There is a senior committee (chaired by VCDS) which scrutinises and endorses requirements for new capabilities (as opposed to replacements, which don’t tend to merit such senior attention). Something wacky like a fricken’ l@ser would definitely attract their attention. Then there is the Scrutiny branch which, erm, scrutinises the larger investment proposals (technically, commercially, economically and financially) and produces a report which is filed as part of the accountability paperwork. The various investment approval committees aren’t bound by the findings but, to be fair, the accountants who run those committees do play things with a straight bat. However the scrutiny and approval processes are potentially vulnerable to manipulation by sponsors (or sometimes even DE&S) directing more analysis effort be ploughed into a preferred option such that the non-desired choices can be dismissed as ‘risky’ or ‘immature’, and of course there is the time-honoured method of wrapping the preferred choice up in so many international agreements (which can be established with precisely no scrutiny) that it has to be selected to avoid precipitating multiple diplomatic incidents. Cynic, moi?!
As a final tactic, the recommendations of the entire bureaucracy can be overturned on ministerial or Treasury say-so. That should have been obvious...
Last edited by Easy Street; 20th Jul 2020 at 11:28.