Trying to be neutral here!
The pension was changed ostentiably for tax reasons, as an "immediate pension" was no longer allowed under new tax laws, but also because litigation forced the MoD to introduce death benefits for unmarried partners. This change was supposed to be "cost neutral" ie no more or no less than the existing scheme, but MoD changed their interpretation of "cost neutral" to mean no more expensive, thus allowing savings. People living longer was also used as an excuse, despite the fact we have the smallest Air Force since Trenchard set it up all those years ago!
The new pension scheme has some advantages. Officers and rankers complete the same terms of service ie. 18 years. Provision will be made for unmarried partners. Er...that is about it!
The disadvantages. The "early departure payment" is approximately 50% of the value of the "immediate pension". You do not get the full pension through index linking until age 65, as opposed to 55 now. To get a decent income you will have to do a full career of 35 years, not an option open to everyone. Also, if you leave early, your preserved pension will be collected 5 years later at 65, not 60.
Most sensible people would not touch the new pension with a barge pole. Unfortunately, if you are a new entrant, you will have no choice. However, the RAF life has its own attractions (at the moment...stop, it cynic!) and there are opportunities to gain experience and qualifications transferrable back to civvy street.
How did this happen? Because we have no representation and cannot comment in public on our conditions of service - we were taken advantage of! Will things get worse? Possibly, but European legislation has its benefits as well as drawbacks and I can see some sort of federation establishing itself within the next decade, probably as a result of litigation by fed up people under the Human Rights Act against the MoD.