They repeatedly reduced the numbers of F-22s in the buy, extended the development time by decades, and generally played games designed to make it LOOK like the cost was "cut", never getting the fact that they only increased the cost-per-unit. Had they just stuck to the plan, the plane would now be in full service, and we'd have about 600-700 for the same price.
In truth, I think we've simply got too many different airplanes. There is no reason why the Air Force couldn't have adopted the F-18 instead of the 16 (sorry, Viper fans). MD had a nice land-based version planned which was a great deal lighter than the Navy version.
It still boggles my mind that interservice rivalry costs so much in time and money.
For example, why are airplanes like the F-22 NOT designed from day one to be more easily adaptible to carrier ops? The Navy shouldn't have to re-invent the wheel every time.
Also, why wasn't the A-10 considered by the Marines? Seems it fits right in with their work. It's cheaper, too, which is something they like. Yet, they went down the Harrier road. Not that the concept wasn't good, but it couldn't carry half the ordinance of a Hog.