The Daily Mail is a load of old bollocks.
They are best at making assumptions on which big titted chick is getting shagged by whomever (insert cleavage shot here) than commenting on defence matters.
Yeah, it depends what they're commenting on. Their editorial mix is heavy on trashy stories. They're one of the best on line papers for photo coverage though; I don't think anyone else comes close to touching them for large photos that you don't have to squint at, and lots of them, when they cover something like a Mars Rover, or the rebellion in Libya, or wildlife photography, or some such thing.
And if you skip past the trashy stuff ("Unemployed mother of six living in £1.5 million mansion") there are several more serious items every day on which the reporting seems pretty good.
My take on it anyway. I check the Mail most every day.
15 miles out? If what ever they fired at you is that close you had better pray the CIWS is fully loaded and your luck holds especially if it's travelling at 3 times the speed of sound.
Well no combat jet flies that fast (i.e. the F-35 maxes out at mach 1.6). Neither do anti-ship missiles. And if you're talking a carrier with its customary screen of warships, your warning comes a lot sooner. Just a couple of things to consider.
I've written before that I wonder whether stealth technology might not be neutralized by advancements in detection. I thought this new British radar might be a step in that direction.
15 miles out for a tennis ball means that a larger object (stealthy or not) should be visible for much longer ranges, I would think. Stealth isn't Klingon cloaking.