5 ms·

> As to what % go into mil products, several kilos of this several of that forged into speciality alloys at commodity prices vs doing it at artisinal mining pri

by YZF 1y ago

> As to what % go into mil products, several kilos of this several of that forged into speciality alloys at commodity prices vs doing it at artisinal mining prices and those billion dollar weapon systems become tens or hundred billion dollar systems. I am very skeptical. The cost of buying from non-chinese sources is not going to be billions of dollars for some kilos of magnets. There are other options e.g. https://mpmaterials.com/ https://mpmaterials.com/ or https://www.neomaterials.com/ https://www.neomaterials.com/ . Sure. There's magnets everywhere. In speakers, in EVs (motors, actuators), pumps, wind turbines whatnot. Military use has to be a tiny tiny fraction. Like less than 1% or even less than 0.1%. These are not expensive bits- it's just China makes them cheaper. China seems to own about 90% of the market. So for sure we're not going to be able to replace 90% of the market in a blink. But that 90% isn't going away, China is still selling EVs and other products. The 10% is plenty for military use, even if the prices go up a lot (military bits are usually mil-spec and expensive anyways). There's definitely economic leverage there but I call bs on the military angle.

nine_k 1y ago
I'm afraid that for certain special magnets (and not only magnets) China may represent 100% of production capacity, concentrated in a couple of factories. The cost of an alternative would be the cost of building an onshore version of these factories, and maybe a few more up the supply chain. Think about much bigger chunks of semiconductor industry where TSMC represents 100% of world's capacity for certain most advanced production nodes.
- mjanx123 1y ago
  Or you redesign the part without use of neodymium magnets.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "The cost of an alternative would be the cost of building an onshore version of these factories, and maybe a few more up the supply chain." Why hasn't this been done? We first knew China/rare earths was a security and strategic issue at least 15 years ago. One has little sympathy for the US when it's been sitting idle on its hands doing SFA for all that time.
  - rfoo 1y ago
    China knew that chips were security and strategic issues maybe 20 years ago if not more, I wonder why they haven't done building equally capable factories on-shore.
    - Ekaros 1y ago
      Because cutting edge chips are not. They are nice to have and sell for a lot. But for vast majority of things you can absolutely manage with chips they can produce. And in some cases those top end chip technologies are not even useful for those purposes. We are so deep in AI and super computing or wasteful server side computing that we forget that lower end chips are in absolutely everything. And China can produce those just fine.
  - Incipient 1y ago
    It's not just the actual element itself. You need: - the ore - the ability to refine it, safely (if not in China) and economically to various extents - the supply chain to produce the end product (eg a magnet) Then you need this for all the various REEs for the final goods. You don't just build a mine and off you go. The US gave up a lot of strategic supply chains a long time ago.
  - nine_k 1y ago
    Consider: you'd have to build an expensive, dirty factory which would only be able to sell to defense contractors which are legally required to buy local; otherwise it won't be able to compete.
    - stogot 1y ago
      And environmental red flags thrown up at every step. It would have taken 7 years (guess) for them to break ground at a reduced scale, and probably $10M in fees to attorneys and lobbyists
  - refurb 1y ago
    It has been done. It’s typical media fear mongering. This was identified as a threat back in 2015. The DoD has been buying big stakes in non-Chinese mines, and ramping up the MP mine in Nevada. Could it be disruptive if China chokes off supply? Sure. Is it an existential threat? No
hilbert42 1y ago
"So for sure we're not going to be able to replace 90% of the market in a blink." That's BS. If the US considered the shortage important enough and really wanted to then it could do so in a flash. If you doubt this just look at how the US turned its manufacturing around in WWII. The speed of the production ramp-up was truly amazing.
- Auracle 1y ago
  That was back when we had manufacturing knowledge. That’s all but gone.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    The facetious reply to that is to look at what China has done with its command economy under the direction of its smart degree-engineer Politburo masters (unlike the USSR). That's not a call for Communism, during WWII the US was essentially under a command economy and manufacturing companies made good profits—some fortunes. Furthermore, the US government was run by very bright people such as Vannevar Bush and Harry Hopkins (they must be rolling in their graves at today's shambles). The US doesn't have to go to such lengths today but it could partially do so by mandating that certain critical/strategic industries be directed to produce strategic goods and materials. The real issues are lack of political will and stupid ideological differences.
rzerowan 1y ago
At the scale and specificity , lets take magnets - theres magnets and theres magnets , if youre using them in mil/aero tolerances required are going to be much higher with lower failure rates. Think the way rad-hardened cpus for satellites are different/costlier from commercial ones , similarly here when your'e in guidance systems and radars the tolerances require much higher specs than headphones. With the caveat that those already in current products can be recycled so thats one path for simple RE. For the ones that are combined into alloys though its a bigger ask , this i guess will be the main cost increase , as its like trying to separate out copper from bronze if one wants to try recycling. And in mil there are quite a number of special RE alloy to get specific properties. Which is why for the volumes required even at low % alternate refiners will take time to ramp up , in the interim prices dictated at market rates will definately spike.
- YZF 1y ago
  I would guess that the part list of the F-35 isn't publicly available but this sort of implies someone who worked on the design of that airplane chose an alloy or a part knowing that it 100% depends on something that's only available from China. I just find it hard to believe. ( https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/07/pentagon-f-35-deliveries-chinese-materials-00060962 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/07/pentagon-f-35-deliv... is related ) What does sound plausible is that some mil-spec actuator (let's say a pneumatic actuator or a motor) happens to have a magnet from China in it. That is not a big deal. I find it hard to believe that a US mechanical engineer working on the F-35 part would spec an alloy that is only available from China as some fundamental part of the design. E.g. a wing, or body panels, etc. I don't have direct experience but from knowledge working in other manufacturing industries engineers tend to prefer locally available alloys as they're more familiar with their properties and they can easily get them for prototyping purposes Now if the entire wing of the F-35 is subcontracted to China then you'd expect Chinese alloys in that wing. Many products are subcontracted to China and so it's no surprise they'll have Chinese made magnets, alloys etc. But weapons systems are generally not. High end weapons systems like the F-35 may have some secret materials in them that are designed as part of that program and manufactures locally. I guess it's theoretically possible they use some raw materials from China but those being irreplaceable at any cost (when you're talking billion dollar systems and relatively low quantity) also doesn't pass the smell test. What would settle this question is us getting a BOM of the F-35 with the specific parts/materials that are a concern. We're obviously not gonna get that. Alternatively some sort of reliable source, like head of engineering for one of these companies. I don't think we've seen this either. The simplest explanation is that saying this impacts something like the F-35 sells more newspapers or advances some agenda. I'd buy the economic leverage argument; just not the national security one. Not without more evidence.

