Er... oddly enough, I got that this was the point of your first post. I was agreeing with your sentiments (hence the rolling-eyed smiley).
But your example of the Sea Jet is an excellent one for highlighting the problems - the public takes an interest in defence when the forces are sent to war (or whatever the politicians choose to call it), the Sun comes over all jingoistic (or more jingoistic than usual) and talks about 'our brave boys and girls in the [insert theatre of operations]' and spouts utter bolleaux about the capability of kit and the like.
However, if the public is given info that Admirals and other senior officers (who, in general, they seem to trust) think that getting rid of the SHAR is a good idea or at worst something tolerable in the current climate, they won't fuss about it.
And given the fact that we've had a debate espousing both sides of the SHAR argument (and indeed both sides of the carrier argument) on this site, and are still having it sporadically, the public isn't going to rise up and say 'Ooh, disgraceful.'
If you'd chosen the SA 80 (which the public believes still doesn't work properly, although comments on the 'other means' would suggest it does) or the recent NAO report as examples, you'd have picked ones with which the public has some engagement.
Even commemorating the Falklands last year wouldn't have stirred much public debate about the SHAR, I fear.