I guess the question comes down to why? Why is a ATACM 1.5 mil? Surely it doesn't cost that to produce it.

The followup then is, won't the contractor producing these drones simply elect to take a similar markup for their product?

Size, role, etc.

ATACMs and others are large missiles with complex guidance systems. Sometimes maybe an optical guidance module.

FPV drones and basic quadcopter are low cost, man operated, and all of the previous counter threats are for the missiles etc mentioned above. Nothing this slow, or this small.

Most suicide drones are far less complex (but that is increasing), much smaller, with human and sometimes image recognition and INS guidance. Sometimes fiber optic tethered (where possible) to counter the electronic warfare counter measures.

Many of these drone systems are also open source. A lot of COTS or 3d-printed components (use-once).

It's just different types and scales of systems solving completely different types of problems, with completely different logistics requirements.

What this really comes down to is that fpv drones are a low cost, low risk, delivery method for certain classes of munitions. Give the size and low cost, it's like going from fighting humans to fighting swarms of stinging insects. No one really has solid defenses for this type of threat yet. Also including small to medium quadcopter platforms for ISR.

Apt user name, at least.

Propose a business plan to meet the ATACM's capabilities for far less. The Pentagon will be at your door with flowers in a matter of minutes. Trademarks, patents, and copyrights are trivial niceties, when national defense is on the line.

Edit: what you don't see, and are assuming doesn't happen, is the vicious competition that goes on before a military contract is sealed. Grift and overspending happen, because: humans, but weapons are made by the lowest bidder who meets the advertised goals of the program, every time.