by YZF 1y ago

nine_k 1y ago

I'm afraid that for certain special magnets (and not only magnets) China may represent 100% of production capacity, concentrated in a couple of factories. The cost of an alternative would be the cost of building an onshore version of these factories, and maybe a few more up the supply chain. Think about much bigger chunks of semiconductor industry where TSMC represents 100% of world's capacity for certain most advanced production nodes.

mjanx123 1y ago
Or you redesign the part without use of neodymium magnets.
hilbert42 1y ago
"The cost of an alternative would be the cost of building an onshore version of these factories, and maybe a few more up the supply chain." Why hasn't this been done? We first knew China/rare earths was a security and strategic issue at least 15 years ago. One has little sympathy for the US when it's been sitting idle on its hands doing SFA for all that time.
- rfoo 1y ago
  China knew that chips were security and strategic issues maybe 20 years ago if not more, I wonder why they haven't done building equally capable factories on-shore.
  - Ekaros 1y ago
    Because cutting edge chips are not. They are nice to have and sell for a lot. But for vast majority of things you can absolutely manage with chips they can produce. And in some cases those top end chip technologies are not even useful for those purposes. We are so deep in AI and super computing or wasteful server side computing that we forget that lower end chips are in absolutely everything. And China can produce those just fine.
- Incipient 1y ago
  It's not just the actual element itself. You need: - the ore - the ability to refine it, safely (if not in China) and economically to various extents - the supply chain to produce the end product (eg a magnet) Then you need this for all the various REEs for the final goods. You don't just build a mine and off you go. The US gave up a lot of strategic supply chains a long time ago.
- nine_k 1y ago
  Consider: you'd have to build an expensive, dirty factory which would only be able to sell to defense contractors which are legally required to buy local; otherwise it won't be able to compete.
  - stogot 1y ago
    And environmental red flags thrown up at every step. It would have taken 7 years (guess) for them to break ground at a reduced scale, and probably $10M in fees to attorneys and lobbyists
- refurb 1y ago
  It has been done. It’s typical media fear mongering. This was identified as a threat back in 2015. The DoD has been buying big stakes in non-Chinese mines, and ramping up the MP mine in Nevada. Could it be disruptive if China chokes off supply? Sure. Is it an existential threat? No

