As jpboys says "The terms and conditions for HM Forces are hard earned and richly deserved. Fight to retain what you believe is rightly yours, a decent pension is high on that list."
The main difference with the armed forces as an employer when compared with civvy street is the fact that the army/navy/air force really only want 17-38 year-olds in the majority of ranks (both commissioned and non-commissioned) and a spattering of people aged 40 plus, who are either destined for high command, staff positions etc. or else in specialist roles as aircrew or whatever. In which case service to 55 is an option. To get the scewed age profile it chucks loads of people out well before their "sell by date"
By and large though, after age 55 the armed forces don't want you any more (no matter how good or useful you might be) and for many this is where their income peaks. By contrast, in civvy street, many people find that their careers can last another 5 or 10 years and the military pension is a very useful "top up" when having to start a second career late in life.
Take it away and retention levels will plummet, morale will go down the pan and recruitment will suffer too. What is also over-looked is that in the armed forced you can't just give notice and quit. Once you've signed-up that's it - you're locked in. Job security may be some comfort when times are tough outside but it's the last thing you want when the posting's cr4p or there's the offer of a tempting job on the outside.
I can't thing of better ways for an already unpopular, out-of-touch government making itself even more unpopular than by it's cack-handed management of the public purse.
There are very good reasons why those in the armed forces need to be treated differently from those in the civil service, NHS, police, fire service etc. and with a war on this is not the time to go changing peoples hard-won pensions.
MB (ex jp boy
)