Stealth Necessary But Not Sufficient: Add EW, Intel, Tactics
By Colin Clark on August 02, 2017 at 6:17 PM
CAPITOL HILL: Stealth was sold as something close to magic when it first appeared. And, as usually happens when extraordinary claims are made, the blowback was intense. Skeptics pointed to its vulnerability to large-scale, land-based radars, to the fact it wasn’t invisible to the naked eye, to the costs and difficulties of maintaining the expensive coatings, and the staggering overall cost of some of the aircraft (see B-2).
This morning, the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute rolled out a report on stealth that should put many of those criticisms to bed. The study argues simply that America’s fighters, bombers and, probably, airborne tankers need stealth to remain effective and to perform well against increasingly sophisticated ground- and air-based missile threats.
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/stealth-add-ew-careful-planning-spoofing-intel/
