I think we need to get real here. You cannot cut 25% of support (civilian) staff without cutting a role or two. Left of arc is that everyone is a soldier - no Navy or Army - clearly ridiculous. However are we going to see a singleCommand HQ - Joint Operational Command - with 4 Groups (I use the term Group as I am more familiar with that structure) Land, Sea, Air and Support. You then ask the serious questions about role and responsibility. Lets keep it simple - If it is an aircraft its RAF (No JHC - big saving) - If it goes by sea its Navy - rest is Army.
Now look at the vulnerable:
Do we need the Royal Marines - after all the last amphibious operation of real significance to us Brits was the Falklands and this was done by the Paras. Big savings here.
Do we need the big Carriers - think not
Do we need big tanks - think not
Do we need JSF - think not.
Do we need Trident - Yes - we need the ultimate big stick. However we could give this role to Aircraft Launched/Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles.
Obviously with all these great ideas (possibly) is the caveat that in turn HMG must recognise that what the military can carry out is significantly reduced and Forign Policy must clearly reflect that.
The serious point here is that 25% WILL mean cuts in role and responsibility changes
Over to you
Tigwas