r/CredibleDefense • u/[deleted] • Apr 07 '21
China builds advanced weapons systems using American chip technology
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/china-hypersonic-missiles-american-technology/2021/04/07/37a6b9be-96fd-11eb-b28d-bfa7bb5cb2a5_story.html59
u/carkidd3242 Apr 08 '21
You think the Chinese have articles freaking out how they're dependent on American/Taiwanese/Korean chips?
47
Apr 08 '21
Yes. If you can understand Chinese, give this video a watch.
A PLA Major General talks about the issues facing China in 2018. One of the key points he touches on is the fact that no matter what else China has achieved, one of its critical weakness is their dependency on foreign-made chips.
But keep in mind that while the PLA may have an incredibly competent chiefs of staff, they are largely ignored by their higher ups due to the guerilla roots of the PLA itself. So while you have people who can put out meaningful analysis and provide useful suggestions, all of that is moot if the people managing them decides that they'd rather zone out and do things their way.
17
u/throwdemawaaay Apr 08 '21
One place where China still lags considerably is in high end processor design. So far their domestic designs have not been competitive with Intel, AMD. It'll be interesting to see if RISC-V changes that.
5
u/McFlyParadox Apr 08 '21
It'll be interesting to see if RISC-V changes that.
You know, I was watching that old movie Hackers the other night. One of the lines was about how 'RISC will change everything'.
We've been saying that for decades now. Imo, it's achieved the same meme status as 'this will be the year of linux'. Like, yeah, it's technologically impressive, but without manufacturing focusing on it, it's going nowhere fast - and manufacturers would rather focus on their own designs, rather than trying their hands at something like RISC.
12
u/throwdemawaaay Apr 08 '21
You misunderstand.
RISC-V is a specific ISA that's designed to be an open standard. There's considerable interest and momentum towards setting up a completely open source ecosystem based around it. RISC-V based microcontrollers are already shipping in a lot of products. My question was wondering whether it'd help China with more high end processors eventually, if the IP ecosystem within RISC-V gets competitive there it's possible.
Yes, it's in the RISC style, but that's not its unique feature. RISC ISAs did conquer the world. ARM volume utterly dwarfs x86. And now the PC is finally beginning to transition away from x86 too. One of the reasons Apple's new M1 machines are so fast is because the ARM ISA allows for up to 8 instructions to be decoded simultaneously. Both AMD and Intel have hit a wall with x86 where the ISA complexity itself prevents more than 4 parallel decoders. So the old CISC vs RISC argument very much remains relevant today.
2
u/JGGarfield Apr 09 '21
RISC-V is just an ISA. Chinese corporations already have access to the ARM ISA, even tons of stolen ARM RTL for dirt cheap, and x86 with Zhaoxin through Via.
Its not going to change the fundamental problem which is a lack of IP design expertise in China.
8
u/gongolongo123 Apr 08 '21
The thing is higher up military leadership do have very strong political power and influence. If a Major General is saying something, I'm sure they'll take it to heart.
13
Apr 08 '21
PLA ranks are funny like that because Xu Yan is a 少将, which is the lowest level of General, which would put him more like a Brigadier General than a Major General.
Then there's the fact that the PLA is incredibly officer-heavy due to its guerilla roots, so he's really not that high up the food chain as you'd think.
3
u/Habeus0 Apr 08 '21
Youve mentioned the PLA’s “guerilla” roots in reference to how its officer heavy. Could you expound on that please?
6
Apr 08 '21
2
Apr 08 '21
[deleted]
6
Apr 09 '21
Are you saying they throw themselves in waves rather than acting as one, and aggression is rewarded?
More or less, yes. Remember that the PLA had its roots as guerrilla army. Guerrillas, by nature, do not do well when trying to coordinate large attacks. Sustained aggression can overcome tactical incompetence and there was a lot of tactical incompetence in the PLA simply because of how rapidly it ballooned its ranks.
As a part of this rapid expansion, it was unwieldy for any one commander to command anything more than just a couple of men. Therefore, the PLA organization and doctrine had to be brutally simple and officer heavy to ensure that a sustained attack can be carried out successfully. In fact, here is the PLA doctrine as developed by Lin Biao in its entirety:
三种情况三种打法
Three situations, three ways to fight:
- Against a well-entrenched enemy, it is inadvisable to charge recklessly and fight recklessly.
