This is why quadcopter drones, built using uncertified consumer parts, are cheaper than the missiles to shoot them down.
Sure, they can't buy it from China, but China and its allies can. This is a problem for the US.
Setting aside that approximately no one is shooting down quadcopters with missiles, that quadcopters and missiles are entirely different categories of weapon with substantially different range/payload/response time targets, and that the availability logistics and acceptable failure rates of paramilitary gangs and impoverished former Soviet belligerents from whom we are likely drawing conclusions about drone warfare economics are maybe just a step or two below the average US military procurement contract requirements; and charitably interpreting your argument as a generalization that repurposed consumer-grade electronics offers a cost reduction over military-grade selections for equivalent performance: true in most modern cases. The US has plenty of cheap domestic options for seemingly pricy problem domains, just ask SpaceX. SOTA in aerospace and defense routinely uses commercial products to great effect. To the extent that shelling out for a $60 military-grade 1960s transistor instead of a $0.06 commercial equivalent is a problem for the US military, it is downstream of enormous legacy cold war capital investment in technology that was novel for its time but is comparatively brittle by modern standards. This is still a problem, to be clear, but a small one in the grand scheme of US military spending.
From -50C to 70C? How much shock & vibration can it withstand?
Consumer electronics are perfectly serviceable for military use. Other countries are building very effective weapons at much lower prices by taking advantage of this.
Regular automotive range parts are rated for -40 to +125 with the ability to withstand endless vibration and shock.
There is no doubt in my mind that any fab outside of America can make the leap from automotive to military spec.