Excuse my idiocy here for a moment, but isn't the concept of budgets a little idiotic when it comes to this kind of thing?
To me, IF the government wants, say, X helos, and they are based at say, RAF Benson, then it costs Y to provide the equipment and maintenance, and Z to provide the troops and accomodation. What happens if the POL budget is cut? Sorry, the gearbox oil that was due changing at 1000 hours will have to soldier on to 1500 hours. Is that going to work? I think not.
So the same applies to buildings. YThe heating system costs Y pounds to maintain and operate per annum. End of. It's not negotiable.
SAC Bloggs gets paid xxx pounds per annum, and is entitled to yyy pounds in allowances. It's a finite sum. Bloggs would be PVRing if Harry says, "Bloggs, you're going to have to find a 15% cut in your salary budget".
IMHO, IF the government wants a military capability of whatever, the service chiefs should be going to the government and saying. No problem sir, it will cost xx billion. It is then up to the government to provide that sum from the Treasury. If that sum is curtailed, then so is the capability, but it should not compromise the quality of the remaining capability.
Budgets my arse. It should be done on a cost basis.