Hmm, I never thought the close military relationship between the US and UK would be anything but beneficial for the UK It was actually extremely toxic for UK-b

Hmm, I never thought the close military relationship between the US and UK would be anything but beneficial for the UK It was actually extremely toxic for UK-based development of some items. For example, Robert McNamara in the mid-1960s was keen to sell the F-111 to Australia and the UK -- so keen that he leaned hard on the Wilson government to cancel the competing TSR-2 low-level supersonic bomber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2 Again, the USAF's cancellation of the GAM-87 Skybolt air-launched IRBM really screwed with the UK's nuclear delivery plans in the 1960s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt And for a modern reprise, look at the premature-ish retirement of the UK Harrier fleet and the ongoing headache over the QE class supercarriers and the F-35B the UK is planning to buy to fly off them. (Note that early iterations of the Eurofighter Typhoon design spec in the 1980s and early 1990s included strengthened landing gear and an arrester hook for carrier ops -- when France dropped out and went alone on the Dassault Rafale, that's what they were after). Having a "close military relationship" with a larger power means that your own, smaller military ends up as the tail being wagged by the dog.