What is being discussed is loosely termed “savings”. Putting aside whether or not you agree with them, the money to be saved has, until now, been a properly formulated requirement and a justifiable spend based on MoD/Government policy. If that policy changes, and they no longer have the requirement, there is a “saving” to be had.
What is NEVER discussed, but which I refer to often, is expenditure (both committed and uncommitted) against “requirements” which have NOT been properly formulated or otherwise justified. This is maladministration. In many cases, where the waste is deliberate and/or someone avoids an obligation, it is fraud. THIS is the area which should always be addressed first, before chopping hitherto useful capability.
The mandated (by PUS, on behalf of SoS and hence Government) method of preventing such avoidable waste is a process called “Requirement Scrutiny” – a term which is self explanatory.
Why, then, have the last four Ministers of State for the Armed Forces, upheld the ruling (by 2* and 4* in PE/DPA, and 2* in RAF) that applying these mandated rules, and the identification and avoidance of waste, is a disciplinary offence? They are quite open about this, have confirmed it in writing to my MP and released it under FOI.
You may not understand or have applied the process, but consider this. My batting average for avoiding waste (yet still retaining or improving capability) runs to many £Ms per year, for the last 20 years. Last year, it exceeded £120M, yet I’m just a pleb. There are 6000 like me in Abbey Wood alone which, logically, suggests there is waste I don’t know of. But, I have it in writing from the last Min(AF) that I am the ONLY one who thinks this way, therefore I am wrong.
On a lighter note, I still don’t agree with the Gp Capt who approved expenditure on the Hercules Active Dipping Sonar. I applied Requirement Scrutiny. The first, mandated, question is “Why is it needed?” It failed. He sought disciplinary action. Just a little example of the practical savings to be made by ignoring 4* and Min(AF), doing what PUS requires, all the while maintaining capability. (If the C130 has an ADS, I profusely apologise and withdraw).