Perhaps my language was a little intemperate, but this is something I feel very strongly about.
Yes, we have capability gaps, but they are generally of degree, rather than kind. What we do not have is entire swathes of capability which can only be used (as distinct from maintained over the long term) with the active co-operation of another state. I am deeply reluctant to see us placed in that position, particularly in a case where whatever short-term financial argument there may once have been has been rendered obsolete by the passage of time, & progress in developing & building the capability ourselves.
I think you fail to appreciate the significance of what you suggested. Buying Predators, without the network to support their independent operation (& that is what your monetary numbers amounted to) would have left us unable to fly the things out of LOS of an airfield without US permission. To me, that is not acceptable. If my taxes are being spent on a weapon for my countrymen to use, I want its use to be determined by my elected representatives, not someone in another country, accountable to people who have their own concerns in which the UK does not figure highly.
I see that as fundamentally different from a decision not to buy something because we can't afford it, or because it is not deemed necessary for what we wish to do or think is within our reach. We don't buy B-2s: fine, we can't have everything. But what we do have, we must control.
I hate the notion that as loyal auxiliaries of the USA we should not worry about the capability for independent action*, because Uncle Sam will provide. It's slavish. If our military policy consists solely of following wherever the USA leads, then what purpose do our armed forces serve? We may as well just hand over our money & manpower to the USA.
No, we must have the ability to act independently, for the day when we want to do something & the USA says "nothing to do with us, pal". If that means we have slightly smaller forces, or have to pay a little more for them, so be it.
In the helicopter example, the operation is already joint, & operational independence is therefore not relevant. We share what we have with everyone taking part, to maximise the effectiveness of all forces involved, for mutual benefit.
What I was referring to was the possibility of purely British actions, where we might inform the US (as a courtesy) what we are doing, if we thought it appropriate (it would not always be), but otherwise proceed on our own. For example, if military action became necessary in Northern Ireland. Would you be happy with us needing US cooperation to operate our own UAVs over our own territory? I wouldn't - and I can easily imagine that it might not be available, depending on US internal politics. I believe you have not considered that scenario.
*I know that's not what you said, but I feel it was implied, even if unintentionally.
BTW, I recuse myself from moderating any discussion in which I am participating.
fftopic