It seems like it’s only meant to help companies with chip fabs in the U.S. like Intel, IBM, Micron, GlobalFoundries, etc. Would be a shame if AMD got nothing.
It seems like it’s only meant to help companies with chip fabs in the U.S. like Intel, IBM, Micron, GlobalFoundries, etc. Would be a shame if AMD got nothing.
Both Apple and AMD will expect to benefit from the fabs TSMC is building in Arizona. Since the CHIPS act was originally intended to get foreign companies that own fabs to build new fabs here. OTOH TSMC may have gotten enough promised tax. state level, and other incentives, and this is to mollify the companies that have US fabs.
Will China invade Taiwan? Only if the CCP leadership is crazier than Putin. The invasion of Ukraine has already destroyed any chance of Russia regaining the superpower status it held as the USSR. There is a point coming when Ukraine will have a stronger military than Russia. Russia has military assets that have yet to be fed into the Ukrainian meatgrinder. If Putin had any sense, he would have already negotiated an end to the conflict with borders returning to the pre-invasion status quo. I think that after the recent attacks on military targets in Crimea, the Ukrainian starting negotiating position will be to ask for monetary compensation, for all territory to be returned, and for many individuals to be made available for trial for war crimes.
Oh, and China has a major internal banking/mortgage crisis to deal with. Starting a war would not convince the Chinese people to forget about their mortgages and confiscated funds. I think China will survive its present problems unless Covid-19 gets worse there. And I think that by the time China gets its internal problems under control, TSMC will have at least one new fab in the US operational.
1 Like
The bill is designed to bring fabs back into the USA. There is a national security concern having so much of the US semiconductor economy under the shadow of China. I’m sure AMD (and Nvidia, Apple, etc) could also benefit if they wanted to build US fabs. That said, there are also huge benefits to remaining fabless.
Yes, though Intel will benefit more directly since they build their own fabs. But owning fabs is a high cost risky proposition, so rewarding that, particularly to benefit both the U.S. economy and it’s security is a good thing no matter what company ends up benefiting the most.
Hmm, does Xilinx own any fabs? Where are their chips manufactured? …looking… It looks like they use TSMC as well.
Everybody,
The significant point here is that TSMC seems to be the only company that has figured out how to fabricate “state of the art” chips with yields that are high enough to be viable.
So the relevant question is whether the CHIPS Act either (1) enables TSMC to build and operate fabs in the United States or (2) provides the resources for another company to replicate TSMC’s capabilities in a timely manner, either with or without TSMC’s collaboration. If not, we won’t have access to “state of the art” chips without TSMC.
But the more interesting scenario might be if TSMC builds and operates fabs in the United States that would allow the company to move its headquarters and to shift production to the United States if China decides to invade Taiwan. Of course, that also would require domestic sources of silicon and other materials used in semiconductors…
Norm.
TSMC builds and operates fabs in the United States that would allow the company to move its >>headquarters and to shift production to the United States if China decides to invade Taiwan.
Taiwan should have no incentive to move most of the cutting edge capacity out to other countries.
By keeping major capacity of leading nodes internal, they are guaranteed international support against China. Nobody would come to their rescue if Taiwan is no longer essential to global supply chain.
As things stand, most of the world, especially the Western Alliance has no choice but to defend Taiwan
-pR2
1 Like
Nobody would come to their rescue if Taiwan is no longer essential to global supply chain.
Don’t be so sure. A Chinese attempt to seize Taiwan would be about as popular as the Russian attempt to grab Ukraine. You eat a sandwich a bite at a time. China taking Taiwan would be the first (well, not the first) bite at a much larger Pacific sandwich and the US and probably Australia and Japan and Korea won’t sit still for that. Even NATO would… express concern, to say the least.