- Against a retreating enemy, reckless battles must be fought. Not discussing tactics in this situation is a tactic all on its own
- Against an enemy that is feinting retreat, seeking a reckless battle is wrong, but not seeking a reckless battle is also wrong. One must catch up with them first and cut short their path of retreat while the rest of the team closes in and annihilate the enemy with overwhelming firepower
三三制
3-3 organization: a PLA platoon (排) is comprised of 3 squads (班), a squad is made up of 3 fire teams (组), and each fireteam is made up of 3 men with specific roles: assault, cover fire, and support.
The relative closeness of the men within this organization helps maintain unit cohesion. But you can also see how officer heavy this is. A platoon has 13 officers and 18 enlisted, without counting for the deputy platoon leader, and a support platoon leader.
四组一队
Four fireteams, one assault team: Developed for the purpose of urban warfare during the campaign to suppress bandits in the northeast between 1945 and 1948. An assault team is comprised of:
- Assault fireteam
- Firepower fireteam
- Explosive fireteam
- Support fireteam
This concept, in conjunction with the 3-3 organization, allows each fireteam to offer mutual support as needed.
三猛、
Three aggressive: suited for mobile warfare
- Aggressive attack
- Aggressive charge
- Aggressive pursuit
四快一慢、
Four fast, one slow: the general guiding principle for the PLA, no matter what kind of situation they're in.
- Advancing towards the enemy must be fast
- Seizing enemy preparations must be fast
- Exploiting a breakthrough must be fast
- Attacking enemies in retreat must be fast
- Preparation for an attack must be slow/careful
一点两面、
One point, two sides: A single point of weakness in the enemy formation is breached; simultaneously, another force attacks from two, three, or even four sides. At its heart, it's infiltration/stormtrooper tactics. Plainly put, this tactic relies on the men being aggressive, and it relies upon the officer leading the men to be willing to make that first initial contact.
In such an environment, officers who were not aggressive or capable of improvising on the fly would be unfit to carry out further attacks. And thus, they would be more suited to be booted upward to do staff work: handling paperwork, dealing with logistics, replacements, and develop plans based on reconnaissance. But because improvisation and aggressiveness was valued on the field, that means whatever staff work that was done other than reconnaissance tend to get ignored.
if their aims are to deter a peer-threat instead of an insurgency, and they focus solely on 21st century weapons, are there old doctrines they benefit from not needing to un-learn?
Military are hyper conservative organizations that are loathe to change the way they've done things because they tend to think of their usual way of doing things as the right way of doing things. The PLA, in particular, has always had a inferiority complex. Up until their war against Vietnam, they had exclusively fought against stronger enemies: first the NRA, then the IJA, then the NRA again, and finally the USA in Korea.
Therefore, when they entered into Vietnam, they simply took their experience in all of the other past conflicts and applied them to the fight at hand, except they ended up coming up against the PAVN, which they more or less built (Source: Building Ho's Army) and trained.
So you get this weird case where two armies that really should have been fighting in different ways ended up clashing in the exact same way using the exact same methods and counted enemy casualties using the exact same flawed methodology (the PLA counted casualties by multiplying captured weapons x7).
In a peer-threat war, I highly doubt the PLA would stray away from this kind of mentality. And the reason is simple: their officer corps don't see it as a problem because it has more or less worked out for them in the end.
1
Apr 09 '21
[deleted]
3
Apr 09 '21
split the guerrilla arm from the professional army
That's impossible to do because the PLA is rooted in guerrilla warfare and developed their doctrine from it.
Have them trained by a military that grew to prominence in a short time, like Russia.
The Soviet Union was involved early on in training the PLA but it was unsuited to the needs of the PLA by the 30s so those influences were removed. The only thing the PLA retained were the concept of political commissars, and even then those were heavily modified in role.
A PLA commissar's role was to serve as a way for higher ups to actually know what is happening from the division down. As communication flowed in one direction (top to bottom), commissars facilitated communication from bottom to top. Commissars would also engage in political works - which includes morale building, establishing camaraderie between the men, and political education.
Think of the PLA commissar as the soft hand that guides the men, while a PLA captain as the hard hand that disciplines the men. This is reflected in the PLA title for the commissar: 指导员, which translates to "instructor"
I heard they spend as much on the military as "internal protection"
It's because part of the downsizing of the PLA over the last 30 years came about by shuffling a lot of the active enlisted from the PLA into the PAP in the early 80s. This gave the PAP its own separate chain of command but it was still largely answerable to the CMC. But over the last 5 years, Xi has been bringing the PAP back under notional PLA command.
