Navaleye,
I agree. Elimination at source is the desired option, particularly as the SS-N-26 has a range of 162nm.
If you wanted Sea Harrier (combined with some asset that can provide sufficient warning time) to counter a threat aircraft at a realsitic launch range of 150nm, you'd need to fly 4 times as many sorties as earlier in the thread. By simple estimates, you'd need a carrier with 24 FA2 on board. Just to do CAP. Nothing else.
That is, of course, if the SS-N-26 was launched from an aircraft. As opposed to a ship, or sub or from land.
Your choice of SS-N-26 adds further weight to counter the stance both you an WEBF have on keeping the FA2.
But back to the first paragraph. By diverting the money saved from FA2 into the GR9 (as has been done) I and my pilots can get on targeting the aircraft at their base. Or the ships/subs in harbour/en route (well, maybe not the subs en route); or the land based sites....... None of which can be done as effectively/at all with FA2 compared to GR7/9.
Just give me an idea how SS-N-26 was supposed to build a case for keeping FA2?