hilbert42 1y ago

"So for sure we're not going to be able to replace 90% of the market in a blink." That's BS. If the US considered the shortage important enough and really wanted to then it could do so in a flash. If you doubt this just look at how the US turned its manufacturing around in WWII. The speed of the production ramp-up was truly amazing.

Auracle 1y ago
That was back when we had manufacturing knowledge. That’s all but gone.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  The facetious reply to that is to look at what China has done with its command economy under the direction of its smart degree-engineer Politburo masters (unlike the USSR). That's not a call for Communism, during WWII the US was essentially under a command economy and manufacturing companies made good profits—some fortunes. Furthermore, the US government was run by very bright people such as Vannevar Bush and Harry Hopkins (they must be rolling in their graves at today's shambles). The US doesn't have to go to such lengths today but it could partially do so by mandating that certain critical/strategic industries be directed to produce strategic goods and materials. The real issues are lack of political will and stupid ideological differences.

rzerowan 1y ago

At the scale and specificity , lets take magnets - theres magnets and theres magnets , if youre using them in mil/aero tolerances required are going to be much higher with lower failure rates. Think the way rad-hardened cpus for satellites are different/costlier from commercial ones , similarly here when your'e in guidance systems and radars the tolerances require much higher specs than headphones. With the caveat that those already in current products can be recycled so thats one path for simple RE. For the ones that are combined into alloys though its a bigger ask , this i guess will be the main cost increase , as its like trying to separate out copper from bronze if one wants to try recycling. And in mil there are quite a number of special RE alloy to get specific properties. Which is why for the volumes required even at low % alternate refiners will take time to ramp up , in the interim prices dictated at market rates will definately spike.

YZF 1y ago
I would guess that the part list of the F-35 isn't publicly available but this sort of implies someone who worked on the design of that airplane chose an alloy or a part knowing that it 100% depends on something that's only available from China. I just find it hard to believe. ( https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/07/pentagon-f-35-deliveries-chinese-materials-00060962 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/07/pentagon-f-35-deliv... is related ) What does sound plausible is that some mil-spec actuator (let's say a pneumatic actuator or a motor) happens to have a magnet from China in it. That is not a big deal. I find it hard to believe that a US mechanical engineer working on the F-35 part would spec an alloy that is only available from China as some fundamental part of the design. E.g. a wing, or body panels, etc. I don't have direct experience but from knowledge working in other manufacturing industries engineers tend to prefer locally available alloys as they're more familiar with their properties and they can easily get them for prototyping purposes Now if the entire wing of the F-35 is subcontracted to China then you'd expect Chinese alloys in that wing. Many products are subcontracted to China and so it's no surprise they'll have Chinese made magnets, alloys etc. But weapons systems are generally not. High end weapons systems like the F-35 may have some secret materials in them that are designed as part of that program and manufactures locally. I guess it's theoretically possible they use some raw materials from China but those being irreplaceable at any cost (when you're talking billion dollar systems and relatively low quantity) also doesn't pass the smell test. What would settle this question is us getting a BOM of the F-35 with the specific parts/materials that are a concern. We're obviously not gonna get that. Alternatively some sort of reliable source, like head of engineering for one of these companies. I don't think we've seen this either. The simplest explanation is that saying this impacts something like the F-35 sells more newspapers or advances some agenda. I'd buy the economic leverage argument; just not the national security one. Not without more evidence.