1 Like
China very much does NOT want TSMC to build fabs in the USA. They claim Taiwan, and covet taking it back. TSMC is a big part of that. TSMC’s plants cannot easily flee Taiwan; equipment needs special care in packing and moving. But TSMC’s employees are quite mobile, and getting TSMC’s foundries without getting the employees reduces the benefit of getting TSMC. Thus, helping pay TSMC to build fabs here must be considered politically. I’d recommend a new company that has licensed all of TSMC’s IP and possibly pays royalties to TSMC, allowing the workers to flee but giving China even less of a legal leg to stand on in objection. Given Putin in Ukraine, though, the chance of an actual invasion is higher than it has been in quite a long time.
1 Like
First: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-fab-21-arizona TSMC just “topped out” the first phase of its Arizona fab complex early. I say fab complex because I am unsure how the buildings will be named. Phase 1 is 20,000 WSPM, with a final plan of 100,000 WSPM. You can see that the phase two building is already being constructed and is significantly larger. ASML in the Netherlands is the sole source for EUV lithography steppers. I don’t know if or where any other critical hardware is sourced outside the United States.
Second, any PRC leaders advocating an invasion of Taiwan would make Putin look sane. Putin gambled that the US would stay on the sidelines and prevent our allies from sending US-sourced weapons such as F35s to Ukraine. Or that he could succeed in taking Kyiv before NATO could intervene. As for the latter, oops! satellite intelligence was already flowing into Kyiv. For the former? Teaching Ukrainians to operate complex American and NATO weapons will take months. I don’t know if the US had already trained a few HiMARS crews or if it is really simple to operate. In any case, the Ukrainian military has had a field day (well, months) blowing up Russian field headquarters, ammunition dumps, and a few bridges.
I won’t go into the gory details of the potential use of HiMARS in Tiawan, but the Marines tested firing HiMARS from the deck of one of their (really aircraft carriers) assault ships. The test was a success, and the GMLRS rounds can also be targeted at ships.
You wrote:
Second, any PRC leaders advocating an invasion of Taiwan would make Putin look sane.
Chen Wenling is not a PRC “leader” as such but she’s a prominent enough figure that one has to pay attention to this statement, as I’m sure it wasn’t made without top awareness… Is that a sabre that rattles before me?
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/06/07/world/economist…
A senior Chinese economist at a government-run research group has called on authorities to seize Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. if the U.S. hits China with sanctions on par with those leveled against Russia.
“If the U.S. and the West impose destructive sanctions on China like sanctions against Russia, we must recover Taiwan,” said Chen Wenling, chief economist at the China Center for International Economic Exchanges. The research group is overseen by the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planning agency.
“Especially in the reconstruction of the industrial chain and supply chain, we must seize TSMC,” Chen said in a speech last month hosted by the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University, which was posted online Tuesday by the nationalistic news website Guancha.
“They are speeding up the transfer to the U.S. to build six factories there,” she added. “We must not let all the goals of the transfer be achieved.”
…
A TSMC representative declined to comment on Chen’s remarks. Media reports have said TSMC will build six chip fabs in the U.S., but the company has announced just one so far. It has bought more land for possible construction.
It’s unclear how the scenario Chen described would occur, given the U.S. and other nations only leveled harsh economic sanctions on Russia after it invaded Ukraine in February.
Beijing claims Taiwan as part of its territory that must be brought under control by force if necessary, while the government in Taipei asserts it’s already a de facto independent nation in need of wider international recognition.
2 Likes
Richard,
China very much does NOT want TSMC to build fabs in the USA.
For sure.
But how is the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) going to stop TSMC from building fabs in the United States?
They claim Taiwan, and covet taking it back. TSMC is a big part of that. TSMC’s plants cannot easily flee Taiwan; equipment needs special care in packing and moving. But TSMC’s employees are quite mobile, and getting TSMC’s foundries without getting the employees reduces the benefit of getting TSMC. Thus, helping pay TSMC to build fabs here must be considered politically.
Yes, absolutely!
I’d recommend a new company that has licensed all of TSMC’s IP and possibly pays royalties to TSMC, allowing the workers to flee but giving China even less of a legal leg to stand on in objection.
Hmmmm…
We better make sure that the licensing agreement includes a provision whereby the royalties either cease or go into a trust in the United States if the PRC lands troops in Taiwan. The funds in the trust could be payable to TSMC’s shareholders who make it out of Taiwan to a place that is not under PRC control.
