>>63823670
>So if stealth is thoroughly solved and countered, why bother?
Multiple reasons.
1. Institutional inertia. Imagine if the USAF announced their next plane isn't stealth. Simply is unthinkable at this point.
2. The disadvantages of stealth, like high maintenance cost on coatings and edge treatments and aerodynamic compromises as well as higher manufacturing quality requirements have been overcome. Coatings are now more durable, aerodynamics have been optimized by blending aerodynamic and stealth design into unified tooling that can solve for an optimal solution which compromises both little at the same time, and higher manufacturing quality has become the default even for civilian projects.
3. Stealth still offer some advantages, instead of seeing it as black and white, 0 or 1, see it as a sliding scale of different shades of grey. You still push the detection range down somewhat, depending on the situation.
>And why cant Iranian/Russian AESA radars find these planes?
Russians stuck with PESA for a long time, their AESA isn't that good. Iranians have VERY few ressources, very little know how internally, and are sanctioned to absolute shit. Why would you think they have a good radar?
No, currently only china has made an effort to deploy an entire stack of stealth counter technology.
It's typical armsrace stuff, you look at what your most likely enemy has, and then you figure out how to counter it.
Thinking stealth = invisible and thinking this will continue forever is beyond naive.
