Just a thought.
The reason the B-2 cost so much is "sunk costs". That is,
most of the $44 bil we Americans paid for that was paid for
research, development, proving the concept, building the
production line, and hiring and training the factory
workers.
The actual materials cost for the individual aircraft is
fairly low, compared to the amount of money already invested.
Thus, we paid X dollars for the ability to produce B-2s
and Y dollars to actually build 21 of them, where Y<<X.
Had we asked for a production run of more aircraft (say,
500), the
per unit costs would have been much lower. My guess would
be that it would be in the tens of millions per aircraft
rather than the hundreds of millions.
It's the same principle as to why a New York times best-seller can go for $10-20, while a college textbook of the same length will go for $60-70. There's a fixed cost associated with setting up the production line, and a shorter run means a higher per-unit cost.
Also: Someone mentioned how much better the world would be
if we had spent the money on social services and medicare the way many European countries do. Just a silly thought:
I believe the reason many European countries could
afford the
goodies instead of arms is because of the
existence of NATO, which deterred aggressors. The
principal mainstay of NATO's deterrence was the US
nuclear umbrella. Thus, in a sense, the B-2 made it
possible for there to be *more* social spending, since
the money that was used to build the nuclear deterrent
would have otherwise been spent on maintaining a large
conventional army in Europe.
Respectfully,
Brian P.