters, linked,like you well know, to very specific radar waves inception’s angles in a perfect “head on” aspect, where even little angular variations from that spot produce differences ,in effective RCS ,even of some orders of magnitude.

The F-22 and F-35 are both all aspect VLO. This means that while their best RCS is head on, they don’t immediately have a conventional RCS when viewed from other angles. Both aircraft have been tested on poles, against calibrated ranges, and in the case of the F-22, numerous exercises where the opposing fighters never saw them, in spite of their best efforts. Based upon these real world experiences, and USAF/LM claims, I tend to have more faith in these figures, than in your hunches.

Second element is that RCS of VLO ,both shape-wise (by far the most important in RCS reduction) and RAM-wise, are conceived to be efficient mostly in X band and, like you know,this figure change of several order of magnitudes in L or ,worse, VHF band (or worst E or HF band ,useful ,however ,only for over the horizon very long range “early warning” tasks).

The RCS reductions aren’t just against X band first of all, but this is the most important band to be stealthy against, as it allows you to break the kill chain.

That don’t was a problem until those type of radars was uncapable, for lacking of 3D tracking accuracy ,to provide long range SAM guidance,then an effective firing solution ,and was very slow to deploy / undeploy; sadly this isn’t true anymore since many,many years and is the main motivation for which russians scientists have baldly asserted that modern S-300PMU-2 and S-400 ,in which those type of radars, even multispectral versions (very useful also for very long range decoy’s discernment and sharing of the data with the whole IAD) has been implemented, can engage VLO aircraft at theirs maximum range.

You’ve distorted what has been said about these SAMs. The claims are that targets in the .1-.01m^2 RCS range, can be detected at ~90km. The tracking range will be less than 90km. For targets which have lower RCS than that, the detection range will be more like 20-30km, with a lower tracking range. Even Carlo Kopp, who is a raging Russophile, with regards to weapons systems, has figures that would coincide with this. So the take away here, is that long range SAMs won’t be able to engage at anywhere near their max engagement ranges. Even against non-stealthy targets the probability of kill at max ranges is very low against non-cooperative targets.
It is true that other bands of radar have higher likelihoods of detecting stealthy aircraft, but…..they don’t provide the accuracy necessary for targeting. As for VHF, etc… radars, these aren’t highly mobile first of all, and definitely serve as trip wires only against stealthy aircraft. Secondly, they’ll be high priority targets. You seem to be under the assumption that the sensors will be functioning at 100% for prolonged periods after a conflict begins. Between kinetic and non-kinetic attacks, the sensors and C2 of a an IADs will be of utmost importance. Large hole in coverage will result in short order, allowing far more freedom of movement, and these systems will not be functioning to their fullest capacity due to heavy EA/ECM, further aiding the VLO aircraft’s ability to remain hidden in the EM noise.

Especially considering the Navy isn’t unhappy with the current motors, and wanting to go to the 27k lb ones. I doubt if the SH was that much different in acceleration, they’d feel that way.

What is your issue with the detection of SAM sites at stand off ranges? That’s kind of the whole point of VLO aircraft- they can stay outside of the SAM detection/engagement envelope. They can also use third party targeting(i.e. J-STARs, UAVs, other strike aircraft, SOF teams, etc..). Remember- even with a subsonic launch, the SDB has a range >60nm. With a high altitude, supersonic launch that range gets closer to 100 miles. In either case, that’s outside of the WEZ.

Modern AD is limited to “super batteries” to create no go areas and by that are similar to a carrier strike-force. To saturate something your are in need of time to learn the related capabilities and positions to be successful.

That was the point I was making. From the sound of some posters though, the entire countryside is bristling with SAMs.

Also the GBU-40 could ,perhaps, hit a moving target in the attacked area and it need terminal in-flight target positional update from elements present in the area attacked (like UAVs) in order for its seeker to engage a similar target.

It’s not a matter of perhaps-

http://www.deagel.com/Bombs-and-Guidance-Kits/GBU-40_a001064002.aspx

The fire and forget SDB will be provided with a GPS/INS guidance system, while the direct attack mode SDB will be provided with a different guidance system to attack undetermined and moving targets.

This is designed to attack targets of opportunity, including moving ones, and can be updated on the fly.

Presumably, one would have to know where the F-35 was, in order to know what angle to position your interceptors though. That’s a self licking ice cream cone analogy.