China's SMIC semiconductor manufacturer achieves "breakthrough", producing 7nm chips despite sanctions - Update: moving on to 5nm

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,337
Brushing off US sanctions meant to throttle China's semiconductor development, Chinese chip manufacturer SMIC has managed to produce 7nm SoCs for the MinerVa Bitcoin Miner.

Bloomberg: China’s Top Chipmaker Achieves Breakthrough Despite US Curbs – SMIC has started shipping 7nm chips, TechInsights says
Non-paywalled version of the Bloomberg article: China’s Top Chipmaker Achieves Breakthrough Despite US Curbs
Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. has likely advanced its production technology by two generations, defying US sanctions intended to halt the rise of China’s largest chipmaker.

The Shanghai-based manufacturer is shipping Bitcoin-mining semiconductors built using 7-nanometer technology, industry watcher TechInsights wrote in a blog post on Tuesday. That’s well ahead of SMIC’s established 14nm technology, a measure of fabrication complexity in which narrower transistor widths help produce faster and more efficient chips. Since late 2020, the US has barred the unlicensed sale to the Chinese firm of equipment that can be used to fabricate semiconductors of 10nm and beyond,

Tech Insights: SMIC 7nm technology found in MinerVa Bitcoin Miner – Development highlights China’s growing local options in response to international sanctions
Despite not having access to the most advanced equipment technologies as a result of sanctions currently in place, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) appears to have used 7nm technology to manufacture the MinerVa Bitcoin Miner system on chip (SoC).

This is the most advanced technology product TechInsights has seen from SMIC so far and may be leading to a true 7nm process that incorporates scaled logic and memory bitcells. It also has key implications for Chinese chip companies, as it helps to reduce China’s reliance on Western technologies during this time of restricted access.

SemiAnalysis: China’s SMIC Is Shipping 7nm Foundry ASICs
SMIC, China’s largest foundry has slowly been catching up to TSMC, Samsung, and various western foundries in process technology. They are rapidly approaching position as the world’s 3rd largest foundry and have higher margins than the current number 3, GlobalFoundries. SMIC has achieved this through a combination of large subsidies from the state, poaching TSMC talent, and tremendous home-grown expertise. Their chips ship in large volumes to a variety of use cases from smartphones to the world’s fastest supercomputer. The foundry has now quietly released and started mass production of their 7nm process node dubbed N+2.
We say quietly as this didn’t come directly from SMIC, but rather the reverse engineering and teardown firm TechInsights who purchased the chip on the open market and sent it to their labs. SMIC likely has not discussed this publicly on earnings reports as they are afraid of blowback. To be abundantly clear, China’s SMIC is shipping a foundry process with commercially available chips in the open market which are more advanced than any American or European company. While the US has high hopes for Intel to be the savior, there are no Intel 7 class foundry chips commercially available for purchase currently and they still have to build out their foundry operations. The most advanced American or European foundry produced chips are based on GlobalFoundries 12nm.

With Chinese chip manufacturing progressing and the US investing in domestic chip production, the future of chip production looks to be a lot more decentralised and competitive. I hope that it will result in more innovation and lower prices.

 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,025
Time will tell.

Paint me as a sceptic.

We have seen many claims of "7nm" that haven't quite been "7nm". In fact node naming is all marketing now, and had nothing to do with actual gate sizes.
 
Last edited:

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
So far based on people breaking down and analyzing the 7nm chips it appears to have been built with a knock off of TSMC’s 7nm tech. Right down to some of the flaws in their process. TSMC is probably gearing up to sue them hard so this should get interesting pretty fast.
 

GiGaBiTe

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
2,324
So far based on people breaking down and analyzing the 7nm chips it appears to have been built with a knock off of TSMC’s 7nm tech. Right down to some of the flaws in their process. TSMC is probably gearing up to sue them hard so this should get interesting pretty fast.

They can sue all they want, but you have to remember that this is China, IP law doesn't apply. This is especially true for something as significant as a modern chip lithography node, the CCP is going to step in and make sure nothing bad happens.

If tens of thousands of companies have gotten away with IP theft from foreign entities for decades in China, there's no reason it would change now.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
They can sue all they want, but you have to remember that this is China, IP law doesn't apply. This is especially true for something as significant as a modern chip lithography node, the CCP is going to step in and make sure nothing bad happens.

If tens of thousands of companies have gotten away with IP theft from foreign entities for decades in China, there's no reason it would change now.
This could be different, as far as China is concerned TSMC is a Chinese company. TSMC has sued and won against SMIC in Chinese courts more than a few times for SMIC stealing their tech.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,907
This could be different, as far as China is concerned TSMC is a Chinese company. TSMC has sued and won against SMIC in Chinese courts more than a few times for SMIC stealing their tech.

