SASC warns about fake electronic components

SASC warns about fake electronic components

DoD’s vendors must bear the cost when they or military officials discover their products include fake electronic components, Sen. Carl Levin demanded Tuesday.

Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, charged out of the gate this week on a campaign to stop the flood of fake parts finding their way into military electronics. By forcing the Raytheons and Lockheed Martins of the world to eat the costs of replacing faulty parts, the companies will have an incentive to crack down on their suppliers and ensure they’re buying only new, good-quality components, Levin said.

Although the problem of fraudulent electronic components has been broached before in media reports, Levin’s committee has been investigating them on its own and it uncovered fresh problems. He detailed how fake microprocessors and other electronic parts had made their way into equipment aboard Navy SH-60B Seahawk helicopters; the Air Force’s C-27J Spartan cargo plane; and the Navy’s new P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine patrol plane. Plus a committee witness described buying fake voltage regulators that are used in Air Force C-130s; Navy F/A-18E Super Hornets; the Marines’ MV-22 Osprey; and Navy Los Angeles-class attack submarines.


Defense industry witnesses told Levin’s hearing they were doing what they could to screen the quality of parts coming in from their sub-suppliers. Raytheon vice president Vivek Kamath said his company would mandate a “trusted vendor list,” to eliminate companies that passed along counterfeits. Raytheon also promised to share information when it discovered fakes, he said.

Brian Toohey, president of the U.S. Semiconductor Industry Association, said his members would help senators draft legislation to stem the tide of fake parts. “American lives are at risk every time a counterfeit semiconductor makes its way into one of these highly complex and mission critical systems,” he said.

But everyone involved acknowledged there would be no simple solution to this problem. Ralph DeNiro, vice president of L-3 Communications, said one major problem is the age of many of the military’s ships, vehicles and aircraft, which, in some cases, need parts no longer made by their original manufacturers. That means the services must broaden the base of third-party companies from which they buy replacements, increasing the risks of fakes.

Tuesday’s hearing represented the dark side of DoD’s acceptance of a “globally sourced” supply chain: Chinese officials would not permit Senate investigators to visit the counterfeit chip shops of Shenzhen, Levin said, and they were taking no action to crack down on them. So although DoD and Congress can try to throw up better screens to try to filter out the bad components in its supply chain, they apparently can do nothing about the source.

Lawmakers and witnesses made it sound as though the counterfeit parts were just local criminal fraud with new global ramifications, not a deliberate campaign of sabotage. But the stories Tuesday did raise more questions about the integrity of DoD’s computers and electronics. North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan asked rhetorically how the Pentagon could be sure it wasn’t buying computer equipment it believed was secure, but which included fake or even malicious chips to help China with espionage or cyber-attacks.

Government Accountability Office investigator Richard Hillman said he believed Shenzhen’s counterfeiters were mostly “boiler room” operations, but he said he couldn’t rule out the possibility that malicious fake chips could be part of this poisoned well.

Join the Conversation

Two weeks ago Boeing introduced its brand-new Boeing 787 “Dreamliner” jet to the World.
But only last week one “Nightmareliner” already belly-landed (oops) and a few days later another one nearly crash-landed, too, twice due to faulty landing gears. However, the sub-contractor who built the faulty landing gears (no “fakes”, no “frauds” involved, only original parts) is Franco-British (“Messier-Dowty”), not Chinese, and totally dependent on Airbus, not on Comac.

Will this European company now be black-listed, too, and the most hideous suspicions be cast on Airbus, or are Chinese companies to be singled out categorically, although to date they NEVER caused a SINGLE U.S.-made plane to crash or even to skid off the runway?

What “belly-landing” are you talking about?

“trusted suppliers” isn’t going to do anything. If the experience with “conflict-free” materials and “approved supplier” procurements is anything to go by, the “trusted suppliers” will just buy someone else’s products and put them in a new box.

It’s just another industry group looking for protection from competition.

The history of declining empires shows that in it’s terminal phase it becomes increasingly inward looking and protectionist — the result is uncompetitive industries that accelerate the decline. We are entering that stage now.

In 10 years the difference between Chinese and American weapons systems will be that the Chinese use state of the art world class systems and we use whatever props up the most uncompetitive 2rd rate industries.

3 years late and grounded after it’s first flight, sounds about normal.
Just watch as even more customers walk away.

A 767 belly landed in Warsaw, but that is old technology. Only 3rd rate cheapo airlines lease them any more and the production line was already dead.

But good enough to be the USAF’s “brand new” tanker.

People ! when your in combat (I.E.) Getting your ass shot at, do you want the best stuff-OR cheapest shit to keep you breathing ?? What ARE YOU WORTH ??? Are you CHEAP SHIT, OR SHOULD –YOU– BE SAVED ! CALL HOME ! ASK MOM & DAD ! THEN ASK CONGRESS ! TUFF SHIT JACK ! BYE !!