Given Putin in Ukraine, though, the chance of an actual invasion is higher than it has been in quite a long time.
Six months ago, I would have agreed with that statement without thinking twice about it. Today, however, the fact that the Russian army is substantially getting its butt kicked in the Ukraine, without the presence of NATO forces on the ground, has to give the leadership of the PRC serious reason to reconsider such a plan.
Norm.
1 Like
Way off topic, sort of. Rapidly drops into US and Ukrainian military doctrine
Six months ago, I would have agreed with that statement without thinking twice about it. Today, however, the fact that the Russian army is substantially getting its butt kicked in the Ukraine, without the presence of NATO forces on the ground, has to give the leadership of the PRC serious reason to reconsider such a plan.
The initial butt-kicking was because the Russian army forgot the old truism: “Company grade officers study tactics, field grade officers study strategy and generals study logistics.” The Russians failed at all three levels, but the most egregious was the lack of a logistics tail.
The current state of the battle in Ukraine is effectively an artillery duel. The problem for the Russians is that they need effective counter-battery fire. That takes radar systems shared with antiaircraft duties. Both sides are effectively playing Battleship, with the other side’s positions visible during the day. Come nightfall, the Ukrainians play shoot and scoot with their HiMARS systems. This is where equipment modernization is not so much in hardware as in computer software. The Russians also have missile artillery, but they don’t have the integration of the HiMARS system.* HiMARS can shoot while moving and still have a one-meter or smaller CEP. In practice, the HiMARS will stop and take up to several minutes to ensure that there are no overhanging tree branches and the launcher is on a stable footing, then fire six missiles in under a minute at multiple target locations that could have been loaded hours–or days–previously and scoot.
Even if the Russian 300 or 400 antiaircraft systems perfectly determine where the launcher was, by the time counterbattery fire arrives, the HiMARS launcher is somewhere else. Can the Russian radars be relocated in time? I’d guess that the Russian military staff of any surviving mobile radar can do that. The difference here is that the HiMARS is a single vehicle without radar that can electronically accept GPS coordinates from anywhere. Satellites work fine but so do radars far behind the lines. Now more than you wanted to know about HiMARS ranges.
GMLRS: The most common HiMARS load-out. A six-pack with M30 and M31 variants both with 15–92 km (9.3–57.2 mi) range. I assume that the US is converting old M30 rockets to M30A1 or M30A2 versions to get rid of the submunitions in the M30. The M31 and M31A1 versions contain an explosive warhead for things like putting holes in bridges. 
The US has produced over a million missiles of various M30 and M31 types.
ATACMS: This is a much larger and longer-range missile. It comes in racks with only one missile. The range is 70–300 km (43–186 mi). Note the small range overlap with GMLRS, but it is the perfect choice to reach out and touch Crimea. Also, note that the ATACMS has a variant with the Navy’s Harpoon anti-ship payload. Hmmm… The US has produced or ordered less than two thousand ATACMS of all types and probably won’t produce more given the new types below.
PrSM: comes in a pod with two missiles with a range of 60–499 km (37–310 mi). As you can see, PrSM will be a big improvement over ATACMS, but it is not planned to enter service before 2024. With low-rate initial production of 110 units this year, the DoD could send a few to Ukraine for long-range testing–but don’t expect it.
ER GLMRS: Extended range up to 150 km (93 mi) Still fits in 6-packs. Not expected to enter service before 2025. Finland is the first foreign country to order ER GLMRS. Finland has gone all in on MLRS doctrine.
All this is of marginal interest in studying the war in Ukraine. But look into the future. The US Marines have shown that HiMARS can fire from the deck of their amphibious command ships (which are really aircraft carriers plus…) Given a HiMARS-equipped ship with satellite data any WWII battleship should surrender before getting in range.
