A MANPAD can't hit a fast moving jet at 20k feet, and anything larger can be destroyed by conventional munitions. This is exactly what we saw during the first Gulf war, when Iraq - which had for the era had a very advanced IAADS - was torn to pieces by the teen fighters. A decent SEAD campaign + lasers = a new, scary kind of warfare.

This is, incidentally, why the A-10 is obsolete. Trying to fly slow and low on a modern battlefield is indeed doomed. During the Gulf War, F-16s performed more CAS missions than A-10s did because the A-10 was simply not survivable against modern threats. To the extent they had to be withdrawn from known Republican hot zones because the danger was simply too great.

By the time a weaponised laser is available for aircraft, we’ll have been using lasers to shoot down planes for years.

> Anti aircraft missiles are a lot more effective and a lot cheaper with modern computers.

I imagine it differently: lasers will make jets resistant to AA warfare, they potentially can shot down any incoming missile very efficiently.

well that and lasers will pretty much take the place of AA missiles.

I think one of the Navy's biggest issue is railguns pretty much make large surface ships a detriment and they are very loathe to give up their carriers. Those are their "balance in importance" versus the Air Forces stealth bombers and missiles. The Navy has lived off its success since WW2 for far too long with this need for 10 full CV forces.

I agree with your main point, but I think the naval equivalent of a B-2 is a long range nuke sub with Trident missiles.