Correct, larger in relation to the "physical" size of the wavelength. Lower frequency, larger corresponding physical size. You want your super-stealth... thing... to be sized to some multiple of that wavelength (again, this is a simplification but works for discussion).
This chart gives a reasonable idea of the relationship between frequency and physical wave length:
http://www.hottconsultants.com/techtips/freq-wavelength.html
How that applies to stealth turns into a more complicated discussion. (Not directed at SOC, providing background to those who are not familiar with radio)
Yes, but that's survivability, and RCS is just one axis on the survivability graph. VLO vs. LO vs RO though runs into the letter of the law - the distinctions may seem blurred, but when it comes to export controls, etc. they do try and be pretty explicit. If the RCS is X it's RO, X-20 it's LO, X-50 VLO, etc. - and each of those categories comes with some interesting conditions. And now we're getting into new territory with "ULO/XLO", ultra low observables or "extreme low observables", which falls under VLO in terms of LOEXCOM but will probably be formally recognized soon.
Which yes, basically is all semantics. But the distinctions are important for legal and policy reasons, but the actual values for each category are difficult to get without being covered in funny colored tape.
It's possible, but the tradeoffs are not worth it. The B-2 has VERY different needs than the F-22 or F-35, just like the AGM-129 has VERY different needs from all three.
The AGM-129 has a very, very good signature even compared to the B-2.
(If you're down looking at each from behind with a fighter radar)
