Production unit cost:
AGM-154A Baseline / Mobile soft, fixed soft / $246,585
AGM-154B Anti-Armor / Mobile hard, mobile soft / $429,929
AGM-154C Unitary / Mobile hard, mobile soft Fixed hard, maritime surface / $661,013
Weapons aren't cheap anymore are they?
Now if you shoot one of these AGM-154B Anti-Armor $429,929 bullets and hit an enemy tank of the cost and capability of an M1A2 Abrams then you have killed a $4,300,000 tank.
While not cheap, it's not as bad as using an $8 million dollar weapon to destroy a $4 million dollar tank.
While I'm sure we'd
ALL rather spend the bucks to "beat our swords into ploughshares" until such a time as the ENTIRE world does that you have a decision to make.
Do you prefer your sons and daughters to have the most "cost-effective" weapons or simply the best we know how to build, regardless of cost?
I think the Gulf War death toll for the Allies would have been quite a bit higher had we not spent billions on developing the F-117, the Cruise Missile, the Abrams, the MLRS and a host of other weapons. There were a lot of complaints when we funded those projects too.
If you're going to stand ready to fight a modern war, it costs. Big Money.
Or the US can become totally isolationist.
Which would suit me JUST fine.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 02-22-2001).]