"That money should be spent on the front line".
A rather naive statement Navaleye.
What constitutes "the front line?" In the days when swords were the only weapon possessed by a primitive army, your suggestion might have had some value in buying more swords for the foot soldiers who would employ them on the battlefield in an uncomplicated slugfest. However, as soon as disposable munitions arrived, such as arrows, and tactics and mobility started to develop, a large and ever increasing amount of support became necessary behind the front line. Nowadays the proportion of infrastructure, logistics, sustainability stocks, training, management, recruiting and political education needed to maintain a minimal front line capability is simply mind boggling and hugely expensive.
Napoleon, who understood a thing or two about the effective employment of state violence, said that in combat the value of the moral compared to the physical was as 3 to 1. The part played by ceremonial, pomp, displays of martial qualities etc in strengthening a nation's defence capabilities should not be underestimated. They contribute significantly to front line effectiveness by encouraging pride, confidence, strength of resolve and self esteem, both within the military and amongst the civilian population without whose support we would have no defence.
Getting rid of ceremonial uniforms, parades and display teams would be an empty, meaningless gesture, would not help the front line in the slightest, indeed it would degrade its effectiveness.