I pretty much agree with everything LJ said, other than the idea of civilianising / contractorising - we are a fighting force required to operate anywhere at any time, and that requires a fully uniformed force rather than half hearted Defence on the cheap - not a dig at individuals, but the concept. But LJ's points, whilst valid, are to my mind symptoms. I think the problem can be summed up in one question:
We have one of the largest economies in the world and one of the largest Defence budgets in the world: somebody in authority please explain just who is getting all the cash because it sure as hell isn't the front line Services.
We discussed the SDSR in a previous thread, and without checking, I'm pretty sure I suggested it was smoke and mirrors. The equipment budget was secured, but the personnel and operating budgets weren't. Why? Who on earth thinks that a military organization equipped with small numbers of exquisite platforms but lacking the manpower or funding to operate them on a daily basis is nothing but a paper tiger. But until VSOs, Mandarins and Politicians - of all cap badges, Ministries and political persuasions get that into their heads, failure - in the sense of a failed SDSR just 2 years after settlement - is the inevitable outcome.
So just where is all the cash going? We plainly can't afford all the platforms we need across the Services, so it's not going on excessive numbers there. And every unit I have been on for the past 15+ years has been engaged in cost cutting, a process which seems to do nothing other than prevent units from doing what they were actually set up to do. With ever reducing numbers of units, all of which are required to permanently reduce operating costs, someone needs to explain where this cost cutting finally stops. Manning has been decimated, if not literally then figuratively, and in conjunction with pay freezes and restraint it isn't going on wages. Coupled with a new personnel structure that is clearly focused on recruiting personnel on short term contracts rather than long term careers, then military pension liabilities should be stabilising if not reducing in the long term with the move to career average and as APFS 75 recipients numbers gradually decline.
Given that this controlled flight into terrain has been a constant theme under various governments, and using the term in its loosest sense, leadership, I can only assume there is a pan-party / service common theme. My initial inclination is to look at those in charge and conclude that they are at best second rate minds with limited grasp of the requirement for strategic thinking. I acknowledge that running a country or national level organisation isn't simple, but would suggest it is why those organisations are dominated by the supposedly intellectual elite and renumerated accordingly. However, it would explain the absolute shambles in many areas of government and the dubious handling of Iraq and Afghanistan. That would also explain why people seem to think that having a few examples of very high tech kit but insufficient numbers of personnel or the funding to operate them is the way ahead.
Until we get away from thinking based on short term gain at the expense of long term strategy we will never be in a position to develop a sustainable, well trained and motivated military. For now, the uncertainty created by this mismanagement comes at an unwelcome time in an increasingly uncertain world. I can't see Putin worrying unduly going into 2017.