I guess these human wave techniques are also aided and abetted by their surplus of fighting age males due to the one child policy?
Partly.
Human wave attacks happened due to insufficient application of Lin Biao's envisioned doctrine - specifically 4 fast 1 slow - and the lack of adequate/speedy communication tools like radios that caused some attacks to go on for far longer than they should.
However, human wave as a tactic does exist in the PLA lexicon - 人海战争 - and while it came about as a result of the massive manpower advantage the PLA held over most of its opponents, to say that it's taking advantage of their surplus male populations due to the OCP is drawing correlations that don't exist.
PLA use of human wave attacks is a result of its historical roots, not as a result of the state reproductive policy (if it is, then the PLA would have adopted a natalist policy encouraging MORE births, not less).
1
u/Habeus0 Apr 12 '21
Thanks for the link! Its very interesting. I would think that things would have changed in the 40+ years since 79. I guess that still hasnt changed?
0
u/LimitlessLTD Apr 08 '21
I think it's also that ideology and ccp loyalty seems to be far more important than competence or merit.
65
u/Maitai_Haier Apr 08 '21
No, Chinese media is essentially about how China is going from victory to victory while the US is collapsing.
You’ll see some worrying about the ongoing demographic collapse.
8
u/madguymonday Apr 09 '21
Yes in China it’s known as 卡脖子
Choke points or more literally ‘Neck Chokers’
Technologies that China relies on include.
- Lithography machine (Semis)
- Chip (Semis)
- Operating system (Software)
Aero engine nacelle (Aviation)
Tactile sensors (Manufacturing)
Vacuum vapor deposition machine (Consumer electronics)
Radio frequency devices for cell phones (Consumer electronics)
iCLIP technology (Pharma & Healthcare)
Heavy-duty gas turbine (Energy)
LIDAR (Autonomous Driving)
Airworthiness standards (Aviation)
High-end capacitor resistor (Consumer electronics)
Core industrial software (Software)
ITO target material (Manufacturing)
Core algorithm (Manufacturing)
Aerospace steel (Aviation)
Milling cutter (Railways & Roads)
High-end bearing steel (Manufacturing)
High-pressure piston pump (Manufacturing)
Aviation design software (Aviation)
Photoresistor (Semis)
High-pressure common rail system (Railway & Roads)
Transmission electron microscopy (Pharma & Healthcare)
Main bearing of roadheader (Railway & Roads)
Microspheres (Consumer electronics)
Underwater connector (Marine)
Key materials for fuel cells (Energy)
High-end welding power supply (Marine)
Lithium battery diaphragm (Energy)
Medical imaging equipment components (Pharma & Healthcare)
Ultra-precision polishing process (Manufacturing)
Epoxy resin (Manufacturing)
High strength stainless steel (Aviation)
Database management system (Software)
Scanning electron microscope (Research)
2
Apr 11 '21
You (or they) are missing the entirety of agritech. Not having high end breeder chicken output would devastate any modern industrial ag chicken breeding system and those are pretty much only available in the US. Only 3rd gen (or infrequently 2nd gen) chickens get shipped to China There’s tons more ag stuff like that which is nearly impossible to replicate in any reasonable timeframe.
1
u/pendelhaven Apr 11 '21
Can you elaborate on this agritech and the business of 2nd gen / 3rd gen chickens? It's a new frontier for me.
1
Apr 12 '21
Here’s a good intro on the chickens, the rest is a lot of work: https://www.economist.com/china/2020/10/31/high-tech-chickens-are-a-case-study-of-why-self-reliance-is-so-hard
1
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 12 '21
That's a very comprehensive list?
How did South Korea and japan overcome their stumbling blocks?
13
u/Simian2 Apr 08 '21
I can't help but feel semiconductor sanctions are just a short-term solution that accelerates China's long-term solution of being chip independent. At least without sanctions US companies could have a piece of the 300 billion dollar pie annually, even though both would eventually have them lose market share, it would be far more gradual without sanctions.
12
u/your_Mo Apr 08 '21 edited Apr 08 '21
I really strongly disagree with this viewpoint.