I'm sure they'll bend the rules until Taiwan is actually under their control. Which may be a possibility in the future. With China in general getting more hold as time goes on, the previous precedents might not be followed. Of course they may do just that and side with TSMC, but I can see it going either way in the future.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,693
This could be different, as far as China is concerned TSMC is a Chinese company. TSMC has sued and won against SMIC in Chinese courts more than a few times for SMIC stealing their tech.

China will not step in for TSMC unless the red banner is flying over Taipei. They might claim Taiwan is theirs, but the reality is that it isn’t, they don’t control it, and they never have controlled it since the civil war, so therefore, it remains a rival and TSMC is not going to be viewed as a “Chinese” company. TSMC is currently a western rival as far as they’re concerned, so don’t expect them to step in against a mainland Chinese company, who is ultimately under the control of the CCP, who may have stolen their IP.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
China will not step in for TSMC unless the red banner is flying over Taipei. They might claim Taiwan is theirs, but the reality is that it isn’t, they don’t control it, and they never have controlled it since the civil war, so therefore, it remains a rival and TSMC is not going to be viewed as a “Chinese” company. TSMC is currently a western rival as far as they’re concerned, so don’t expect them to step in against a mainland Chinese company, who is ultimately under the control of the CCP, who may have stolen their IP.
China has stepped in and smacked down SMIC every couple of years going all the way back to 2003. SMIC steals tech from TSMC all the time and they get caught, they settle they work out some arrangement in the courts at this point it’s basically their MO in how they get new nodes online.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,693
China has stepped in and smacked down SMIC every couple of years going all the way back to 2003. SMIC steals tech from TSMC all the time and they get caught, they settle they work out some arrangement in the courts at this point it’s basically their MO in how they get new nodes online.
China also smacked down their entire tech sector recently…

…because they wanted to remind them that the CCP is in charge.

China isn’t the US. The CCP controls everything, and every decision is made to benefit the CCP. China will smack down SMIC if they feel it’s necessary to benefit the CCP. They will not smack them down for stealing IP from a foreign competitor, unless maybe they feel a show trial is necessary to attract investment or something. Again, it’s always a calculated move.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
China also smacked down their entire tech sector recently…

…because they wanted to remind them that the CCP is in charge.

China isn’t the US. The CCP controls everything, and every decision is made to benefit the CCP. China will smack down SMIC if they feel it’s necessary to benefit the CCP. They will not smack them down for stealing IP from a foreign competitor, unless maybe they feel a show trial is necessary to attract investment or something. Again, it’s always a calculated move.
Yeah for sure, but SMIC's first choice of customers for using this tech to make Bitcoin Mining rigs won't help them. The Chinese government has a hate boner for those guys right now.
 

emphy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2016
Messages
342
... The most advanced American or European foundry produced chips are based on GlobalFoundries 12nm. ...

This is a bit of a misleading statement, since the company ASML (Dutch, last time I checked still very much European) has a monopoly on EUVL production machines. With the US government leaning quite heavily on the Dutch one, guess who was first in line for ordering the next generation lithography machines?
 
Last edited:

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,345
So far based on people breaking down and analyzing the 7nm chips it appears to have been built with a knock off of TSMC’s 7nm tech. Right down to some of the flaws in their process. TSMC is probably gearing up to sue them hard so this should get interesting pretty fast.
You can bet China stole the technology.

At least as long as they can steal the tech from Taiwan, they are less likely to invade them.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,693
Yeah for sure, but SMIC's first choice of customers for using this tech to make Bitcoin Mining rigs won't help them. The Chinese government has a hate boner for those guys right now.

True, but they'll target the Bitcoin thing and ignore the stealing IP thing.
 

DanNeely

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,320
The most advanced American or European foundry produced chips are based on GlobalFoundries 12nm.

This is a bit of a misleading statement, since the company ASML (Dutch, last time I checked still very much European) has a monopoly on EUVL production machines. With the US government leaning quite heavily on the Dutch one, guess who was first in line for ordering the next generation lithography machines?

Speaking of misleading statements, GLOFO chose not to develop anything smaller than their 12nm process years ago. ASML is selling EUV hardware to Intel, TSMC, and Samsung - which is everyone outside of mainland China working on or using processes advanced enough to need it.
 

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,337
China is reportedly also working on 5nm now.

SMIC Mass Produces 14nm Nodes, Advances To 5nm, 7nm
Shanghai confirms 14-nm chips being mass produced now

Shanghai-based firms have achieved mass production of semiconductors with 14-nm process and made breakthroughs in 90-nm lithography machines, 5-nm etching machines, 12-inch large silicon wafers, central processing units and 5G chips, Wu Jincheng, director of the Shanghai Municipal Commission of Economy and Digitalization, said at a press conference on Wednesday.

