Considering the fact that the shar (the fighter/fleet defence aircraft!) was withdrawn many years ago, surely our aircraft carriers would not have been able to sensibly deploy somewhere where there were hostile airforces capable of striking our ships since then?
So therefor the statement that we are losing such an important asset of carrier strike... well, its simply rubbish, we lost it in real terms years ago. Yes the GR7/9's could launch from the ship, but when has this been used to real effect, without aircover from SHARs or other fighter asset, in the past 20 years?
It is a sad loss of the Harrier force and a kick in the teeth for the pilots/engineers/etc, but savings needed to be made... and we are committed to 'stan for years to come where the best fleet to service that obligation are the gr4s.
Listening to Lord West the only thought in my head was that here is lord west of the Labour party trying to score political points and playing on his military career to aid his argument; but this argument is inherently flawed!
just my opinion though!