I miss the Sea Harrier as much as anyone, but I would point out that there are differing views on the capability of the Harrier GR9 in an air defence role. See the
comments here on ARRSE from Magic Mushroom (yes, the same one):
Clearly GR9/AIM-9L is inferior to FA2/AMRAAM. I don’t discount that. Likewise, GR9 would not be credible against a modern fighter/active missile mix in many cases. However, you stated that GR9 had ‘no offensive anti air [sic] capability’. As someone with just a few thousand hours of AWACS experience (including flying in support of CVS and on several SKASaC sorties) I can tell you that you are incorrect.
The GR9 is slightly slower than the FA2 yes. However, it has significantly greater endurance and manoeuvrability.
Even without a radar, a GR9 with AIM-9L benefitting from SKASaC support would be as capable as a 1982 FRS1 sans AEW. Why? Firstly, the FRS1 Blue Fox radar was pulse only and therefore had extremely limited capability overland or against a high sea state (that’s why the PD Blue Vixen was developed). The majority of engagements in 1982 were ship controlled into the visual or pure visual pick ups. Meanwhile, in the Falklands we needed to keep DCA CAPs airborne due to the lack of AEW. FRS1 also seemed to do relatively well against supersonic capable Mirage III and Daggers.
With SKASaC providing wide area AEW overland and in all sea states (PD radar), GR9 could be maintained on deck alert and provide an AD capability at least on a par, if not superior to FRS1 sans AEW. When scrambled, SKASaC support would largely overcome the GR9 lead nose. Moreover, GR9 has a very nice EO/IR, defensive aids and RHWR capability, all of which were lacking from Sea Harrier (FRS1 or FA2). I’m not quite sure how you work out GR9 is limited to daylight VFR intercepts. I’ve personally controlled GR9s conducting night time NVG PIs and have seen GR7s kill F-16s, FA-18Cs, Mirage 2000 and Tornado F3s at night on exercise.