It was always said that five squadrons was the bare minimum required to sustain Northern and Southern QRA and the Falklands for a sustained period, unless QRA alone was all that those squadrons were going to do.
During the Cold War, QRA required more than that - 5, 11, 23, 25, 29, 56, 74, 43, 111, and that wasn't sufficient to mop up massed waves of enemy bombers - just to counter a medium scale effort by the opposition in the transition to all out catastrophe.
With three F3 Squadrons (25, 43 and 111) and two Typhoon units (3 and 11) there was barely capacity to sustain both Northern and Southern QRA, and the Falklands commitment, and since the disbandment of 25 (without replacement) the Typhoon force has been unable to work up and maintain A-G currency for all of its frontline crews. If you want the Typhoon force to be multi-role, then you need the seven squadrons originally budgeted for. If you're not serious about that, or if you are prepared to juggle deployed AD capability and multi-role capability, then five squadrons might suffice.
We can argue all day about five or seven squadrons, but two squadrons and 12 F.Mk 3s surely looks like a recipe for pip-squeaking pain?
It does to me.
In any sane world, the withdrawal of the remaining F3 units would be delayed until the operational declaration of Typhoon squadrons 4 and 5, to avoid any gap in this vital capability area.