JFZ90 - I disagree with your statement:
"Looks like this sort of cr*p is swallowed by the lower ranks hook line and sinker."
As an ex-SNCO, I guess I qualify as a "lower rank", although the comparative adjective depends on the position of the speaker. Assuming the position of "lower ranks", I find that my experience gives the lie to your statement.
No.1 objective is to defend the nation. That means sufficient ships and aircraft to deter in the first place, then patrol the coastline, ASW defences to protect supply lines, and a whacking great army should all else fail, and end up fighting on the beaches.
No.2 objective is to defend national interests overseas. That requires sufficient assets to sustain expeditionary warfare, meaning capital ships (aircraft carrier(s), LPDs etc), task group defence (submarines, frigates, destroyers), air cover (of whatever form), AT, SH, CAS, and of course a whacking great army to actually put boots on the ground, with the necessary armour, artillery, etc.
All this costs money. I dont think anyone in the trenches actually gives a monkey's which squadron the Harrier that just wiped out the enemy is from, FAA or RAF, so long as it did the job, on time, and without "own casualties".
Similarly, I don't think the RAF types care too much whether it's a soldier or an airman guarding the FOB they operate from, so long as it's done effectively.
I do find it interesting though, that the Army has boats and aircraft, the Navy has soldiers and aircraft, while the RAF has soldiers (although no boats any more).
Bottom line - all three services are required, and required to work together. All three services are required to be properly funded with the right kit to be able to work together.