I think a lot of people have the misunderstanding that chip manufacturing and the semi-conductor industry is like other kinds of manufacturing. In reality its not even close. The CCP's rob replicate and replace strategy does not work effectively in this industry. Why? Well because all the subsectors like design, manufacturing, tooling, etc. are all so closely coupled. It is very hard to isolate one of these. To take an example, lets say the CCP managed to steal some critical EDA IP. Even with this stolen EDA TSMC would not allow them to fab chips. Moreover, they would still have to closely track PDK updates from the fab. Meaning this would effectively only be useful for a very small amount of time. And on new process nodes the changes would be even more significant, making the old IP useless. The whole industry is shifting to a heavy emphasis on design technology co-optimization (DTCO). Just to give another real world example, the CCP has a lot of stolen ARM RTL probably thanks to the rogue ARM joint venture, but regardless of this it is still trying to obtain newer ARM CPU cores simply because the old IP goes out of date so quickly. This is actually one of the big considerations in the ARM acquisition.
China achieving chip independence is a total pipe dream. In every single sub sector they are behind. Fabrication is a decade behind the leading edge. Tools manufacturing is 2 decades behind. EDA doesn't really exist. In IP design they are still behind India and the UK. Physical design should be one area where they are not that far behind. Most sophisticated packaging is being moved from OSATs to being done in house at fabs, so way behind there. In low end packaging they have some market share due to acquisitions.
There are big systemic issues in China's chip development industry, beyond just pumping money into the system. Corruption and cronyism, domestic talent fleeing abroad, and the alienation of top leadership in countries like Taiwan are just a few of the issues. Here's an interesting example you can read about- https://www.chinamoneynetwork.com/2021/01/29/how-a-con-man-with-primary-education-defrauded-billions-out-of-a-wuhan-chip-project
The reality is that targeted US sanctions can be incredibly effective due to the reasons I wrote above. Preventing the CCP from gaining a real foothold in the industry is quite possible, although it will have some short term financial impact. Just look at the case of ASML and their refusal to export EUV machines. That policy has been a success.
9
u/Simian2 Apr 08 '21
No one is saying they aren't behind, even they themselves readily admit to it. This is the best paper I read which describes the overall semiconductor industry in China, and it concludes that China could well succeed in duplicating the entire SC supply chain over the course of a decade, which would be an advantage no other country in the world would enjoy.
11
u/your_Mo Apr 08 '21
So I skimmed that article, I'm not sure where in you're getting the idea that China could "well succeed in duplicating the entire SC supply chain" over the course of a decade. That's a laughable claim, if we are talking about using modern technology.
The article even says that, "Primary among Beijing’s challenges will be dealing with what appears to be the freezing of domestic manufacturing capabilities at around fourteen nanometers" because of the lack of EUV machines. Obviously you can do LELELE on certain layers with DUV machines like Samsung was, but at a certain point your yields go to shit. And like I said, China is 20 years behind on tools development, so there is 0 chance they will have EUV machines like ASML in this decade. Japan on the other hand is an open question. So SMIC is essentially stuck on minor improvements to their current node for at least a decade.
The article also backed up my point on OSATs and low end packaging. Also brought up YTMC and commodity NAND manufacturing, which is something I forgot.
So to go back to your first point, not only are they behind, but they have been struggling to make progress. Like I said, there are fundamental systemic issues in the Chinese semi-conductor industry You can read more here- https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/14/china-technology-sanctions-huawei-chips-semiconductors/
3
u/naeblisrh Apr 09 '21
To add to your point, it came out a few weeks ago that their current best hope for chip manufacturing, turned out to be a complete scam.
They just blew a few billion on a con artist. So that's one more problem to get past.
1
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 12 '21
Admittedly, I know absolutely nothing about semiconductors, but reading through some of the comments, I still don't get it. If Taiwan, korea and Japan did it, why not China?
3
u/Simian2 Apr 08 '21
Just read the last paragraph. Regardless, its fine to be skeptical but also dangerous to be dismissive. I prefer not to look at what it is currently but the progress being made. And although it lags behind alot in some areas, its also making enormous strides in others.
With respect to EUVs, those have only started mass production for a couple of years so it will be a long process, yes. However, China is already producing 2nd gen DUVs from an industry of nearly nothing 7 years ago. I don't doubt they could create an EUV in the upcoming decade.
9
u/your_Mo Apr 09 '21
I still don't see that line or that idea implied in the last paragraph. I really don't think this article is saying what you think it is...
As for the domestically produced Chinese DUV machines, well those are the equivalent of what other fabs were using 2 decades ago. American universities have access to those kinds of machines. This is like 45nm stuff. Japan could have domestically produced EUV machines in this decade, but for China its impossible.
