The accountability is an interesting question - where does the buck stop in an organisation as vast as Defence? Part of the problem is that we have to account for constantly changing central government spending plans which change from year to year. Despite best efforts, no one ever knows what the final settlement will be - hence the need to adjust.
At a departmental level, confusion is caused because we are having to balance an unaffordable (in absolute terms) programme of procurement / deployments and commitments. Put simply, Defence does not have sufficient resources to buy, operate and support everything it needs to do with the current resource levels. This leads to the initial round of changes - to try and make the budget fit. Once the budget does fit, you can be sure that it won't fit anymore as changes to doctrine, enhancement options or just plain old cost increases will then change plans again, and off we go trying to find more savings.
The reason why cost growth occurs is two-fold - firstly inflation, and secondly inflation of military requirments. For instance, the average project takes many years to occur, and will go through multiple planning rounds to get to the point where it is in service. During this time, the specifications may change dozens of times, as military planners seek to reduce costs in one area, to fund enhancements in another. They may seek to delay (sorry, reprofile) the delivery date to reduce in year costs, or to address the wider challenge in resourcing (for instance projects may be delayed, knowing that it will cost money in the long term, as the shorter term savings would enable other projects to continue and not be cancelled). Additionally, the kit we're getting in on operations is in many cases a significant capability enhancement, so desk officers may want to change the final piece of kit to reflect this, even though it costs more money to do so. Its a dilemma we'll increasingly see - do we buy lots of kit at X specification, even though its been superceded by a UOR, of which we can only afford Y platforms (where Y is less than X!) and keep our capability at the cutting edge of military technology. Once you add in wildcards, like safety enhancements
replacement of kit worn out on ops earlier than planned, legal modifications etc, and you quickly see how we are in a constant firefighting mode.
This is why everyone is always making savings, as at the centre, the financiers are trying to keep the organisation in a position where it isn't totally insolvent, and trying to ensure that an organisation which encompasses nearly half a million people, 2000 bases and operates from the bottom of the sea to the depths of space, via all 7 continents can just about remain financially stable.
Theres a reason most male finance people are bald
