Well here you're assuming that Stealth is limited to the laws of physics but for some odd reason that radars, namely VHF radars are not.

I can tell you that Stealth as evolved a LOT. Actually I have a nice article that came with a military aircraft magazine ("Combat Aircraft" if I'm not mistaken) which covered pretty much the history of Stealth (or Stealth aircraft). If I can find the article I'll post it here.
What I can tell you (and trying the resume the best I can) is that the aerodynamics limitations on early aircraft (like Tacit Blue) don't have anything to do with any trade or compromise between Stealth and Aerodynamics but instead because of computer power limitations of that era (remember this was the early 1980's) and as such computers were very limited in doing extremely complex calculation such as calculating/designing an airframe that could have excellent aerodynamics and very low RCS at the same time.

For example, why do you think that the F-117A surface is composed by flat panels (it almost looks like a shaped diamond) instead of more rounded shapes found on the F-22 and F-35?
The answer is just above: Computer power or more precise the lack of it.
Since in the late 1970's computer power was very limited (as it was in the 1980's specially in the early 1980's) it was much easier for a computer to design any shape like a stealth aircraft using flat surfaces rather than by using rounded ones.
The same principle applies to the Tacit Blue which while not having a surface composed of flat panels like the F-117A it was nevertheless a very "straight-line" design and thus easy to be generated on a computer.

Later we had the B-2 which came up in the later part of the 1980's. The B-2 came up because of a combination of two factors:
- The invention of Fly-By-Wire (FBW) flight control systems in the late 1970's made possible that previously uncontrollable or hardly controllable aircraft design (like the "flying wing" design of the B-2) were now controllable.
- The "flying wing" is also a very straightforward design to be calculated on a computer (even on a more limited one) while at the same time it was found rather by accident in the 1950's (with the Northrop YB-49) that a "flying wing" design displayed a very low RCS.
So the B-2 came up.

So, it was only the in the early 1990's that computers started to have enough processing power to allow the design of aircraft that were both excellent aerodynamically and with very low RCS, therefore it was with no surprise that very low RCS and "conventional looking aircraft designs" like the F-22 and the JSF (later F-35) only came up in the 1990's.

I hope I haven't bother you with the "history of Stealth" but this is to prove that there's NO either you have a "more stealth but less aerodynamic" aircraft OR "less stealth but more aerodynamic" aircraft! You can actually have both: ""more stealth AND more aerodynamic" but you need a VERY powerful computer to design such aircraft, a reality which again was only possible starting from the 1990's.

And as such, Hpasp's prediction that the Nebo-M could detect a F-35 at a maximum range of 100km looks acceptable and perhaps even a little bit optimistic but again Hpasp mentioned that in this scenario the F-35 wouldn't be using its EW capabilities which makes it IMO quite believable.

So there's absolutely no way that a Nebo-M would be able to detect a F-35 at a range of 320Km, that would be a bet that I would easily put lots of my own money!





HOJ against a "standoff jammer" like the EA-18G or the F-35 wouldn't likely work and why?
Because dedicated Electronic Warfare (EW) aircraft systems will know what is the frequency of the emitting radar, will geo-locate those radar emitters and will jam those radars on their own frequencies.
That's why only AESA radars (like the APG-81 found on the F-35) can be used as a standoff jammer antenna and why? Because AESA radars are composed by several programmable T-R modules which means that some or even all of these modules can be reprogrammed to emit on another frequency "on the fly". Or resuming, AESA radars can change their emitting frequencies while other radars such as Mechanically Steered radars and PESA radars cannot.
Actually the radar and sensor package of the F-35 was already capable of locating and jamming the F-22 Raptor's radars. Here:
http://aviationweek.com/awin/china-s-stealth-aircraft-program-will-face-advanced-defenses

So if the F-35 can perform EW against the F-22 radar, imagine what it will do to against those Nebo-M radars and even the S-400 radars!


What I mean with all this is that since the jamming is done on the emitting frequency of the radar then the practical effect on the radar (being jammed) is that nothing will be detected by this radar (including the jamming signal) - It is as if there was nothing in area or space where the jamming is coming. This is actually kind of an alternate way of Stealth. Look here how it works:

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/videos/this-aircraft-is-a-marvel-of-electronic-warfare/38017


That's only a small part of an episode of a TV series (Air Warriors) but if you can, watch the full episode it's quite interesting. Nevertheless the part that you can watch above pretty much explain what I've posted about this subject.


Regarding that F-117 shot down over Serbia, it's well known that the F-117 didn't have any EW support (in this case didn't have any EA-6 Prowler support) so your F-117 RCS against a VHF radar (P-18 in this case) is in a scenario without any EW noise/support.
And so, if the F-117 has an RCS against the VHF band of 0,005m² (a value that you came up with and which I personally trend to agree on) without any EW or jammer support why would the F-35 RCS be any higher, specially much higher like 0,16m²?? Doesn't make much sense, does it?