the equipment expenditure in the 1974 costings (ranging from nearly 70 per cent. in the first year of the costing period to about 30 per cent. in the last) covered development and production of specific new equipments already defined and approved. This provided the programme with a substantial hard core of estab- lished and well defined commitments. Additionally, over the whole 10 years period, about 30 per cent. of the equipment budget was allocated to support of systems already in service and, while detail is necessarily sketchy for the more distant years, experience allows the total requirement for support to be predicted within reasonably narrow limits.
19. It is true that towards the end of the 10 year period provision has to be made for new projects which cannot yet be clearly defined. It is also true that over the whole programme cost estimates may vary unpredictably. In this limited sense it is fair to say that the equipment costing includes provisional elements. But this is inevitable, given the rapid, and not wholly predictable, development both of the threat which our forces have to meet and of weapons technology, and thus the need to provide for the possibility that existing equip- ments may become obsolescent and need to be replaced by developing entirely new weapon systems.
20. By and large, therefore, the 1974 costings provided, with the limitations mentioned, as realistic an assessment as could be made of the likely cost of the equipment programme we then envisaged. That is why the Government has consistently said that cutting the programme to match the lower level of re- sources will be neither easy nor painless.
21. The Government notes the Committee's comments on the philosophy of equipment procurement and the high standards demanded by operational require- ments (Conclusion 11). It was acknowledge in the Memorandum submitted to the Committee (SCOE 70) that, after the Defence Review, equipment require- ments would have to be scrutinised more stringently than ever and that collabor- ation will assume increasing importance. The machinery for achieving this already exists. Every military requirement involving major expenditure is subjected, at each stage of development, to close and independent analysis and criticism, designed to ensure its operational validity; the cost-effectiveness of possible solutions; and that opportunities for collaborative development are being actively pursued. The process involves independent military assessment; extensive operational analysis; industrial and field studies; examination of our allies' comparable requirements and solutions; and, in the light of all this, endorsement for each phase of development by the Service Board concerned and the Central Equipment Committees. These Committees include senior Military, Scientific and Administrative staffs and there is also a Treasury representative. At appropriate stages Ministerial decisions are sought.
22. However, despite the stress placed on careful analysis, decisions on equipment procurement must ultimately involve a strong element of subjective judgment. Our forces face a sophisticated threat which will certainly grow during the 20-25 years between the time when a new weapons system is first conceived and the date when it is finally replaced. The Government believes that
9