The reason we retired the FA2 early was to reduce the logistics and support footprint of two different airframes.
QED.
As for dealing with air launched anti ship missiles, I thought one of the conclusions from 1982 is that the best defence against missile armed aircraft was using fighters to prevent them from getting within missile range? Perhaps this explains why Spain and Italy have been so keen to get carrierborne fighters, and then give them AMRAAM?
As for surface and submarine launched missiles, how is the GR7/9 any better placed to deal with the threat. Frigates/Destroyers (and their helicopters), Submarines, Nimrods..........but GR9?
Navaleye's choice of missile does seem odd. Perhaps he should have said one of
these, particularly something like Krypton, very nasty and up for export to any regime anywhere, as
this link proves. Or perhaps the
C801, also exported.
In June 1997 Iran tested two Chinese-built C-801 air-launched cruise missiles from an F-4 fighter. And how many other nations have this capability?
Going back to an earlier point......
The
Defence Image Database contains over eighty Sea Harrier pictures - including one of a Sea Harrier landing during operations in the Adriatic (the picture is on the last page if you enter "Sea Harrier" into search - for some reason I cannot post a link). That aircraft appears to be carrying two AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders and a AAR probe.
I don't know how hot it was there but it makes me wonder:
a) Is the payload in the hotter parts of the world really reduced to a single AMRAAM and no other stores, or just one AMRAAM plus other stores.
b) Surely a pair of Sea Harriers, with one AMRAAM each, would still deter a third world MiG driver?
c) What about just using Sidewinder? The radar must make it more capable than the GR7/9 surely?
d) If air to air refuelling is possible, then that must allow longer CAP sorties, reducing the number of aircraft need to achieve the same level of defence