I hate to say it, but this HAS to be done
No it doesn't.
What HAS to be done, is the introduction of proper financial management practices to actually fund these pensions properly rather than requiring them to be funded from the annual budgets in competition with salaries, R&D budgets, equipment funding, day-to-day running costs etc.
If you know that you have a large financial obligation looming , you either budget for it or face the consequences of chosing not to. As an example, many people on this forum will have thought about the education of their children: possibly the the costs associated with boarding schools (above the CEA), potentially the costs of private day education, and almost certainly the likely costs of a university education. And I can guarantee you have probably thought long and hard about how to fund those future known liabilities and have taken steps to do so. If you hadn't and then came on here complaining about the costs, you would be packed off with fairly short shrift and not a lot of sympathy.
So why does the Government - of whatever hue - think we should be sympathetic to the fact that they have done absolutely nothing to fund their known liabilities apart from to take the money out of existing funds that they know will also have to fund other current liabilities? The public sector pensions row could have been sorted years ago by correctly funding these pensions through whatever scheme they chose - govt backed securities, investment funds for example etc etc etc. Armed Forces pensions should be seen as part of the costs associated with having a professional military to defend the country, not a bonus or perk as many seem to think at the moment.
However, now we are faced with a growing financial and social crisis - none of which is the fault of the Armed Forces, but which has the potential to to devastate the Forces if the pensions go. Given that the pensions are funded out of the annual defence budget, the general public will see this and ask why, when troops are short of kit and dying on dusty battlefields, should we be paying for retired people to live a comfortable life when young men and women desperately need the money to be spent on operational equipment. The fact that we know that operational funding comes out of separate budgets is irrelevant; the general public largely don't know this or care. This political element, with an election looming, is a massive driver for all the main parties.
The other aspect is the comparison between public and private sector working practices, salaries and pensions. There is a growing outcry that why should the public sectors receive these gold plated pensions when we don't and yet we have to fund them? A valid question. Almost.
What those complaining of a pensions apartheid have singlularly failed to grasp is the fact that for far too long, public sector employees were the poor relations when it came to renumeration packages. Certainly in the Forces there were none of the large bonuses, commercial salaries and other benefits and allowances that were available to private sector employees. In fact, I don't think it would be so unfair as to say that in recent years, many of the Forces consider they have received a bonus simply by surving operational tours and being able to see their familiies again. The point here is that for all too long, the private sector - particularly in the City and the big multi-nationals - have been happy to take the fruits of their 'successes' and keep them all for themselves to fund comfortable, sometimes lavish lifestyles. But now those 'successes' are being seen for what they really were, we are expected to share in their pain.
But with an election looming (possibly sooner than we all think, but that's another issue), this is rapidly gaining traction as a political issue. As PN pointed out, those announcements were very carefully worded, and unfortunately, we are now relying on those same self-serving Sir Humphries and MPs to save our pensions. Not an ideal situation, but it's where we are. And now it comes to a trade off - will the turkeys vote for Christmas or will the MPs making a bid for power win out?
The Armed Forces' Pension Scheme has already been downgraded (for most) through the change to 05. I can only hope that doing this will be enough to keep the wolves at bay for those currently serving. If there is to be yet another change and the closure of the AFPS, I can only hope that there will be a sense of justice, and those that are currently in that scheme and have served their country will be allowed to retain their pensions with a new scheme introduced from a point in the future. However, I won't hold my breath. Justice ,and what is actually right and proper rarely, gets a look in amongst the 21st century politicians and self-centred elements of the electorate. However, failure to tackle this issue in a just manner will create an even bigger problem for the government and the country that far outweighs the current pensions crisis: namely the devastation of the Forces. Thousands will walk either early or at their next option points; there will an erosion of trust between the members of the Forces and the senior leadership, who will be perceived not to have stood up for their personnel. This will impact on operational effectiveness along with a wholesale rejection by the Forces of anything the government says. In short, this has the potential to cause serious damage to the country as a whole if those conducting any inquiry or making the decisions do not do so having taken a broader view, and not just been swayed by short term balance sheets and political aspirations.
Fingers crossed, but not overly hopeful.