You won't get much dissent from me about that.
The problem is this, and I know this from chatting with various envious policy makers looking for low hanging fruit. The military pension is intended to compensate for factors which politicians and various policy makers see as (increasingly) no longer relevant. If you already have a home (and may have a mortgage already paid off by the time you leave), if your transition into your second (identical) career is seamless, then (and being brutally objective) why is there a need to draw benefits under the guise of a protected pension age at all, which is only protected (mainly) for those two reasons?
This is their thinking, and the logic is, at times, irresistible. I look at it and sometimes think, maybe it's better to take the short term hit and keep the long term benefit. The Cridland report on policy developments for the state pension is an indicator of thinking. If premature access to a state pension will only be achieved for those challenged financially, but with an actuarial reduction, it's going to be increasingly indefensible to support changes to abatement. I guess you have to pick your battles.
Interestingly, Steve Webb indicated this week that the basic state pension age will have to be revised again, earlier than expected, to seventy. I, and a few others, were amazed that it already hadn't been done. Maybe we have just been exposed to the rumour for so long. I imagine my kids will be drawing theirs at ages between 72/73 for the eldest and 75 for the youngest.