3 ms·

We don't need small nodes for military/aero chips. It would suffice to keep some old fabs running to secure supply. The US needs fabs but they don't need Intel

We don't need small nodes for military/aero chips. It would suffice to keep some old fabs running to secure supply. The US needs fabs but they don't need Intel as a company. Splitting out the fab business and letting it run into the red however could incentivize the government to save the fabs and the jobs with billions of bailout money while the other Intel continues to rake in money with TSMC chips.

alrs 5y ago
This assumes that US military has no need for servers, desktops, or mobile devices.
- threatripper 5y ago
  Which will be covered by fabs built on US soil which presumably are contractually obliged to manufacture chips for the military on demand. (And obliged to take the precautions to be able to do so.) Some of them can be (ex) Intel fabs, some TSMC or Samsung. I don't see any hard necessity for Intel to keep their fabs in house when there are other solutions.
monocasa 5y ago
Increasingly we do. The military is very much embracing edge compute currently.
me_me_me 5y ago
Literally every sentence is out of touch and outright wrong. I don't even know where to start. > We don't need small nodes for military/aero chips. It would suffice to keep some old fabs running to secure supply. What? How do you think the military works, via smoke signals? They need computer, a LOT of computers to operate day to day. And that PCs for just boring clerk work. Not to mention the idea that old chips would somehow be good enough to keep up technologically, both military and economically. > The US needs fabs but they don't need Intel as a company. Oh yeah? They will just a walk a engineer corps to a fab and have them press big red manufacture button few million times to make enough chips right? Can't be more difficult than that...
- threatripper 5y ago
  What is the problem with an Intel design manufactured in a TSMC fab built on US soil? There will be fabs on US soil in the future but they might not be owned by Intel.
  - Kon-Peki 5y ago
    It probably depends on whether the chip is a commodity chip or something special https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    hmmm I dunno... maybe China taking Taiwan and banning all export of electronics to US, leaving US with pants down
    - monocasa 5y ago
      If China invades Taiwan, the rumor is that Taiwan's strategy is to scuttle everything at the last second so China isn't additionally incentivized to invade just to get the electronics manufacturing infrastructure. So there won't be any electronics manufacturing to ban at all, but it leaves the US in the same place.
thereddaikon 5y ago
The military doesn't just need chips for cruise missiles and radars. There has actually been a big push the last 20 years to move a lot of systems to COTS architectures. An Arleigh Burke destroyer uses Xeon powered blade servers to run its Aegis combat system not some weird proprietary chip from the 80s. The level of computerization and networking is going up in the military so the needs will only increase. Intel's CONUS fabs are a national security concern.

alrs 5y ago

This assumes that US military has no need for servers, desktops, or mobile devices.

threatripper 5y ago
Which will be covered by fabs built on US soil which presumably are contractually obliged to manufacture chips for the military on demand. (And obliged to take the precautions to be able to do so.) Some of them can be (ex) Intel fabs, some TSMC or Samsung. I don't see any hard necessity for Intel to keep their fabs in house when there are other solutions.

monocasa 5y ago

Increasingly we do. The military is very much embracing edge compute currently.

me_me_me 5y ago

Literally every sentence is out of touch and outright wrong. I don't even know where to start. > We don't need small nodes for military/aero chips. It would suffice to keep some old fabs running to secure supply. What? How do you think the military works, via smoke signals? They need computer, a LOT of computers to operate day to day. And that PCs for just boring clerk work. Not to mention the idea that old chips would somehow be good enough to keep up technologically, both military and economically. > The US needs fabs but they don't need Intel as a company. Oh yeah? They will just a walk a engineer corps to a fab and have them press big red manufacture button few million times to make enough chips right? Can't be more difficult than that...

threatripper 5y ago
What is the problem with an Intel design manufactured in a TSMC fab built on US soil? There will be fabs on US soil in the future but they might not be owned by Intel.
- Kon-Peki 5y ago
  It probably depends on whether the chip is a commodity chip or something special https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...
- me_me_me 5y ago
  hmmm I dunno... maybe China taking Taiwan and banning all export of electronics to US, leaving US with pants down
  - monocasa 5y ago
    If China invades Taiwan, the rumor is that Taiwan's strategy is to scuttle everything at the last second so China isn't additionally incentivized to invade just to get the electronics manufacturing infrastructure. So there won't be any electronics manufacturing to ban at all, but it leaves the US in the same place.

thereddaikon 5y ago

The military doesn't just need chips for cruise missiles and radars. There has actually been a big push the last 20 years to move a lot of systems to COTS architectures. An Arleigh Burke destroyer uses Xeon powered blade servers to run its Aegis combat system not some weird proprietary chip from the 80s. The level of computerization and networking is going up in the military so the needs will only increase. Intel's CONUS fabs are a national security concern.