I guess you have never heard of the following quote by General Patton, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."OK then what the US Military needed would be a big attrition reserve, and commanders with "guts" to send a second squadron to the fray right after a first was splashed
sounds creepy even in my chair
Stand off jamming and stealth is not a simple binary consideration. The current preferred tactical doctrine for day 1 is that the F-22/F-35's are the instrument of choice (aside from stand off weapons) to break down the door and to hold the door open. That was demonstrated and reported in the recent Red Flag exercise.
During the Iraqi campaign, the use of standoff jamming in support of the F-117 evolved because of its unintended effect as the presence of standoff jamming actualy acted as an alert mechanism rather than as an assist.
That said, the Growler's AN/ALQ-99E is still a very capable jammer even though it is starting to get dated. There are too many unknowns to simply categorically declare that stand off jamming is the solution because I have not seen any studies on how that would actually work out against an advance IADS system like the S-400.
The primary weakness with the S-400 is that it is a sensor centric system of systems. If you take out its X band acquisition radar the rest of the systems are effectively made impotent. In order for it to be effective, its radar need to emit to acquire potential targets. As TE said, the F-35 has 10 apertures. The F-22's ALR-94 has 30 apertures and reportedly can detect emission from a distance in excess of 400 kms. There are reasons why the F-35 and F-22 are so expensive because they offer capabilities that are just not organic to existing 4th gen platforms.
On day 1, the S-400 has a choice. If it emits, it is a dead duck. If it doesn't emit, those facilities that it is protecting are dead ducks. That is the definition of a SEAD mission. In the most recent SEAD operations that the US had conducted, the tactical approach was to synchronise timing between the Strike and SEAD packages. The SEAD aircrafts would go in first just before the strike package and launching their AGM-88 at preestablished electronic order of battle (EOB) strike coordinates. Those IADS has a choice of either to light up or stay silent. If it lights up, the AGM-88 during its delivery will then retarget based on those new emissions. If IADS don't light up, those AGM-88 would achieve its primary objective of suppression.
I would presume in a future contested environment, MALD Jammer (A/B/C's) will lead the way to flush out false emitters.