> So.. we built a weapon system who's utility is immediately reduced by the amount of time it spends in proximity to enemy radar systems? It's a far more compl

> So.. we built a weapon system who's utility is immediately reduced by the amount of time it spends in proximity to enemy radar systems? It's a far more complicated situation. Short answer: No. That's a naive perception of how "stealth" aircraft work. First, it's unlikely that the F35 will ever be susceptible to a weapons grade radar lock for the frequencies in which it was designed to be low observable in. However, detecting that an F35 is present is quite useful for adversaries. These would be on non-targetable frequencies. It's in the best interest of the F35 operators to make sure that it's return signature in those frequency bands is a bit of a mystery. In fact, this is so important, that F35s are generally flown around with _intentional_ radar reflectors during all non-combat operations to keep the aircraft observable. Second, (this is speculation I want to make that clear its my opinion) 5th generation fighters are likely "as good as it's going to get" for a long time. Within 25 years, every country will be able operate low-observable aircraft, barring some breakthroughs in quantum physics. Extending the time it takes other countries to catch up makes the investment pay out longer. I really didn't have a good grasp on this stuff until I read up on the LRASM weapon. It's an anti-ship cruise missile fired hundreds of miles away from a moving target. During its its terminal phase, it's able to use its radar to seek its target, even if the target warship is using civilian vessels as human shields. How exactly it does this is of course classified, but military analysts (your favorite word, I know) have surmised its clandestine radar operations have been taken profiles of ships from likely enemies vs radar returns from merchant vessels. Does that comparison sort of make sense?