How is a CVS with Sea Harriers more vulnerable than one without?
For perhaps the millionth time you miss the point WEBF.
The case is not that the CVS will be more vulnerable with SHAR. It is that the defence interests of the UK as a whole will be more vulnerable because the money spent keeping SHAR in service could be better spent elsewhere.
As has been written many times, by people much more able to comment, it is not a case of bin SHAR and spend the money on fags and pile ointment. It is a case of bin SHAR and spend money on new CVS/new tanker/F35/PW4/proper radios for the Army and so on. Which from the above list do you suggest we lose if we keep SHAR?