稀土断供危机持续发酵！在我国商务部宣布加强对日军民两用产品出口管制后，日本军工产业正面临前所 未有的生存危机。最新数据显示，日本17个重点军工项目中，F-15J升级与高超音速导弹部署被迫延期两 年，F-35交付也因稀土永磁短缺陷入停滞。这一系列连锁反应，揭开了日本所谓"国防自主"的脆弱面纱。 高市早苗选择求助美国的激进做法，实则是将国家命运押注在地缘政治博弈上。那份详尽的"对华反制清 单"，暴露了日本试图通过美日技术融合来重构军工体系的野心。但历史经验表明，关键技术领域的自主 可控，从来不是靠政治联盟就能实现的。 这场围绕稀土的较量，不仅关乎两个亚洲大国的产业竞争，更是检验各国在关键技术领域自主能力的试金 石。当全球产业链重构成为趋势，日本军工的困境或许只是开始。而对于中国来说，如何将资源优势转化 为长期战略优势，仍是需要持续探索的命题。 面对危机，日本高市内阁的应对之策令人玩味。财务大臣片山皋月紧急赴美，宣称要与美欧共建稀土供应 链，企图"剥夺中国'武器化'稀土的能力"。这种政治表态掩盖不了技术困境：虽然日本在实验室实现了部分 稀土元素提纯，但重稀土精炼技术仍未突破，规模化生产更是遥遥无期。 更深远的影响在 ...

Core Viewpoint - The actions of American politicians and experts are perceived by many Chinese netizens as inadvertently supporting China, highlighting the shift in global power dynamics and the potential decline of U.S. hegemony [2] Group 1: Economic Dynamics - The U.S. has maintained its global dominance primarily through "dollar hegemony," which facilitates a cycle of consumption, production, and resource acquisition [2] - The U.S. can print large amounts of money and invest in resources, while other countries are required to conduct trade in dollars, benefiting from this "dollar cycle" for 50 years [2] - China has emerged as the world's largest industrial nation and is developing its own payment systems, challenging the existing dollar-dominated framework [2] Group 2: Geopolitical Shifts - China is taking a leading role in the development of BRICS nations, indicating a shift in global alliances and economic power [2] - In military technology, China has gained advantages in specific areas such as early warning systems and sixth-generation fighter jets, showcasing its advancements [2] - The U.S. has initiated a tariff war in an attempt to maintain its global influence, but this approach may backfire as countries reconsider their alignment with Washington [2] Group 3: Future Implications - The actions of U.S. politicians and experts may accelerate the decline of American hegemony, as countries recognize the lack of benefits in aligning with the U.S. [2]

Core Viewpoint - The development of sixth-generation fighter jets, driven by AI technology, is reshaping future aerial combat and global strategic dynamics, with multiple countries racing to establish air superiority [1][4]. Group 1: Sixth-Generation Fighter Jet Development - The U.S. government has selected Boeing to produce the "Next Generation Air Dominance" fighter, which is touted to be the most advanced and lethal aircraft ever [1]. - Countries like the UK, Italy, and Japan are collaborating on the "Tempest" project, aiming for its first flight by 2035, while France, Germany, and Spain are leading the "Future Combat Air System" expected to be deployed by 2040 [1][4]. - The sixth-generation fighter jets will redefine aerial combat rules and significantly alter the global strategic landscape [1]. Group 2: Technological Advancements - The sixth-generation fighter jets will feature a significant increase in size compared to current fifth-generation jets, driven by the need for enhanced stealth capabilities and internal weapon storage [2]. - Key competitive advantages of sixth-generation jets will include supersonic cruise capability, omnidirectional stealth, and extended operational range, with the "Tempest" expected to carry twice the weapon load of the F-35 [2][3]. Group 3: AI Integration and Cloud Warfare - Sixth-generation jets are described as "flying supercomputers," capable of processing vast amounts of data in real-time and sharing information across military units via satellite data links [3]. - The integration of AI systems is a hallmark of sixth-generation fighters, promising to enhance overall efficiency and reshape future aerial combat through a "cloud warfare" model [3]. Group 4: Global Competition and Strategic Goals - The U.S. has officially named its sixth-generation fighter as the F-47, which emphasizes modular design, directed energy weapon integration, advanced stealth, and AI-assisted operations, with an expected service entry by 2030 [4]. - In Europe, the FCAS aims to combine manned and unmanned systems for a new air superiority paradigm, with deployment expected by 2040 [4]. - Russia's MiG-41 is projected to achieve speeds of 4-5 Mach and is expected to enter service by 2028 [5]. Group 5: Challenges in Development - The development of sixth-generation fighters requires the integration of multiple advanced technologies, including AI and stealth, into a multi-domain combat platform [6][7]. - A significant challenge is the development of robust AI systems for autonomous combat decision-making, with debates ongoing about the necessity of retaining a pilot's cockpit [7]. - Balancing performance with cost is critical, as projects like the F-47 may exceed initial contracts of $20 billion, with total costs potentially reaching hundreds of billions [7].

