3 ms·

The value is in certifiably meeting the spec, not the function. You shouldn't have to think very hard about why the military does not want to buy parts from Ch

The value is in certifiably meeting the spec, not the function. You shouldn't have to think very hard about why the military does not want to buy parts from China.

Legend2440 6mo ago
I guarantee you the cheaper transistor works just fine. This is why quadcopter drones, built using uncertified consumer parts, are cheaper than the missiles to shoot them down. Sure, they can't buy it from China, but China and its allies can. This is a problem for the US.
- ejiblabahaba 6mo ago
  I wouldn't be so quick to make guarantees. There's cheaper spec-equivalent devices, sure, but a frequent and recurring feature of military hardware prior to the 2000s is an unexpected dependence on non-spec device characteristics. I've seen seemingly inconsequential cost-saving process tweaks identified as the root cause for novel testing failures for more than one ancient US military project. Setting aside that approximately no one is shooting down quadcopters with missiles, that quadcopters and missiles are entirely different categories of weapon with substantially different range/payload/response time targets, and that the availability logistics and acceptable failure rates of paramilitary gangs and impoverished former Soviet belligerents from whom we are likely drawing conclusions about drone warfare economics are maybe just a step or two below the average US military procurement contract requirements; and charitably interpreting your argument as a generalization that repurposed consumer-grade electronics offers a cost reduction over military-grade selections for equivalent performance: true in most modern cases. The US has plenty of cheap domestic options for seemingly pricy problem domains, just ask SpaceX. SOTA in aerospace and defense routinely uses commercial products to great effect. To the extent that shelling out for a $60 military-grade 1960s transistor instead of a $0.06 commercial equivalent is a problem for the US military, it is downstream of enormous legacy cold war capital investment in technology that was novel for its time but is comparatively brittle by modern standards. This is still a problem, to be clear, but a small one in the grand scheme of US military spending.
- HeyLaughingBoy 6mo ago
  > I guarantee you the cheaper transistor works just fine From -50C to 70C? How much shock & vibration can it withstand?
  - Legend2440 6mo ago
    Individual transistors are generally durable devices. If anything fails over that range it will be the battery, the mechanical parts, or the PCB itself. Consumer electronics are perfectly serviceable for military use. Other countries are building very effective weapons at much lower prices by taking advantage of this.
  - tredre3 6mo ago
    > From -50C to 70C? How much shock & vibration can it withstand? Regular automotive range parts are rated for -40 to +125 with the ability to withstand endless vibration and shock. There is no doubt in my mind that any fab outside of America can make the leap from automotive to military spec.
ejiblabahaba 6mo ago
Well, kinda. The value is in meeting the spec, yes, but the "certifiable" part is very often a subset of the actual spec. Sort of like in software how someone will inevitably depend on every feature of a public API (including the defects), a lot of early military electronics depend on implementation details of their component processes, usually by accident. The cost for semiconductor companies is not meeting the spec, it's keeping a production line from the 1960s running exactly the same way for a single customer who buys a handful of parts every year. The problem with Chinese semiconductors isn't performance or meeting specs, at least not these days. It's counterfeits, life expectancy of the source companies, and the obvious risk of basing your supply chain on a foreign political actor that can leverage this dependency against you.

The value is in certifiably meeting the spec, not the function. You shouldn't have to think very hard about why the military does not want to buy parts from China.

Legend2440 6mo ago

I guarantee you the cheaper transistor works just fine. This is why quadcopter drones, built using uncertified consumer parts, are cheaper than the missiles to shoot them down. Sure, they can't buy it from China, but China and its allies can. This is a problem for the US.

ejiblabahaba 6mo ago
I wouldn't be so quick to make guarantees. There's cheaper spec-equivalent devices, sure, but a frequent and recurring feature of military hardware prior to the 2000s is an unexpected dependence on non-spec device characteristics. I've seen seemingly inconsequential cost-saving process tweaks identified as the root cause for novel testing failures for more than one ancient US military project. Setting aside that approximately no one is shooting down quadcopters with missiles, that quadcopters and missiles are entirely different categories of weapon with substantially different range/payload/response time targets, and that the availability logistics and acceptable failure rates of paramilitary gangs and impoverished former Soviet belligerents from whom we are likely drawing conclusions about drone warfare economics are maybe just a step or two below the average US military procurement contract requirements; and charitably interpreting your argument as a generalization that repurposed consumer-grade electronics offers a cost reduction over military-grade selections for equivalent performance: true in most modern cases. The US has plenty of cheap domestic options for seemingly pricy problem domains, just ask SpaceX. SOTA in aerospace and defense routinely uses commercial products to great effect. To the extent that shelling out for a $60 military-grade 1960s transistor instead of a $0.06 commercial equivalent is a problem for the US military, it is downstream of enormous legacy cold war capital investment in technology that was novel for its time but is comparatively brittle by modern standards. This is still a problem, to be clear, but a small one in the grand scheme of US military spending.
HeyLaughingBoy 6mo ago
> I guarantee you the cheaper transistor works just fine From -50C to 70C? How much shock & vibration can it withstand?
- Legend2440 6mo ago
  Individual transistors are generally durable devices. If anything fails over that range it will be the battery, the mechanical parts, or the PCB itself. Consumer electronics are perfectly serviceable for military use. Other countries are building very effective weapons at much lower prices by taking advantage of this.
- tredre3 6mo ago
  > From -50C to 70C? How much shock & vibration can it withstand? Regular automotive range parts are rated for -40 to +125 with the ability to withstand endless vibration and shock. There is no doubt in my mind that any fab outside of America can make the leap from automotive to military spec.

ejiblabahaba 6mo ago

Well, kinda. The value is in meeting the spec, yes, but the "certifiable" part is very often a subset of the actual spec. Sort of like in software how someone will inevitably depend on every feature of a public API (including the defects), a lot of early military electronics depend on implementation details of their component processes, usually by accident. The cost for semiconductor companies is not meeting the spec, it's keeping a production line from the 1960s running exactly the same way for a single customer who buys a handful of parts every year. The problem with Chinese semiconductors isn't performance or meeting specs, at least not these days. It's counterfeits, life expectancy of the source companies, and the obvious risk of basing your supply chain on a foreign political actor that can leverage this dependency against you.