Skip to comments.Fake Chinese Parts 'Found In US Planes'
Posted on 05/22/2012 8:42:58 AM PDT by the scotsman
'More than a million fake electronic parts from China have been found in US military aircraft, posing a risk to national security, an investigation has revealed.
A report by the US Senate uncovered 1,800 cases of bogus parts - including some in special operations helicopters and the US Air Force's largest cargo plane. The total number of individual components involved in these cases exceeded one million, the Committee on Armed Services publication said.
"This flood of counterfeit parts, overwhelmingly from China, threatens national security, the safety of our troops and American jobs," committee chairman Senator Carl Levin said. "It underscores China's failure to police the blatant market in counterfeit parts - a failure China should rectify," he added.
As part of a year-long investigation, the US Government Accountability Office created a fictitious company and purchased electronic parts on the internet. Of the 16 items bought, all were counterfeit and some had bogus identification numbers. The components came from suppliers based in China - which Senator Levin described as the "epicentre of electronic part counterfeiting".
The report accused Beijing of openly allowing counterfeiting operations, and said attempts by officials to get visas to travel to China as part of the probe had failed. US authorities and contract companies contributed to the problem by not detecting the fakes and routinely failing to report them, the report said.
The Defense Department was also criticised for lacking "knowledge of the scope and impact of counterfeit parts on critical defence systems".
Committee member Senator John McCain said the prevalence of bogus parts made the country vulnerable and posed a risk to "our security and the lives of the men and women who protect it".'
(Excerpt) Read more at uk.news.yahoo.com ...
Or even not-so-deep pockets...
If you’re somehow alluding to the idea that I claimed anything could be trusted simply because it is from a domestic manufacturer, then consider your red herring straw-man knocked over. I never said or alluded to that and you know it! I merely pointed out that a lot of people in the electronics industry follow that mindset even in regards to questionable sources (ahh if it passes my terrible qual set that I biased to my advantage so that I can make my schedule and look good to the boss, then who cares right?). These same kinds of morally bankrupt people live under the illusion that they know best when that couldn’t be farther from the truth. They get away with that crap because they use peers that think likewise to buffalo their managers. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “well, we haven’t seen any field returns” only to see them shortly after on many an issue I have pointed out and got the luxury of being ostracized for pointing out the obvious logical flaws. Naw, experience and track record never count for anything when it costs a few dollars more for quality, or a few more minutes of diligence and honesty vs. expediency right? That works great when we’re talking about ICDs, CRTDs and pacemakers though doesn’t it? How about guidance systems and FBW systems?
BI, be it HTRB or not, passive or active temp cycling (much better IMO), is but merely one facet of QCRI or QA/QC. I have seen BI in many forms - usually used as a manufacturing gate either on the vendor LAT die level side or in house on the manufacturing floor used as a way to shake out product that is going to be infant mortality types of failures (yes I know about and understand the bathtub curve). If you want to talk about HALT or HAAS, I tend to have a little more faith there - at least as a good means to determine the veracity of a design to begin with.
Yeah, I’ve seen many a BI chamber in my career as well as run many of them, set them up, designed BI profiles and executed BI, performed the forthcoming FA work - I know a little...
Counterfeit ICs are hardly a boogeyman - they are a real threat to quality on a much larger scale than you are (quite obviously) willing to realize. As for most passives, I couldn’t care less - unless you are talking of high-rel devices...
Whatever, think what you want... just don’t try to put words in my mouth.
Wait, wait... Harold, is that you?
Here are some of the problems that were found: (from KXLY.com)
The investigators dug through the supply chain for three types of suspected counterfeit parts on U.S. military aircraft:
—The SH-60B is a Navy helicopter that hunts for enemy submarines and assists with surface warfare. The investigation found that a part that compromised the copter’s night-vision system contained counterfeit parts that investigators traced back to China.
—The probe found counterfeit parts in the systems that tell pilots of the C-130 and C-27 cargo planes about the aircraft’s performances. The part could have caused those systems to go blank. Again the part in question was traced back to China.
—The P8-A is a Navy version of the Boeing 737 used for anti-submarine warfare and other duties. The Navy is testing the aircraft now and intends to buy more than 100 of them. But the test planes contained a reworked part that never should have been on the airplane. The part was used but made to look new. The part, investigators found, originally came from China.
But the committee didn’t reserve all its blame for China; some of it was directed right at the Pentagon itself.
The report said in each of the three cases that the committee investigated in depth, the Department of Defense was unaware that counterfeit electronic parts had been installed on certain defense systems until the committee’s investigation.
Even though the report just came out, the committee has already taken action to deal with the problem. Levin and McCain offered an amendment to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act to address weaknesses in the defense supply chain and to promote the adoption of aggressive counterfeit avoidance practices by DOD and the defense industry.
The amendment was adopted in the final bill signed by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011.