Any one who OK’s buying of Chinese parts for our weapons systems needs to have their head examined while stretched out on a water board.Of all the times I have heard things called treason, buying sensitive military hardware from a known enemy is as close as it gets.

Semper Fi

I work in the electronics industry and many big component suppliers in all countries have been making millions over the last decade winning purchasing contracts from big authorities and OEM’s and stating 100% original parts but then open offices in China and scour the markets for items which will pass testing, for a 10th of the price they charge their customers. It has been happening for decades. profit and gain will always come before morality.

How about nothing because contractor fraud meant that nothing useful was ever built.

How do you know what caused the plane to mishap? Are you a crash investigator, or did you personally inspect all aspects of the electronics? What is needed is integrity in using what is bid — and subs need to test all components to ensure they are in fact what they are ‘advertised’ as… I have no problem blacklisting any european or US company that says its using one thing and then either substitutes or gets an imported counterfeit part that it does not test. Perhaps if they are required to test parts to ensure full compliance to contract specs — then the costs would be more competitive to a US made and certified part. It has already been shown that chinese manufactured ICs are in fact doing things ( recording and sending data on system uses) — and this is very sinister… why are they gathering data? For what use? And isn’t this anti privacy if not a more serious issue? Chinese backward engineering is a form of espionage at the least…not supposed to be legal in US commercial competition. They do put in Semiconductor ICs in imported computers — that are not what they seem. If Subs use imported ICs etc similar issues could be the issues in Airbus mishaps…

Have you ever tried selling in China? You will find that if your system is premier — they will even buy — one; but, within a year they will have copied your technology and have backward engineered it and then — they no longer buy from you.
US technology and education are still at the top but barely. The problem is that Chinese patent law doesn’t respect US patents or turns a blind eye to US proprietary issues. The reason you dont send the source code the tech specs of your systems design etc is that the Chinese will reverse engineer it — They now build your systems and your employees are the ones who are laid off… Attempts to slow this are made — but are only stop gaps to issues like REVERSE engineering. Chinese have stolen nuclear weapons technology, Aircraft and radar electronic stealth technology and that s just the airforce perspective. As to why their systems are getting better — They spend govt money to educate their people at US universities and then get the benefit of our still premier higher education. Read and research — the Chinese are avidly stealing manufacturing technologies like CADCAM type manu systems etc — why? Once they have our technology they wont need to trade with us. China still has a most favored nation trading status with the US — this should be cancelled. China minimizes the transport of goods on US ships because the costs of US regulation and salaries etc is higher — US ships are safer but cost more to operate. Your taxes increase when you must pay for an unemployed worker here — or an environmental issue due to less regulation for the safety of the consumer. Whne my taxes increase due to a government sponsored effort from China to decimate a US capability I am concerned. If that resulted from Chinese reverse engineering or biased shipping competition then in most cases I believe its an illegal act — Open your eyes! Our Cost of living is higher — our manufacturing must be more efficient to be competitive. When a chinese capability is the result of stealing then its not because we are in decline — its because we are in a form of economic war. Read Sun Tzu and then read Mao and read the communist manifesto — economic war although not declared outright is a fact. — economic conflict 0 not competition — an issue that you should be concerned about. You should learn more about it and be very concerned about it. US was founded on free trade the rights of man etc there is none of that in China– US shipping once a pre-imminent capability is all but gone today. Our costs for US safety regulated transport are more expensive. Foreign transport isnt as expensive but it is also less safe …and it often causes catastrophic issues. IF all things are equal your esoteric idealism would be OKAY …but the Chinese are avidly looking for areas they can exploit to undermine US capability. Make no mistake, economic competition is a form of war and we are engaged in it right now. Read up on communist ideology especially chinese strategy for economic warfare and get smart on this issue. US attempts to open the chinese to trade etc in the 1970s was the beginning. This is a contest of long duration.… our existence as a nation is the endgame…

Thank you. I stand corrected – although only partially: Sunday’s belly-landing in Poland happened de facto to a 767, not to a 787.
However, the U.S.-made passenger jet which narrowly escaped the same end only a few days later, also due to faulty landing gears, really was a “modern”, factory-fresh 787, as I said before, not an older 767 type:

“An All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 Dreamliner carrying 249 people had to make a second approach at a west Japan airport before landing, after a glitch forced the pilot to manually deploy the main landing gear.“
http://​www​.smh​.com​.au/​t​r​a​v​e​l​/​t​r​a​v​e​l​-​i​n​c​i​d​e​n​t​s​/​dre

But the manufacturer of landing gears for BOTH Boeing jet types is still the same: World leader Messier-Bugatti-Dowty. Not some Chinese quack or saboteur.

“Messier-Bugatti-Dowty provides wheels and carbon brakes for all Airbus models, and for the Boeing 767, 777LR, 787 and 737NG“
http://​www​.safran​-group​.com/​s​i​t​e​-​s​a​f​r​a​n​-​e​n​/​a​e​r​osp… (First paragraph, first phrase)

Too big (or too White) to be punished, huh?