It is difficult to say what generation HiMARS and the M270 MLRS are at. (The M270 launchers are tracked vehicles and mount two missile racks.) The first of the M270s was shipped overseas in 1990 as part of Desert Shield. It was used extensively during the Gulf War. The missiles for these units had a range of just under 20 miles (32 kilometers). Whether ER GLMRS is the fifth generation of HiMARS, or you group together PrSM and ER GLMRS in one generation and ignore some small improvements. The fact is that the US Army has had decades to evolve the doctrine and systems in parallel. This is important. The weapon system includes satellites, communication networks, launchers, and missiles. It has all evolved to make the HiMARS doctrine work. (Note that the doctrine could work with no M270 tracked launchers. They are a ‘nice to have’ when fighting in the desert or mountain terrain. But the HiMARS move faster when scooting.)
We saw Russian military doctrine in Ukraine. Actually, the appropriate tense is what we are seeing. Here is a Russian attack: https://t.me/faceofwar/19555 It is not clear what the target was, but it is clear that several rounds hit in plowed fields. For the Ukrainian side: https://eurasiantimes.com/russia-to-get-robotic-multiple-lau… I don’t know why the Ukrainians didn’t take out the anti-missile radars. Perhaps they wanted to drain the anti-aircraft system of counter-missiles. More likely, the Russians put the radars out of reach of the HiMARS system without ATACMS. Or the Ukrainians put the HiMARS launchers just out of range of the anti-aircraft system. Look at things from the perspective of older munitions. Five out of eighteen rounds hitting a bridge? Very good for artillery. Also very good for aircraft with dumb bombs. Once smart munitions arrived, one and done became the expectation. But that doesn’t mean that the plane carrying that bomb would make it home. In this case, the Ukrainians want the bridge to work when they get the land back. They are also being careful to destroy only half of the roadway. They want the Russians to have a way to retreat but not to replenish supplies.
- The Russians talk about robotic or automatic MLRS systems. I don’t think they can make that work. Why? For the same reasons that self-driving cars are so hard. In HiMARS and M270 systems, the operator tells the system to throw this missile at this target and when. The automation means that you don’t have to reenter or even enter the coordinates of the target. And the system uses GPS to determine where the launcher is and which way it is facing. All this goes back to a fight in the late 50s and most of the 60s. Were giant central computers going to dominate the world, or lots of little computers working together when needed on big problems? The answer, of course, was neither. This “little” computer on my desk makes all the central mainframes I worked on look dumb. But if/when I need to crunch more numbers than my little computer can handle, I’ll go to the cloud and grab a few dozen teraFLOPS. The cloud consists of systems that, if we thought they were sentient, we would immediately free them from their horrible slavery.
1 Like
The current state of the battle in Ukraine is effectively an artillery duel.
And the battle in Russia?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-ukrainian-s…
man, I gotta hand it to the Ukrainians…
Russia’s FSB security service on Tuesday accused Ukrainian “saboteurs” of repeatedly blowing up electricity pylons running from a nuclear reactor complex in the southern Russian region of Kursk, disrupting the plant’s operations.
In a statement, the FSB said saboteur groups had targeted six high-voltage power pylons connected to the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant on Aug. 4, 9 and 12, leading to a “breach” in the plant’s functioning.
…
Kursk is about 90 km (55 miles) from the Ukrainian border and one of several Russian cities to have been hit by explosions at fuel depots and ammunition dumps since Russia invaded Ukraine nearly six months ago.
Bob,
amphibious command ships (which are really aircraft carriers plus…)
Well, not quite. Real aircraft carriers (CV/CVN) have catapults and arresting gear to launch and recover conventional aircraft such as the F-14, the F/A-18, and the new F-35C (carrier variant). The amphibious assault ships (LHA/LHD) have full length flight decks, but they can operate only V/STOL aircraft such as the AV-8B, the MV-22, and the new F-35B (V/STOL variant), which has considerably less payload than the F-35C. Additionally, the amphibious assault ships have much smaller hangar decks and a much smaller flight deck because they are about half the size, part of their capacity is given over to a well deck for amphibious landing craft, including LCAC’s, and their load-out includes a Battalion Landing Team plus a higher headquarters of Marines, so they can support only a third to a half as many aircraft as a real aircraft carrier.
Norm.