It marks the first official recognition of the ability of Chinese companies to mass produce 14-nm chips, Xiang Ligang, an independent technology analyst, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

The validation also comes as a powerful response to an expanded US blockade on high-end chip exports to China, which will only accelerate China's breakthroughs in core technology, experts said.

"The broader the US blockades are, the faster that China will research and develop its own technology," Xiang said.

With the completion of Shanghai's industry cluster for the 14-nm chips, more advanced projects in the 7- and 5-nm processes will be accelerated, Chen said.
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,791

Delicieuxz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,337
so, who is going to make all these immersion tools? China?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-to-stop-selling-key-chipmaking-gear-to-china
trust me, they're cut-off; it doesn't matter if they make ripoff process nodes 6 years after tsmc when there will be no tools to run the process!

"Wants Dutch supplier to..." - isn't the same thing as 'has cut-off sales to...'.

China is already making 7nm. And, yeah, if it comes down to it, China will probably develop its own means to make tools it needs and can't get from elsewhere. But even for whatever China is blacklisted from buying, it can route equipment sales through other countries that aren't blacklisted.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
so, who is going to make all these immersion tools? China?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-to-stop-selling-key-chipmaking-gear-to-china
trust me, they're cut-off; it doesn't matter if they make ripoff process nodes 6 years after tsmc when there will be no tools to run the process!
You know that since the US has taken these steps, they will just start reverse engineering the hardware tools and steal those too, right? It's a losing game it buys a few years to stifle them but this was bound to happen when everybody worked together since the 1950s making them the manufacturing powerhouse of the world. Those who control the means of production control the people. Well, China controls the means of production now.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
"Wants Dutch supplier to..." - isn't the same thing as 'has cut-off sales to...'.

China is already making 7nm. And, yeah, if it comes down to it, China will probably develop its own means to make tools it needs and can't get from elsewhere. But even for whatever China is blacklisted from buying, it can route equipment sales through other countries that aren't blacklisted.
The Dutch won't, China is one of their largest trading partners, and the retaliation they would face for bowing to US pressure would ruin their economy unless the US is willing to step up in their place, which they aren't. It would be a lose-lose deal for them and they shouldn't take it.
 

NightReaver

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,813
Well, China controls the means of production now.
Yup. These are the fruits of our effort of making everything as cheaply made as possible. Who could have possibly guessed that China would just start reverse engineering everything.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
What you get for trusting literal commies 💅
The initial plan back in the 1950s when the US started investing large sums in rebuilding the Chinese manufacturing sector after Japan destroyed it during WW2 was that they would feel indebted to the US for the help and it would work to improve their relations and they could shift them from a Communistic society to a Democratic one. And like pretty much all of the US's plans for foreign countries and their interference with their progression it didn't work out that way and they ultimately just created another "enemy".
 

staknhalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
3,071
The initial plan back in the 1950s when the US started investing large sums in rebuilding the Chinese manufacturing sector after Japan destroyed it during WW2 was that they would feel indebted to the US for the help and it would work to improve their relations and they could shift them from a Communistic society to a Democratic one. And like pretty much all of the US's plans for foreign countries and their interference with their progression it didn't work out that way and they ultimately just created another "enemy".

they didn't create another enemy, they failed to recognize they always were - chickens coming home to roost now
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,025
The initial plan back in the 1950s when the US started investing large sums in rebuilding the Chinese manufacturing sector after Japan destroyed it during WW2 was that they would feel indebted to the US for the help and it would work to improve their relations and they could shift them from a Communistic society to a Democratic one. And like pretty much all of the US's plans for foreign countries and their interference with their progression it didn't work out that way and they ultimately just created another "enemy".

I'd argue that the thing that allowed China to become the powerhouse it is today, was not the U.S. aiding with their manufacturing base, but rather Nixon opening up relations with the country in 1971. It was hailed as a success at the time, that would help preserve peace through commerce, but with hindsight being 20-20, maybe this shouldn't have been done.

Prior to that they were essentially a pariah state that didn't participate in the global economy. Opening up relations with China allowed them to export and grow their economy to where it is today.

If you believe geopolitics analysts like Peter Zeihan (who granted is quite the click-bait artist) he is very bearish on China.

He points to their recently having to admit that they over-counted their population by some 100 million people, and once adjusted the population curves look a lot like a demographic collapse worse than Japan. This combined with the rampant debt spending to maintain jobs and grow the economy at unrealistic artificially high rates over the last couple of decades means that they are both in a precarious economic situation, and are going to be dealing with all the issues related to an aging population.