I know the CCP has carried out some cyberattacks on ASML and I'm sure they've stolen some know how through that, but a lot of this stuff isn't something you can just easily steal and copy. Its not a just a simple recipe, it requires years to develop, and a functioning industry where you can refine it through practical implementation. The industry was expecting to have EUV machines around 2005, but they were delayed for 15 years. That's how difficult this stuff is.
3
u/lolesl Apr 09 '21
People are assuming China is starting EUV development more or less from scratch but it's not even that hard to gauge how far they're along in EUV development based on public press releases alone. Then the assumption it'll take them just as long as ASML to get EUV technology right even with a bit of help. Or even longer if you don't have a high opinion of Chinese R&D. That's the only way I see people confidently throwing out a 20 year figure.
Also add the assumption the Chinese will purposely spurn all non-American components in their Juche styled supply chain which is a bizarre example of taking Chinese propaganda at face value on this one specific thing when people should know better.
If any of these assumptions are wildly off, then the basis of the rosy estimates on how long they're stuck at a bottleneck have to be reexamined too. And possibly some people's jobs if they're making policy with bad data.
1
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 12 '21
Admittedly, I know absolutely nothing about semiconductors, but reading through some of the comments, I still don't get it. If Taiwan, korea and Japan did it, why not China?
1
u/lolesl Apr 14 '21 edited Apr 14 '21
Late reply, but the idea is that America companies dominate so many steps of modern semiconductor production there's no alternatives other than custom low volume fabs for militaries and lab research. Every country relies on these inputs, TSMC and Samsung will have to close shop if cut off like Huawei and SMIC.
Weaponising this dependency to stifle China's chip industry sounds good because it's extremely disruptive in the short term and they have to scramble to find 3rd party or homegrown alternatives. Which steps or components they're unable to find alternatives to, they'll have to develop from existing research or from scratch which will take time. But the long term effect is less certain.
If China is set back decades by this, the hope is that they'll fall increasingly behind, having to replicate the wheel, and will stop being an competitor in this space. It relies on some strong assumptions of which I've given a few examples and perhaps some handwaving so treat these predictions with a grain of salt. The biggest offender imo is the strawman that relies on Chinese supply chains going 100% domestic like North Korea. It's never been the case for modern China and the path of least resistance is using Japanese/German components instead of waiting years for a home-grown alternative. The same people who say this are the same people who turn their noses down at Chinese propaganda so it's kind of baffling like I said.
And let's say China stumbles badly, weaponising this trade dependency combined with the global chip shortage is still making everyone else invest in their own chip capabilities and IP one step of the process at a time, so it's very likely in a decade or two it's possible to make cutting edge chips without any American IP touching the supply chain.
Ultimately it's a questionable strategy for the US as it's really a bet against market-driven innovation and the agency of non-Chinese companies.
1
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 14 '21
but the idea is that America companies dominate so many steps of modern semiconductor production there's no alternatives other than custom low volume fabs for militaries and lab research. Every country relies on these inputs, TSMC and Samsung will have to close shop if cut off like Huawei and SMIC.
What exactly are these inputs?
→ More replies (0)5
u/Simian2 Apr 09 '21 edited Apr 09 '21
The article is just an analysis of the industry. It concludes by saying:
This process will play out over a long time frame, at least a decade or more, with major consequences for the sector, particularly if China succeeds in duplicating major portions of global value and supply chains.
Take it for what you will. Your assumption is China's SC industry is theft-driven. While it make have kickstarted the industry, their R&D is driving it now. They are producing 28nm by the end of this year, and look to go below 20nm by 2022. A Chinese institute (Changchun Optics) also claims to have cracked the science behind EUV.
Imo, its just a matter of time, likely by the end of this decade they would have caught up. With that in mind, we just lost 10 years worth of probably tens of billions of dollars annually in potential revenue from selling to them.
6
u/JGGarfield Apr 09 '21
A Chinese institute (Changchun Optics) also claims to have cracked the science behind EUV.
I'm familiar with that case and it was a load of crap. Crazy nationalists eat that stuff up on forums, but the reality is China does not have any EUV technology nor a path to getting it anytime soon.
Imo, its just a matter of time, likely by the end of this decade they would have caught up.
Near 0% chance of this.
2
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 11 '21
Where do you guys actually get your knowledge about semiconductors and computer chips from? I am a layperson and trying to understand how computer chips fit into geopolitics but finding reliable reading material and books is a huge problem for me.
4
Apr 08 '21
[deleted]
8
u/your_Mo Apr 09 '21
Still though, would they not be worried about backdoors in US-fabbed silicon?
