Ivan,
You suggest that the 3 Nimrod R1 were sufficient back when the RAF was larger and now it is down-sized we can get away with fewer... A nice idea in principle but flawed IMHO. Consider the requirement for deep maintainance - thats two aircraft available for ops from three - now consider any one of a number of problems on the a/c about to launch - well we'll launch the spare... ...the who? We scrapped it!
How would you cover the problem of persistance too for long ops? Three of anything is pushing things - its called critical mass and below it you will fail to fulfil the role required, same true here.
However, I agree with your assesment of other matters for we can not forecast future conflicts. Falklands, GW1, GW2, Kosovo, Bosnia... the list is incomplete but all have comonality in the surprise with which they hit us (in varying degrees). We may be short on cash but we must not remove capablities to deal with it as this is the slippery slope. We may not have *needed* carriers since the falklands (although they have proved very handy - Al Faw assult possible without Ocean et al?), but then the Tornado F3 has hardly ever fired a shot in anger (I am sure there are a few occasions that I forget but in bean counter terms enough for the expense!?) so on this basis why the Typhoon?
We chip away at our brother service's capabilities at our peril. Money is tight and we must prioritise to an extent, however wholesale removal of capability or its reduction to sub-critical mass is not in UK Plc's interest and it is our duty to act accordingly.