Same issues popped up a while back with bogus Cisco routers. Today, as far as I know, DoD will only allow purchase of routers, digital switches, and other such networking devices from the OEMs, i.e. no “open shelf stock” from third parties even if those third parties swear by the hair of their chinny-chin-chins to be peddling only true blue equipment. Now, I guess that we also should have been worrying about the chips sold to Cisco! :-(

The same issues have occurred MANY times with such things as high reliability mechanical parts for aircraft, right down to the bolts and nuts (literally!!) where the material does not match the head-stamping. Its not just the cheap Gucci handbags at swapmeets anymore, Dorothy! … er…. DD… :-)

I think my favorite “resale fail” was the USB external hard drive that turned out to be a plastic box with a flash drive and a stack of washers inside…

Part of the problem is that American DoD development is no longer driving the electronics industry. It used to be that you didn’t have to worry about the industry standard meeting milspec environment requirements because most of the industry’s output was for the military. These days, it’s all for the civilian market, where you’re allowed to say “the phone will break if you drop it”.

In the “old days” we told vendors what we wanted, how to build it, and gave them a time frame. We assigned a Quality Control Specialist to the project and he or she was onsite to keep the vendor honest. Apparently this system was scrapped for an honor syste that has no honor. We should go back to Mil Specs and spot checks. It worked then. It will work now.

Here’s a thought — Buy American!

China never signed on to the Wassenaar Agreement , so essentially, to outsourch your milspecs is Treason. see: http://​www​.wassenaar​.org/​i​n​t​r​o​d​u​c​t​i​o​n​/​i​n​d​e​x​.​h​tml

Richard: What happens is “what we want and how to build it and in this time frame” is an impossible combination?

Note that “what we want and how to build it”, these days, is often laughably out of date. It’s like we’re saying “forged steel swords aren’t a proven technology yet, we prefer stone axes chipped out of a chunk of flint”.

The problem is that often there are no American sources. Some of the high end chips, i.e. “this generation” CPUs, FPGAs and such can be had from US suppliers but who here in the states actually still makes something as simple as RAM chips? We have priced ourselves out of the “commodity” electronics IC market a long time ago.

Well…. partially true. Most cell phones and other consumer electronics actually exceed the Mil-Spec requirements by design (and in many cases, are actually tested in accordance to the mil-spec environmental and handling requirements). The real challenge is that the technology in those consumer electronics may often be two, three or even four generations ahead of what is just being fielded in DoD (Im not talking about the 25 year old equipment that is still soldiering on, Im talking about technology just reaching IOC!). And THAT is most definitely traceable to the fact that DoD development programs no longer drive the industry. Consumer demand has driven the technology development cycle down to totally incredible timelines (at least incredible if you believe that the DoD “lifecycle” is pretty good!).

Bar the defense contractors from purchasing ic’s in the open market. This is not a conspiracy. The chinese government is not behind this. They have nothing to do with the manufacture of counterfeit ic’s that are being supplied to independent distibutors here in the U.S. Lay blame where it belongs…The stateside vendors who are selling it to the defense contractors. In spite of the “what, not me” rants that are popping up on forums in ICSOURCE, ERAI, and IDEA these brokers are the responsible parties. It’s not an uncommon practice for independent distributors to ship “samples” of military IC’s to China and have them mass produced. Although there have been several high profile companies shut down and it’s owners indicted in the last few years there are many,many,many more out there. It is easy to point the finger at the chinese but this brokerage industry is about one thing and one thing only…gross profit. I know the government is taking great satisfaction by naming the chinese brokerage house where counterfeit parts originate from but dig deeper.

This process has been in existence for years. Back in the 1990’s parts were “remarked”. Specifically, cpu’s were the game of choice. It was very simple to turn a P-233 cpu into a P2-300 cpu. There was a huge price difference and the cpu could still run at a higher speed. Eventually they would faulter but by that time it was a warrant issue with the manufacturer. These parts were usually shipped to a large OEM a 200 percent profit and the broker would celebrate his or her coup. FYI…most of the “remarking” started here in the states. It was quite common for brokers to purchase undesireable memory chips from korea or japan. Subsequently, labels would be removed and a desireable manufacturer would be affixed to the chip. I could go on and on but I pray the gov’t does the right thing. Cost should not be an issue when soldiers lives are at stake

Its not just Integrated Circuits (ICs). Its alos resistors, capacitors, nuts, bolts, wire, etc

Please understand it is not usually an issue of cost being charged to DoD, or event the vendor. The trusted vendor list just limits who the counterfeiters need to imitate. The fake chips are now marked very nicely to duplicate trusted, or even US manufacturer’s die marks. Only by rigorous supply chain management, i.e. eliminating handlers in the middle, can this be minimized.

Build American, then Buy American!

This is a plot by the chinese! They are not our allies!

The mechanical gear didn’t fail, only the electronics that were supposed to deploy them.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.