This is a guest post from a CEO of a US chip company, advocating that the US needs to invest money in US chip companies. So the message may not be incorrect, b

This is a guest post from a CEO of a US chip company, advocating that the US needs to invest money in US chip companies. So the message may not be incorrect, but it’s got some notable bias. Things I noticed: 1. Glinert somehow manages to advocate for continued funding of US chip manufacturers without mentioning the CHIPS Act of 2022 which allocated over $50 billion in new funding for this exact thing over the next 10 years or so. Does Glinert think this is the right amount, or does he want it to be increased? 2. Glinert mentions some scary scenarios, such as China’s rapidly increasing EW capability completely disabling the US in a future conflict, and even shows a couple of diagrams. But nowhere has he mentioned any of the US programs that have implemented electronic protection (EP) measures in just about every military system with a radar or wireless communication system. I’ll admit that the details of most of these programs are classified, but the article doesn’t even mention that the US has been continuing to invest in EP as well as its own EW systems. This feels a little one sided. 3. Glinert, the CEO of a tech company (aka non-traditional defense contractor) argues that the US government should be working more directly with Silicon Valley instead of with major defense contractors. Great news! There is a contract vehicle called an Other Transaction Authority (OTA), where the distinguishing requirement is that a non-traditional defense contractor must perform a non-trivial amount of work on the contract, and the acquisition corps of each service is using them a lot. The traditional prime contractors are still getting a lot of business, but there is plenty of opportunity for a chip company to get in on government money (provided they are offering something the government has asked for). 4. I’ll admit that Glinert’s point about autonomy being important is probably correct. I don’t want to seem like I totally dismissed the article. The government is certainly working on it, time will tell whether these autonomous systems work out well or not. 5. Hot-swapping chips is already done in most systems- it’s called “line replaceable modules,” which simplify maintenance as well as enable upgrades. Many military systems get upgraded throughout their service life, and those include computational upgrades along with engines and whatnot. Bottom line: if you’re not an insider this article probably gave you a lot to think about. If you are an insider you probably noticed a lot of stuff wasn’t mentioned, and it’s not just because of classified info. The US has been paying attention to electronic warfare, and will continue to do so. What the US won’t do is take wild risks like a SV startup- national security is higher stakes that don’t allow staking everything on a moonshot. If your company wants to play in that space, you have to demonstrate that you can deliver, or you have to convince a larger company like Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman to take you on as a subcontractor.