alphaleaderuk ,
Not disagreeing with your sentiments, but a couple of things: according to
Falklands Air War (recommended by several ppruners as the best source on the war), the losses for the GR 3s are given as four, not six. One of these losses was not to enemy action (CAS himself discovering that it is awkward to fly without an engine). Also, I think it's only fair to point out that the GR 3s 'arrived late' (not their fault) and were only operational from 20 May - as they were there in smaller numbers too, it's only natural that they'd fly far fewer sorties.
The view that the three GR 3 losses to ground fire would have been 3 SHAR losses had the GR 3s not been there might also be put forward (I'm not sure about the validity of that, but it's a argument I've heard). Your point about the loss rates, though, is fair enough.
This said, you're quite right - it's frankly daft to remove SHAR capability, and coupled with the decision not to integrate ASRAAM (see another thread), the govt's contention that what AD that's required can be performed adequately looks even more threadbare than before. Of course, if a CVS gets sunk as a result, it will all be the fault of the ship's Captain/ CAS/ 1SL/ the woman who makes the tea in Sec State's Office, but most emphatically
not the fault of anyone with the letters 'MP PC' after their name...