Part of that law will mean that when a contractor finds bad parts on a weapons system, the contractor or the parts supplier will pay to fix the problem. In the past, those costs were often borne by the DOD.
Not worried about capacitors, resistors, etc. Just processors.
I’m sure you are right. But it is still a security issue to leave the US dependent on foreign processors.
That giant sucking sound Vote for Ross !
Oops, too late
Good post ... but here’s the problem.
Parts in aircraft are routinely removed and sent to various “Depots” throughout the world for maintenance, re-calibration, testing and upgrades.
Now, you take a radio that supplier ‘x’ fixed, and he finds a bad (chip, resistor, capacitor, choke). Who put the bad part in the Field Servicable Unit (FSU) or Laboratory Repairable Unit (LRU)? Countess hands have touched it, and you can bet the farm that everyone with a finger in this, is going to point it at someone else.
The problem is that the Counterfeit parts look almost exactly like the real thing. And I’m unaware of any supplier who knowingly would jeopardize his livelihood by knowingly purchasing counterfeit parts to put into a goverment device. I mean, if a replacement component costs $1,000 and you get 15% mark-up; would you knowingly replace that component with a cheap knock-off? Would you risk your company and/or job on something like this?
The problem is that these parts get mixed into large populations of legitimate parts - because there is a huge trade in obsoletel chips on the international market. It’s not just the USA that has aging aircraft out there, but also our allies and enemies. If you think it’s rough on us, think about a country like Russia.
Ummm, as an engineer I can tell you that all these components are usually vital. Design engineers do not put resistors on a board because they are pretty - everything is there for a reason, whether it's to current-limit, impedance match a signal, provide a default logic level (pull-up/down), do a voltage-scaling operation, or just to dampen out an impulse step function. A computer system will hang just as dead with a bad resistor, as it will with a bad processor.
If you get a Double-Bus Fault, everthing comes to a stop. All it takes is for a single illegal bit of data to be on the bus twice in a row; and the show comes to an immediate halt. This is a non-maskable interrupt (NMI) - immediate crash, non-recoverable. With a bad resistor, capacitor and whatnot - this is what you are going to have on a permanent condition. A re-boot won't fix it.
Where all of that is plausible, it has nothing to do with placing a microprocessor inside of a single transistor, which is what the original post is proposing.
Additionally, just because something is plausible does not mean it is likely. The Chinese made fakes I have seen so far are only partially functional. This is because, the Chinese do not have the technology (yet) to make high end wafers. They can make modem chips, WiFi chips, etc, but they cannot copy an Intel processor at this point.
I hear suicide is painless.
QUIT BUYING CHINESE SHIT!
“What does this say about the typical US voter?”
Like the 52% who voted-in 0bummer&Co? And the 46% who now approve of the “job” he’s doing?
Heh; I’d get in trouble if I said what I’m thinking.
Also, don’t forget where instead accidentally have extra components, the factory works off shifts to produce components for the same relative but with their own companies name. They will cut corners on testing end end up with partially functional ships that fail later.
I assembly boards and it is so annoying to find them after assembly and usually during test.
If they are we really are in deep puckey.
Yes. But capacitors, resistors, buses, etc. are commodities. Don’t like the PRC? For a bit more, you can get them from elsewhere by the bucket full.
More importantly, from a “007ish” viewpoint, they don’t manipulate data - you can’t hide a cache on them and run the hidden instructions later (I hope...).
They are probabaly the same people I worked for at DoD. They used to tell me the same thing.
I had an interesting conversation once with a Air Force Colonel when discussing a new “system”. It relied in part on GPS signals to function properly. He asked me what I thought of the system. I told him I liked it well enough but I was concerned that a major portion was not under our local control. As I told him quite forcefully, “Unless you can reach out your hand and touch something it is not under your control, and anything that was not under our local control was a major weak point in our mission operations.”
He told me that the GPS was under our control. I told him in turn “Yes Sir, now it is. But what about jamming it or even subverting it? Then it is no longer ours but a weapon in the enemies arsenal against us.” When he left my station he had a contemplative look on his face.
Good for you!
you do realize systems can be compromised, right? not all components are just duds or software viruses stealing your game account.
embedding systems that will respond under certain criteria would be ideal. imagine a chip that sits idle until it receives a signal. then it just ‘pings’ it’s location. sounds innocent enough... unless the chip is in your sincgars handset, which you thought was in ‘quiet’ mode. oops... you just told them where you are, so much for stealth.
that same signal could be used for homing... leading a weapon system (missile, drone, whatever) right to you
btw, ‘start trek’ never did anything like this. i believe the new ‘battlestar galactica’ series started off this way.
Certainly not the U.S. Government.
Look no further than our lawless, violent open borders.
You are speaking of commercial Chinese enterprises. I am speaking of state-sponsored espionage equipment routinely discovered embedded in components of certain restricted-access computer systems. You obviously have no knowledge of this and I have no desire to debate it.
I think the front fell off the Romney campaign.