7 ms·

Why does a single missile cost $80k? Is it just profiteering or is there an actual technical/economic reason for this?

gizajob 5y ago
Because despite it basically being a metal tube with a rocket motor and some high explosive, it destroys tanks costing many many multiples of $80k
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Pretty much every part of a modern AGTM is made out of fancy high dollar materials and the QC processes on these materials and assemblies are staggeringly expensive (and it's worth it, imagine how much a dud would damage the troops confidence in the weapons system, when you're the underdog you can't afford that kind of doubt.) They aren't cheap, but they aren't expensive for what they are.
- jmccaf 5y ago
  The ATGM is much cheaper than a current tank.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The ATGM also doesn't have the offensive capability of a current tank so you get what you pay for. If your goal is to just inflict large cost upon the occupiers until they get bored after a decade then ATGMs are great. If your plan involves routing them with a counter-attack ASAP you'll probably find them lacking.
    - 59125throwaya 5y ago
      Due to these weapons, the current tank does not have the offensive capability of tanks in previous era's
    - greesil 5y ago
      You also can't carry a tank on your shoulder...
chroem- 5y ago
You're more than welcome to launch a competitor, but the vast majority of Silicon Valley balks at the idea of helping the US military.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  I've read a couple of posts over the years from people here who've actually tried to sell to the US military. All of them said the process was highly rigid and politicised, and seemed to be more of a way of funneling money into well-connected organisations than getting the best equipment for the soldiers.
  - abandonliberty 5y ago
    Silicon valley disruptors who replace knobs with touchscreens aren't exactly welcome. Move fast and break things doesn't quite apply.
    - ot 5y ago
      Move fast and break things is literally what a missile does.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        Normally you're supposed to break things in the other country, though :-)
      - abandonliberty 5y ago
        Funny. In any case, the processes and diligence required are extensive which creates a huge barrier of entry. It creates an environment where it's much easier to go with a company that knows all of your requirements and compliance needs. Like everyone, these procurement people are probably overworked and would rather pay a bit more to reduce their risk and handholding required. They're more likely to be personally blamed for failure of a new vendor, than one that's been used extensively. The upside is limited for them. Is this bad? Well... allowing silicon valley to self-drive cars is about my upper tolerance. Space-X is getting there, so they're a good example of what's needed to succeed in that space.
systemvoltage 5y ago
Low volume, high tech and profiteering.
buildbot 5y ago
A low volume high tech package of incredible sophistication, 80k is cheap! There are cameras that are more expensive made in higher numbers.
adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
You need to make sure as much of the supply chain is domestically producible as possible. A cheap system that relies on China (or international shipping in general) aren't what the military wants.
rufus_foreman 5y ago
That's actually pretty cheap considering everything. Teenage Engineering sells a version with better UX that costs 5 times as much.
colechristensen 5y ago
There probably are opportunities for savings, but there are also significantly higher development costs than your random shitty piece of consumer tech. Low volume, life critical, has to survive harsh environments and have a minimal failure rate, has to go through many rounds of design specification and verification, has to be backwards compatible a long way... etc. This isn't a fragile laptop you can sell a hundred million copies of.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > Low volume, life critical, has to survive harsh environments and have a minimal failure rate, has to go through many rounds of design specification and verification, has to be backwards compatible a long way... etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'low volume' part of that statement can be revised a year from now. They're being used up at a pretty fair clip right now; Ukraine has been provided 7,000 so far, which is about a third of the US inventory. Current production volume is only sufficient to replace those in a bit over a year, which is giving a few folks the heebie-jeebies, and who knows how many more will be sent, and whether there will be a push to enlarge the US stockpile. So, current production volume is almost certain to be ramped up to replenish the inventory faster, and I would bet that at the same time production capacity will be modernized and ramped up even more (since it looks like when you need to use them, you may need to use them a lot), leading to the per-missile cost coming down, which of course may mean that they'll be handed out and deployed even more widely and used up even faster (per the Jevons paradox), which at some point even starts shortening the design iterations.
  - kurupt213 5y ago
    It’s still low volume. Consumer products get made by the million
    - webmaven 5y ago
      Many consumer products do get produced in that sort of volume, but consumer electronics often are produced in smaller numbers, when considered on a per-sku basis. There's a reason the Commodore 64 remains the most popular personal computer ever sold: There was really only one model, and it sold millions. Even though the market has expanded hugely since the 80s, it has also fragmented, and no personal computer, not even the original iMacs, has ever reached that level of popularity since. So, given that the production volume for Javelins may be doubled (at least, and potentially much more if they start being exported more freely), it isn't unreasonable to expect some cost savings.
qzw 5y ago
So an average FAANG senior SWE would be able to afford 6-8 in a year? Not sure it needs to be cheaper.
arinlen 5y ago
> Why does a single missile cost $80k? Is it just profiteering or is there an actual technical/economic reason for this? Unit costs tend to be estimated by dividing the total amount of cash spent on a weapons program and divide it per deployment unit. Let's put it this way: if you invest a million bucks on a R&D program for a donut factory and in the end you close shop after getting a single donut out of the program, that would mean that donut cost 1 million bucks to make.

