Why is the Air Force Association feeling a need to defend stealth? What was in that F-35C vs Super Hornet report?

via AOL Breaking Defense.

But the study’s authors pose the correct question: “Will stealth remain viable in future decades in the face of these technologies, or will its effectiveness wane? Should the United States continue to invest in stealth systems to improve them or mitigate technology that attempts to counter them, or shift its approach? Debate over these issues will increase in the coming years as spending on systems such as the F-35 and B-21 increases.”

Their conclusion is that, yes, stealth is absolutely needed but does not exist on its own. But it is important Barrett said during this morning’s presentation that he thinks recent discussion of building a stealthy airborne tanker is on the right track because of the tyrannies of distance in the Pacific theater. Of course, they’d have to figure out how to build a stealthy boom.

Story here. 

I know how most of you guys work.  You focus on the miniscule when I'm asking you to take a look at the big picture.

I'm asking you to do that again.

Go read the article then ask yourself the following...

1.  Why would the Air Force Association feel a need to defend stealth?

2.  Why are they already predicting that the costs of the F-35 and B-21 will increase when they're both supposed to be affordable systems?

3.  If they believe that stealth doesn't exist on its own but gloss over the electronic warfare part of the equation?

4.  Does this story and the stance taken by AFA have anything to do with the F-35C vs Super Hornet study that I've been waiting for?

Something is brewing and these type groups are always looking at ways (with the exception of the Marine Corps groups...they seem to only want to follow whatever bouncing ball society is into at the time) to defend budget for their service.

I wonder what bad news is coming down the pike to make them make this spirited defense of stealth?