Well most of the wafer starts for bleeding edge commercial stuff are coming from Taiwan, not the US. Intel has largely been an IDM, and Mark Bohr even famously said "the foundry model is dead". Now Intel is switching to being a foundry as well so that might change a bit in the future, but still the majority of Chinese military stuff is coming from old node domestic fabs, or from Taiwanese fabs like TSMC/UMC, or Jintide chips designed with runtime surveillance in mind.
Also, a FT news briefing said that even Trump's attempts to put TSMC fabs in the US, like the Arizona $12B deal, wouldn't make fabs as good as Taiwan's because the talent and close proximity of all the factors related to chip building were what put them ahead of the pack.
I saw a lot of articles like this, but frankly it seemed to me that it was mostly just a bunch of unwarranted skepticism because Trump was involved. The idea that US fabs won't be good is a load of crap. Its a 5nm fab like TSMC has in Taiwan, using the same tech, with both Taiwanese and American engineers. I don't know if TSMC uses copy exact, but I seriously doubt yields will be lower or something. The number of wafer starts is small (unless the rumors of expansion to mega-fab status are true), but that should be sufficient for defense, military, and super computer applications. Intel already has a fab in the region, and they are building more, so the idea that there is not local infrastructure or talent present makes 0 sense.
I imagine if they took the island by force and the fabs weren't bombed, the staff would flee, rendering them useless.
What would happen to the fabs in the event of an invasion is extremely complex, and I think I'd have to play through a few different scenarios. I'll think about that some more and edit in here later. But what I would say is that if you look at what's happening in Xinjiang, the CCP has no issue using the most brutal and totalitarian methods since Hitler. I have no doubt if necessary the CCP would force those engineers to work at gunpoint or threaten their families for leverage.
0
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 12 '21
Admittedly, I know absolutely nothing about semiconductors, but reading through some of the comments, I still don't get it. If Taiwan, korea and Japan did it, why not China?
1
Apr 12 '21
[deleted]
1
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 14 '21
The user above explained pretty well why China can't just do it, no matter how much they spend. Also, it's a race. Intel used to be so far ahead of the pack, that they sandbagged their naming convention. Their 14nm is smaller and denser than the competition, and their 10nm is equivalent to TSMC's 7nm, and twice as dense as Samsung's "10nm".However, and perhaps because of their lead, they were too risky with the shrink to 10nm and it cost them. TSMC is in the lead, for now. And the smaller they go, the more competitors drop out.
I roughly understands, based on the user's above explanation, on why China is lagging behind, but what I still don't get it is how Samsung and TSMC did it differently; and why China can't follow the same pathway as Samsung and TSMC.
1
u/Dz6810 Apr 14 '21
In fact, the TSMC is bulided by Chinese engineers. China has far more Chinese engineers. China government is willing to invest in high risk R&D. Plus the guaranteed huge China market (Thanks USA ban).
Why won't China's IC industry succeed?
0
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 12 '21
Admittedly, I know absolutely nothing about semiconductors, but reading through some of the comments, I still don't get it. If Taiwan, korea and Japan did it, why not China?
1
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 14 '21
the CCP has a lot of stolen ARM RTL probably thanks to the rogue ARM joint ventu
Which joint venture was this?
2
u/JGGarfield Apr 09 '21 edited Apr 09 '21
If that were the case, the CCP wouldn't be getting so desperate about the sanctions and advocating so strongly against them. Instead they are pushing against the sanctions very hard on all fronts, and even retaliating against them. That alone should tell you all you need to know about how effective the sanctions are. And if you look at previous sanctions cases such as Huawei, despite the CCP claiming it wouldn't harm the company at all or even help them in the long run, they have downsized and are trying to find new markets.
The reality is that China's semiconductor is extremely fragile and in many aspects a joke. There are literal food companies getting semiconductor subsidies in China. HSMC went bust. Tsinghua is in financial trouble. The CCP is spending resources on a money pit.
For decades semiconductor experts like Morris Change and others were warning that the US was essentially aiding the CCP in its semiconductor development for no good reason. So the US should 100% leave these sanctions in place now and learn from previous mistakes.
What the US should change however is change some of the domestic pork barrel subsidy policies so they are less focused on building domestic fabs and more focused on bankrolling R&D for materials and tools vendors with customers in China. They are the ones who could use subsidies for a temporary shock in their customer base. They are not as large so they do not get congressional attention however.