Because despite it basically being a metal tube with a rocket motor and some high explosive, it destroys tanks costing many many multiples of $80k

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Pretty much every part of a modern AGTM is made out of fancy high dollar materials and the QC processes on these materials and assemblies are staggeringly expensive (and it's worth it, imagine how much a dud would damage the troops confidence in the weapons system, when you're the underdog you can't afford that kind of doubt.) They aren't cheap, but they aren't expensive for what they are.

jmccaf 5y ago
The ATGM is much cheaper than a current tank.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The ATGM also doesn't have the offensive capability of a current tank so you get what you pay for. If your goal is to just inflict large cost upon the occupiers until they get bored after a decade then ATGMs are great. If your plan involves routing them with a counter-attack ASAP you'll probably find them lacking.
  - 59125throwaya 5y ago
    Due to these weapons, the current tank does not have the offensive capability of tanks in previous era's
  - greesil 5y ago
    You also can't carry a tank on your shoulder...

chroem- 5y ago

You're more than welcome to launch a competitor, but the vast majority of Silicon Valley balks at the idea of helping the US military.

AussieWog93 5y ago
I've read a couple of posts over the years from people here who've actually tried to sell to the US military. All of them said the process was highly rigid and politicised, and seemed to be more of a way of funneling money into well-connected organisations than getting the best equipment for the soldiers.
- abandonliberty 5y ago
  Silicon valley disruptors who replace knobs with touchscreens aren't exactly welcome. Move fast and break things doesn't quite apply.
  - ot 5y ago
    Move fast and break things is literally what a missile does.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Normally you're supposed to break things in the other country, though :-)
    - abandonliberty 5y ago
      Funny. In any case, the processes and diligence required are extensive which creates a huge barrier of entry. It creates an environment where it's much easier to go with a company that knows all of your requirements and compliance needs. Like everyone, these procurement people are probably overworked and would rather pay a bit more to reduce their risk and handholding required. They're more likely to be personally blamed for failure of a new vendor, than one that's been used extensively. The upside is limited for them. Is this bad? Well... allowing silicon valley to self-drive cars is about my upper tolerance. Space-X is getting there, so they're a good example of what's needed to succeed in that space.

systemvoltage 5y ago

Low volume, high tech and profiteering.

buildbot 5y ago

A low volume high tech package of incredible sophistication, 80k is cheap! There are cameras that are more expensive made in higher numbers.

adgjlsfhk1 5y ago

You need to make sure as much of the supply chain is domestically producible as possible. A cheap system that relies on China (or international shipping in general) aren't what the military wants.

rufus_foreman 5y ago

That's actually pretty cheap considering everything. Teenage Engineering sells a version with better UX that costs 5 times as much.

colechristensen 5y ago

There probably are opportunities for savings, but there are also significantly higher development costs than your random shitty piece of consumer tech. Low volume, life critical, has to survive harsh environments and have a minimal failure rate, has to go through many rounds of design specification and verification, has to be backwards compatible a long way... etc. This isn't a fragile laptop you can sell a hundred million copies of.

webmaven 5y ago
> Low volume, life critical, has to survive harsh environments and have a minimal failure rate, has to go through many rounds of design specification and verification, has to be backwards compatible a long way... etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'low volume' part of that statement can be revised a year from now. They're being used up at a pretty fair clip right now; Ukraine has been provided 7,000 so far, which is about a third of the US inventory. Current production volume is only sufficient to replace those in a bit over a year, which is giving a few folks the heebie-jeebies, and who knows how many more will be sent, and whether there will be a push to enlarge the US stockpile. So, current production volume is almost certain to be ramped up to replenish the inventory faster, and I would bet that at the same time production capacity will be modernized and ramped up even more (since it looks like when you need to use them, you may need to use them a lot), leading to the per-missile cost coming down, which of course may mean that they'll be handed out and deployed even more widely and used up even faster (per the Jevons paradox), which at some point even starts shortening the design iterations.
- kurupt213 5y ago
  It’s still low volume. Consumer products get made by the million
  - webmaven 5y ago
    Many consumer products do get produced in that sort of volume, but consumer electronics often are produced in smaller numbers, when considered on a per-sku basis. There's a reason the Commodore 64 remains the most popular personal computer ever sold: There was really only one model, and it sold millions. Even though the market has expanded hugely since the 80s, it has also fragmented, and no personal computer, not even the original iMacs, has ever reached that level of popularity since. So, given that the production volume for Javelins may be doubled (at least, and potentially much more if they start being exported more freely), it isn't unreasonable to expect some cost savings.

qzw 5y ago

So an average FAANG senior SWE would be able to afford 6-8 in a year? Not sure it needs to be cheaper.

arinlen 5y ago

> Why does a single missile cost $80k? Is it just profiteering or is there an actual technical/economic reason for this? Unit costs tend to be estimated by dividing the total amount of cash spent on a weapons program and divide it per deployment unit. Let's put it this way: if you invest a million bucks on a R&D program for a donut factory and in the end you close shop after getting a single donut out of the program, that would mean that donut cost 1 million bucks to make.