If the target costs a lot more than $1k than this might be a good deal.
People keep trying to look at war economics as each side spending a dollar to cost the other a dollar.
Really it is a countless series of wildly inequitable exchanges. Sometimes you waste a cruise missile on a single dude because that guy was a sniper and could cause tens of millions of dollars of damage. Sometimes you spend $1,000 on a single drone and take out a billion dollar parked strategic bomber.
Trying to look at each Exchange in an economic context is ridiculous, not that someone doesn't need to look at economics. But looking at it at the scale of individual targets and price tags isn't the right way.
Even if you discount the tactical effect of losing soldiers in battle, just the gear of the soldier is worth more than a thousand dollars already (just ballistic vest + riffle is enough to pass this very low bar)
What a military really needs to look at is how much damage can that target do if they don't break it first. If a target only cost $1,000 but can somehow do a million dollars in damage to me and me spending $900,000 to service that target is $100,000 savings. This is why during some wars the US was using cruise missiles on teams of dudes in Toyotas with discarded anti-aircraft guns strapped to the back. It's not those 'shitty technicals' were worth the millions of dollars like a tomahawk, it's that those things could drive around and do millions of dollars worth of damage if unopposed. If all you're cheaper assets are already working on something you might assign a multi-million dollar munition unless the target can't do as much damage as firing the munition.
Because an unserviced enemy target can generally cause an unlimited amount of damage in wartime it generally becomes cost effective to take any opportunity to disable an enemy asset.