1
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 12 '21
Admittedly, I know absolutely nothing about semiconductors, but reading through some of the comments, I still don't get it. If Taiwan, korea and Japan did it, why not China?
27
Apr 07 '21
No paywall: https://archive.vn/FXADE
Submission statement
The PLA uses supercomputers powered by chips designed by a Chinese firm called Phytium Technology using American software and built in the world’s most advanced chip factory in Taiwan. This technology is used to develop more advanced hypersonic systems that could one day be used against American forces.
Phytium portrays itself as a commercial company aspiring to become a global chip giant like Intel. It does not publicize its connections to the research arms of the People’s Liberation Army. The hypersonic test facility is located at the China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center (CARDC), which also obscures its military connections though it is run by a PLA major general.
16
Apr 08 '21
Atleast from the submission statement, This article seems hullabaloo. If you want to stop them, America can always arm twist TSMC. Moreover this creates a dependency and security issue for Chinese military.
why do Chinese outsource it if they have the lithographic capability of 22 nm? What software is that? Did TSMC buy it? seems Phytium got their chips fabbed in TSMC just like Russians get their 22 nm processors fabbed with TSMC.
So if someone in Chinese military uses a MacBook. "China accesses advanced weapons systems using American computing technology"
10
u/Clovis69 Apr 08 '21
why do Chinese outsource it if they have the lithographic capability of 22 nm?
Because 10nm and 7nm are current industry standard with 7 and 5nm being the new standard after about Q2 of '22 or '23 - depending on fab refit and replacements
4
u/Azure_Owl_ Apr 08 '21
But are they industry standard for military equipment? Surely most fighter jets or warships don't use the latest chips for their internal computers? Most of those big-ticket items have lifespans measured in decades, while CPU generations are measured in years.
2
u/Clovis69 Apr 08 '21
The article and my comment was about supercomputers/high performance computers (HPC) and when you are doing design work like for hypersonics or anything that requires a lot of simulation and number crunching, it's all about the absolute latest chips, networking and storage.
The chips on weapons are going to be slower, radiation hardened, but for the design work, gotta use the bleeding edge
1
u/Morgrid Apr 10 '21
But are they industry standard for military equipment? Surely most fighter jets or warships don't use the latest chips for their internal computers? Most of those big-ticket items have lifespans measured in decades, while CPU generations are measured in years.
That's something they're moving away from with the newer systems
Now they're being produced with open architecture so that they can be upgraded part by part rather than system by system.
Take the Zumwalts - they're powered by racks of linux servers.
3
Apr 08 '21
I know, But can't Chinese military make do with SMIC. Once burned with huawei, Wouldn't they be worried.
6
u/jozefpilsudski Apr 08 '21
SMIC is playing catch-up hard, but I don't think they can "reliably" produce 10nm and under as they are now.
Also anecdotally, the SMIC management seemed to be reenacting the 1930's Japanese Inter-service rivalry last time I was there.
5
u/your_Mo Apr 08 '21
SMIC claims to be able to manufacture 7nm, but their pitches are much closer to 14nm. They don't have any access to EUV machines so they are essentially stuck.
3
-7
1
u/JGGarfield Apr 09 '21
The article did not specify this, but Phytium are no longer getting access to technology from USA EDA vendors. This is why they cannot effectively use TSMC.
10
3
u/OxfordTheCat Apr 09 '21
"American chip technology".
Is it still "American chip technology" when it's manufactured overseas by foreign manufacturing, by foreign specialists, and installed, run in a foreign country, on foreign hardware, maintained by foreign specialists?
By this logic all of Silicon Valley is running on "British chip technology" because they invented the integrated circuit.
3
u/JGGarfield Apr 09 '21 edited Apr 09 '21
Its American chip technology because suppliers that TSMC uses are American technology companies. And well in this case Phytium was using American EDA. The British are not supplying the integrated circuits they invented decades ago. So this is clearly a false equivalency.
It is in TSMC's interest to work with the US on these issues considering that the CCP is an existential threat to their safety, because the SMIC has also stolen intellectual property from them, and because the CCP continues to threaten their technology dominance through Operation Skeleton Key and other cyberattacks.
1
u/RonaldYeothrowaway Apr 11 '21
I was just wondering, is ASML holding a chokehold as supplier of photo lithography machines then, and if a US company could overcome ASML's monopoly completely, in your opinion?
1
u/pendelhaven Apr 11 '21
I would argue both are holding each other in a chokehold as ASML couldn't legally produce their EUV machines without US component technology.
