[ejiblabahaba]

I wouldn't be so quick to make guarantees. There's cheaper spec-equivalent devices, sure, but a frequent and recurring feature of military hardware prior to the 2000s is an unexpected dependence on non-spec device characteristics. I've seen seemingly inconsequential cost-saving process tweaks identified as the root cause for novel testing failures for more than one ancient US military project.

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.