3 ms·
That's a good point about the usefulness of stealth in general, but I don't think that applies for multi-role fighters. From what I understand, the main benefit
by Aunche 6y ago
That's a good point about the usefulness of stealth in general, but I don't think that applies for multi-role fighters. From what I understand, the main benefit of multi-role fighters is one of cost. You don't need to pay for a bunch of specialized planes during peacetime. The trade off is that they're not particularly great at anything, but that doesn't matter when your enemy is much weaker than you. In the F-35's case, stealth completely cancels out any cost-benefit of being multi-role.
- greedo 6y ago1) Almost every fighter is now "multi-role." So the word really doesn't add any meaning. 2) Stealth is now table stakes for fighting a peer or near peer opponent. Modern A2AD systems are extremely difficult for non-stealth fighters and bombers to counter. Sure, you can soften them up with Tomahawks, but even those are starting to be less effective. (which is why the US has been developing JAASM and LRASM). 3) While stealth does add costs, especially in maintenance routines, compared to software and systems costs, it's not as significant. And stealth generally doesn't affect performance; the F-35 is an excellent aircraft in terms of range and maneuverability, as is the F-22, the Chinese J-20 and FC-31.