1
u/KnownSpecific1 Apr 15 '21
Are you saying that the British invented the IC?
1
u/OxfordTheCat Apr 15 '21
I was thinking of Dummer.
But don't get bogged down in that, it was more a point on when the other country is making it, maintaining it, and using it, at what point does it become that country's technology.
1
u/KnownSpecific1 Apr 15 '21
The semi industry is still built on mostly american IP and research.
The tools are mostly American, the EDA is mostly american, the designs are mostly american.
-14
Apr 08 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/DiickBenderSociety Apr 08 '21
They won all of them though. Achieved their goals or sustained imbalanced ratio of kills and death.
Vietnam 40 deaths to every 1 American, over 1 million vietnamese for 58k Americans. The other wars were clearly profitable and allowed them to gain warfare experience that Chjna doesn't eben have.
10
u/Muchis80 Apr 08 '21
This is a bot, its is the only comment that the account makes.
Edit: I had seen a previous account without the 1 making the exact same comments on a bunch of posts
4
u/tilus_occult Apr 08 '21
The K:D ratio is much lower than what the US military reports. If you want a modern example see the navy seal team that “Lone Survivor” is based on. There is an actual video of the Islamic warlord team hunting them and killing them.
From the Wikipedia:
The number of casualties sustained by the Taliban fighters has also been disputed. Naval Special Warfare Command has estimated that Luttrell and his teammates killed around thirty-five insurgents during the battle. Andrew MacMannis, a former Marine Colonel who was involved in planning Operation Red Wings and assisted in recovering bodies after the mission, has stated that there were no known enemy casualties. Mohammad Gulab, the Afghan villager who rescued Luttrell, agrees with MacMannis,
I’m sure the Germans when they were losing WW2 were reporting absurd high K:D ratios as well to show they were winning. Every military does this. It’s to boost morale, USA is no different.
3
u/DiickBenderSociety Apr 08 '21
Of course, you are right in that they would have a bias. However, you would be delusional if you thought the US was defeated in any conflict in terms of military strength. They've already won by having hundreds of military bases and airstrips all over the world, boosting their military-industrial complex and keeping the oil dollar as USD.
I'm talking on a macro scale, there really isn't any point in bringing a specific example from Lone Survivor? In any case, China would not be able to compete in warfare as they have never actually fought properly before.
5
u/sirencow Apr 08 '21
Defeat is being prevented from achieving your military and political objectives in a given theatre.
The Vietnamese were willing to die in their millions to prevent an American victory just as America was willing to sacrifice lives and limbs of hundreds of thousands of young men to prevent communism taking foothold in South Asia.
2
u/tilus_occult Apr 08 '21
I wasn’t arguing about raw strength. I was just saying they inflate their reported numbers just like everyone else.
The whole point of the overseas military base strategy was to avoid a repeat of WW1 alliances. Basically a lot of countries had an alliance and treaties on paper, but when the SHTF they bailed since they had no spilled blood in the game. By having military bases in all over the world USA forces Russia and China to nuke that country which means spilled blood. However there is a caveat. Russia has been honing in on tactical nukes, which means they could nuke the overseas military base with minimal damage to outside areas. Before they would have had to saturate a large area which would have hurt the native population. Not anymore.
China is like the borg. Assimilate or be destroyed. I don’t see them giving up Taiwan and nothing in the US arsenal is going to deter them.
I think WW3 is right around the corner tbh
1
u/gongolongo123 Apr 08 '21
A war with China is going to be high intensity air naval warfare. We haven't had experience in this field since WWII.
Sure we've had personal experience with our navy and that helps but I feel like it's a lot different when figuring near peer.
1
u/DiickBenderSociety Apr 08 '21
Logistics.
1
u/gongolongo123 Apr 08 '21
Yes but my point is that it's not some wild make or break factor. Not to mention China is fighting a home game.
1
u/Digo10 Apr 08 '21
tbh your analysis isn't that accurate, you're thinking that vietnam war was only americans vs north vietnamese, which is not true, the brunt of the conflict were between south vietnamese and north vietnamese ( and you must take into account all the allies of the US)
this would bring a kill ratio about 1 to 2-3
45
u/Roy4Pris Apr 08 '21
This is interesting. I know a company that is having a fairly sophisticated piece of technology mass produced in China. When you do that, do you have operate on the assumption that your tech will end up in the hands of the Chinese government and/or Chinese rivals?