And yet you still don't get that it's because of the fixed R&D etc.

I get it just fine and always have, Scott. You on the other hand have been
a rude about something you know little to nothing about.

Flyaway cost is quoted at about $150 million.

Geeze, you can't even keep any nu,mber straight.

The next issue of F-22s is $110 million each.

This week's AW&ST:

"The service and Lockheed Martin negotiated the price for Lot 4,
meeting the established cost target of about $110 million. The F/A-22
actually is more expensive, since that figure doesn't include engines
and other costs. The so-called fly-away cost is around $150 million,
Sambur says, which doesn't amortize the fighter's huge development
cost. "




The fixed stuff has to
be paid whether we buy ten or a thousand.

The fixed part has been driven by the Peter Principle, someything Ken
Garlington demonstrated to beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Which doesn't change the fact that it has to be paid *regardless* of
how many are purchased. The fewer aircraft you buy the less you take
advantage of all that was spent on developement. EVERY aircraft from
here on out is going to cost a ton to develope unless they change the
way they do business. I agree with what was said in another post
about 20 years from program definition to in service is insane and
goes a LONG ways toward answering why the thing costs so much. Back
in the day the "A" model would be relatively plain but it would get it
in the hands of those who needed it and then they'd introduce
goodies/fixes as time went on. Now they won't settle for anything
less than going from YF-16A to F-16E Block 60 before they allow it
into full scale production and they wonder why it takes so long and
costs them so much.