Sorry, I have to reduce your interesting post to just a pair of question in order of not getting stuck there forever, I have a way more beautiful business to care about as now.

Look, I have not talked at all about kinematics of missiles, re-read my post please.
Point was instead that while employng a SaRh or TVM missile you would absolutely need a very precise location of the incoming menace in order to point your fire control radar and illuminate them with , all ARh missiles, from Phoenix onward act autonomously, they are guided in the vicinity of the target usually with a mid corse guidance systems , when they are close enough they justactivate their own seeker and do all the engagement sequence all from themselves with not any actual imput from the launcher.
This was originally introduced to allow them to engage several targets in the same moment while the conteporary SaRH missiles ccound instead be used only against a single target.
Now, such a capacity of a completely autonomous engage sequence come actually extremely useful to counteract the main limitation of low frequency radar engaging a stealth, that several there have justly mentioned: such radar can spot them at an useful distance and can track them also but with a low refresh rate and without a precise location.
They instead just provide a sort of probably “box”, larger or smaller according to their own power and distance of target, in which the plane is.
Now while such a box is waay too big to allow for a SaRh targeting, it is at the contrariy well under the range in which an Arh seeker would activate themselves and perform their own, better reiterate it, completely autonomous engage sequence, not dependent at all by the original distance between Ad radar and the target.
Certainly, neither I expect tem to have the same kill probability than against a conventional target but still something that would work the same.

I understand your point , my point is that the box may be enough again legacy aircraft , it wouldnt be enough again stealth aircraft , because the seeker range will be degraded greatly

. Also the F-22/F-35 cannot get sufficiently precise coordinates for a GPS weapon at that kind of range. .

they can , SAR mode for airborne radar is very common nowadays

It is from almost from a decade ago that was ascertained that any stealth plane are easier not just to be detected but also located and tracked that was it originarly thought possible by developers and military programmers that worked on design of such time (i.e. just american)VLO. So it seems me that NI is quite retarded on such a matter.
Detection and route tracing are actually possible at quite significant distance using metric and decimetric wavelenght radars, what is still difficult to achieve is a sufficently precise and continuative position of the plane enough to engage it with actual standard AD system based on SARh and TVM guidance.
That is one of the main reasons because new generation missiles using ARh guidance are being introducted lately in a sort of frenzyby every one around: also having a greatly imprecise initial position i.e. a sort of large probability box in which the stealth plane could be won’t avoid such missile to be directed against it using mid-course update and complete engagement using its own sensor.
Certainly such an modus operandi would not allow the same high success ratio than one permitted by actual systems against conventional aircrafts crazy enought to dare into without a very heavy jamming cover but still enought to be quite effective.
Most troubling thing of the above mentioned new engagement procedure is that it is not significantly affected by the distance between the launcher and the target as the previous one, a train right on the face on the initial argument that was actually used to “sell” the risky and absolutely expensive F-35 program to USAF and most of the western air forces i.e. the ability of sneak across enemy air defences and reach target all alone without any further support.

.

Low frequency radar can perform better again stealth fighter than their high frequency counterpart , but that doesnot mean you can suddenly detect stealth fighters from hundred km aways just by changing frequency from X band to L band. The main problem is when you reduce operating frequency of radar , the gain value will go down along with it ( doesnt matter if the antenna is PESA or AESA ) , so power will be alot less concentrated .
Lower gain ( bigger beam width ) will also reduce accuracy significantly , especially at long distance , ARH missiles can help at short range but at long distance , the size of the resolution cell can easily surpass the seekers range of ARH missiles.
Radar frequency and resolution

And why a modern Ad sistem would need a dedicated fire control radar if they have ARh missiles?

Because , low frequency radar mean long pulse width and wide beam width , both are terrible for long range engagement ( even with ARH missiles )

Maybe it was that, so allow me to correct it for more clarity:
Let’s make a comparison: A strike package offour F-35 with only internal A2G load against a strike packagefour Su-34, three with the standard A2Gload and one with escort jammer package and A2A weapons.
Who would deliver a greater punch? What change of survival? What cost?

You can also put four F/A-18 and a Growler instead of Su-34 so not to have national preferences interfere with theoriginal i choosed Su-34 because i consider it the most extreme application of the area jamming concept: a plane so big that can carry a specialized ECM suite together with a great load without any relevant effect on its own performances.

Su-34 option is probably cheaper but F-35 option is a better choice if adversary have good air defense.The size of Su-34 should allow it to carry bigger , more powerful ECM pod than the jammer that F-35 has , but the much smaller radar cross section of F-35 will compensate for that easily , Su-34 would need to carry jammer that is 100 -1000 times more powerful than the one on F-35 ( be it APG-81, ALE-70 , MALD-J or whatever ) just to achieve same effect.

get firing solutions using passive means. .

Not as easy as it sound
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/rwresm-and-passive-geolocation/

there a high chance this actually happened, IFF problems and all that

Where do you take into account that the AESA emits like a beam? The energy receive might be 100 or 10000 times larger, hard to say given the fact that we don’t know how narrow the beam is.

Gain describe how narrow a radar beam is
Radar Basic

GarryA, it is EXACTLy the same thing I have written in the post you have cited! ESM is not a viable counter stealth system as it is not work in a continuative way and does not give any reliable spatial reference.
Passive or better said not-cooperative multistatic radars however are much more effective and several of them are already operative, OTH radars works, metric band radars are a well consolidate reality.
As I have repeated ad nauseam in several threads and repeated also in the post you have cited not one of them would render VLO technologies useless but thinking that situation is the same of thirty years ago is also a wishful thinking and far greater that the one Falcondude impute to BlackAdam.

Passive radar is just another name for RWR , and OTH radar are very inaccurate , have huge blind area ( blind area of sky wave radars can be from 500-1000 km in radius in front of them ) , in my opinion the best kind of radar that can be used again stealth platforms are multi static radars ( transmitter and receivers are not at the same location ).
But i agree with you that the combination of different systems does help alot again VLO assets , what i critise about these articles is that they only consider one side of the equation.
for exmple :
” other ground-based radars might have collected intelligence data needed to “characterize” the F-22’s signature at specific wavelengths.”
what if the F-22 carry luneberg lens ?

”Kolchuga Radar, the system is not really a radar, but an ESM system comprising three or four receivers, deployed tens of kilometres apart, which detect and track aircraft by triangulation and multilateration of their RF emissions”
what if stealth aircrafts using directional datalink and high gain radars ?

” Low frequency OTH radar can detect stealth aircraft as easy as normal platform ”
but these OTH radars have massives size and practically stationary so how about threat from long range cruise missiles ?

and so on ,but i think you get my point : both sides will use suitable tactics to achieve advantages,another point people forget is that one of the most important characteristics of air assets in general are their mobility , with air assets you can concentrate all of your forces in one location and move on to the next one in mater of hours , while ground forces have to be evenly distributed

All of this sounds like wishful thinking!

I have the feeling that OP either really bad at English or really bad at critical thinking, his articles are always super duper one-sided