Gaining tactical advantage by using stealth assets has its place in a certain spectrum of air war. A number of air forces are adopting this capability — even though it’s not exactly a cheap option.

However, stealth comes at another price too. It is limited in terms of other capabilities and the potential disadvantages are rarely, if ever, discussed. But there are a whole host of reasons why a non-stealth alternative might be the best option for an air force — particularly forces with limited budgets who are looking to maximise their military effectiveness in respect of the money tax payers have invested.

To get a more comprehensive and fair view on the stealth topic you need to consider the following:

Different spectrums of air war: There is not “one and only one” type of scenario. History has shown that the capabilities required to achieve desired effect depend heavily on the threat encountered — in the air and on the ground. Clearly there are offensive-type scenarios where stealth is required to penetrate denied air space, gather data and distribute information in real-time.

But there are far many more scenarios which don't require specific stealth assets to gain the same amount of information and tactical advantage. Robust capabilities like supercruise, firepower, sustainment and payload - rather than stealth - are widely required over all scenarios. Stealth is a capability that, as mentioned before, has its place, but it remains a niche capability.

And, as a niche capability a stealth aircraft will always have to be complemented by aircraft that set the benchmark in other capabilities. Only then will you be able to project air dominance. Relying purely on a stealth aircraft, with their limitations in payload and agility means relying heavily on coalition partners to project full air dominance.