Summary of Military Industry Conference Call Industry Overview - The military industry sector has seen significant growth since early May, ranking second among Shenwan's primary industries, driven by domestic policy cycles, geopolitical tensions, and rising security demands, as well as China's enhanced international military trade status [1][2][3]. Key Points and Arguments Macro Level Insights - China's military expenditure has maintained single-digit growth for the past decade, with room for improvement in its GDP proportion. The year 2025, marking the end of the 14th Five-Year Plan, is expected to see concentrated order deliveries, boosting domestic demand [1][3]. - The military sector's valuation is not at extreme levels, with a PE ratio around the 75th percentile and a PB ratio at the 60th percentile over the past decade, indicating potential for profit recovery [3][6]. Mid-Level Insights - The military sector's prosperity is improving, with components from upstream to military electronics and equipment showing signs of recovery. For instance, the revenue growth rate of leading MLCC companies in Taiwan has rebounded, and the price decline of sponge titanium has narrowed [1][4]. Micro Level Insights - The first quarter reports indicate that some sub-sectors are entering a replenishment phase, with significant increases in orders for aviation equipment and military electronics. There are clear signs of accelerated capacity clearance, with a decrease in companies under cash flow pressure [1][4]. Investment Dynamics - Public funds show a significant underweight in the military sector, with allocation ratios returning to levels seen since 2016, indicating a non-crowded investment environment. Retail investors, financing, and ETF funds have shown notable net inflows, particularly during key events [1][5]. Historical Concerns - Historical concerns regarding the military sector include weak profitability, limited market space, and unpredictable policies. For example, the military expenditure growth rate has been around 7.3% over the past decade, with defense spending remaining stable as a percentage of GDP [8][9]. Future Outlook - The military industry is expected to continue its growth trajectory, with significant orders anticipated in the coming years. The focus will be on the recovery of the 14th Five-Year Plan orders and military trade growth logic [6][19]. - The development of unmanned systems and advanced weaponry is a key area of focus, with significant advancements in various platforms, including aerial, ground, and underwater systems [15][21]. Investment Strategy - The current investment strategy should focus on sectors experiencing recovery, particularly in upstream military electronics and missile supply chains. The military sector is likely transitioning from the first to the second phase of its growth cycle, presenting opportunities for investment [7][19]. Conclusion - The military industry is poised for continued growth, supported by favorable macroeconomic conditions, improving profitability, and strategic government policies. Investors are encouraged to explore opportunities within this sector, particularly in areas aligned with technological advancements and military modernization efforts [18][30].

Group 1: Military Industry Insights - The military industry is experiencing accelerated domestic prosperity and an opening international market, with a historical win rate of 70%-80% in July-August over the past decade [1][2] - The current military industry is at a critical juncture with the transition of the "14th Five-Year Plan" and the preparation for the "15th Five-Year Plan," which is expected to release pent-up downstream demand significantly [3][4] - Major events such as military parades serve as important catalysts for the military sector, with historical data showing substantial returns leading up to such events [4] Group 2: Global Military Spending Trends - Global military spending is on the rise, with Japan planning to invest 43 trillion yen (approximately 290 billion USD) from FY2023 to FY2027, marking a 63.5% increase compared to previous years [9] - South Korea's defense budget is set to increase to 80 trillion won (approximately 60 billion USD) by 2028, reflecting a 7% annual growth rate [9] - The European Union is mobilizing 800 billion euros for defense investments, while the U.S. defense budget is projected to exceed 1 trillion USD for the first time in FY2026 [9] Group 3: Technology Sector Analysis - The AI technology sector is currently positioned low in terms of market valuation, with potential for further recovery and expansion [12][18] - The TMT (Technology, Media, and Telecommunications) sector has shown signs of recovery, becoming a prominent market driver [12] - Significant profit upgrades have been observed in various AI sub-sectors, particularly in upstream computing power and downstream applications such as financial technology and drones [18][19]

Core Viewpoint - The intertwining of U.S. military and financial hegemony is creating a vicious cycle of military spending and currency devaluation, leading to a global arms race dominated by the U.S. [1] Military Spending - The U.S. military budget for 2024 is projected to reach $997 billion, accounting for 37% of global military expenditures, with expectations to exceed $1 trillion by fiscal year 2026 [3] - A significant portion of this budget, 44%, is allocated to personnel salaries and pensions, raising concerns about the actual investment in weapon modernization compared to China [3] - The funding is primarily aimed at maintaining 140 military bases and 800 overseas military facilities [3] Financial Strategy - The U.S. is leveraging military deterrence and financial extraction by compelling allies to purchase American weapons and binding them to the dollar-based financial system [4] - In 2023, U.S. military aid to Ukraine amounted to $6 billion, with over 40% returning to the U.S. defense industry through arms orders, illustrating the closed-loop of military aid, arms trade, and dollar repatriation [4] Currency Devaluation - The U.S. dollar index has fallen by 8% since 2024, while the U.S. is transferring the costs of its hegemony through "fiscal deficit monetization," exporting inflation globally [5] - The national debt has surpassed $35 trillion, with the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing policies shifting debt costs to countries holding dollar assets [5] Political Implications - The military-financial model is increasingly constraining U.S. domestic spending, with military expenditure reaching 3.2% of GDP in 2024, significantly above NATO's 2% standard [7] - The military-industrial complex is influencing U.S. politics, as seen in Trump's 2025 legislation linking military spending increases to tax cuts for the wealthy [7] Global Response - The credibility of the dollar is being undermined, with oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia exploring non-dollar settlement systems and BRICS countries promoting local currency swap agreements [9] - To maintain its hegemony, the U.S. is compelled to increase military spending, with the 2026 budget focusing on next-generation aircraft and nuclear modernization for global military interventions [9] Conclusion - The U.S. has demonstrated over 70 years that hegemony cannot be sustained indefinitely, as military spending erodes future prospects and currency devaluation undermines global trust [11] - A new global governance order based on multilateralism is needed, moving away from the zero-sum game of military intervention [11]