The real estate collapse they are seeing right now is only the beginning. The - granted impressive - Chinese high speed rail system is not financially viable due to all the dept it has taken on, and it is HUGE. it might be next, and so on.

Zeihan predicts China won't be around as a nation, at least not in its current form, in 10 years time. That is a bit click-bait-ish, but he certainly has a point that they have some challenges ahead, and maybe we shouldn't be worrying about them as much as we are.

Either way, if we ever wind up in an armed conflict with them, all we have to do is blockade the Malacca strait (and maybe the Gulfs of Oman and Aden) with our superior navy. They won't be able to do anything about it, as the part of their navy which is blue water/ocean going, is pretty tiny. They will run out of oil and grind to a halt in no time at all. You can't stockpile that much oil in advance, and none of their "belt and road" initiatives or pipelines to Russia can make up for the supply. Take some long range cruise missiles to the Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean oil pipeline (humorously enough, ESPOOP) for good measure and you can speed up the process.

I suspect China's heyday has already come and is waning. The next rising power is probably India.
 
Last edited:

Camberwell

Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
906
I'd argue that the thing that allowed China to become the powerhouse it is today, was not the U.S. aiding with their manufacturing base, but rather Nixon opening up relations with the country in 1971. It was hailed as a success at the time, that would help preserve peace through commerce, but with hindsight being 20-20, maybe this shouldn't have been done.

Prior to that they were essentially a pariah state that didn't participate in the global economy. Opening up relations with China allowed them to export and grow their economy to where it is today.

If you believe geopolitics analysts like Peter Zeihan (who granted is quite the click-bait artist) he is very bearish on China.

He points to their recently having to admit that they over-counted their population by some 100 million people, and once adjusted the population curves look a lot like a demographic collapse worse than Japan. This combined with the rampant debt spending to maintain jobs and grow the economy at unrealistic artificially high rates over the last couple of decades means that they are both in a precarious economic situation, and are going to be dealing with all the issues related to an aging population.

The real estate collapse they are seeing right now is only the beginning. The - granted impressive - Chinese high speed rail system is not financially viable due to all the dept it has taken on, and it is HUGE. it might be next, and so on.

Zeihan predicts China won't be around as a nation, at least not in its current form, in 10 years time. That is a bit click-bait-ish, but he certainly has a point that they have some challenges ahead, and maybe we shouldn't be worrying about them as much as we are.

Either way, if we ever wind up in an armed conflict with them, all we have to do is blockade the Malacca strait (and maybe the Gulfs of Oman and Aden) with our superior navy. They won't be able to do anything about it, as the part of their navy which is blue water/ocean going, is pretty tiny. They will run out of oil and grind to a halt in no time at all. You can't stockpile that much oil in advance, and none of their "belt and road" initiatives or pipelines to Russia can make up for the supply. Take some long range cruise missiles to the Eastern Siberia–Pacific Ocean oil pipeline (humorously enough, ESPOOP) for good measure and you can speed up the process.

I suspect China's heyday has already come and is waning. The next rising power is probably India.
Whilst I don't disagree with most of this, I feel that to say that their navy is so inferior is slightly wide of the mark:
https://news.usni.org/2022/08/18/ch...llistic-missile-subs-by-2030-says-csba-report

Additionally, I would argue that whilst China's ageing population will undoubtably be an issue, their ability as a one party totalitarian regime to simply force their population to work to their will a-la-North Korea means that they are far from a waning power, especially since we are globally so dependant on their manufacturing....India has a ways to go before they can take up that mantle.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,025
Whilst I don't disagree with most of this, I feel that to say that their navy is so inferior is slightly wide of the mark:
https://news.usni.org/2022/08/18/ch...llistic-missile-subs-by-2030-says-csba-report

Additionally, I would argue that whilst China's ageing population will undoubtably be an issue, their ability as a one party totalitarian regime to simply force their population to work to their will a-la-North Korea means that they are far from a waning power, especially since we are globally so dependant on their manufacturing....India has a ways to go before they can take up that mantle.

They have some serious economic problems going forward, so I highly doubt they will be able to keep up the economic growth they have seen to date, which pays for their massive military expansion.

China today has by one metric - total number of ships - the second largest navy in the world (only second to North Korea, which apparently has a fuck ton of little patrol boats or something)

1663365817108.png


Most of those Chinese ships - however - are small frigates and coastal corvettes lacking the capability to stray far from China.

If we look at a more meaningful metric, total displacement, things look very different:

1663365897251.png


These are - of course - today's numbers (well, maybe a few months ago's numbers, as I don't think the Russian displacement has been adjusted for the loss of the Moskva yet) and there is no accounting for how much China will expand in the near future, but given all of their challenges ahead, I highly doubt they will be able to keep up the pace they have to date, and building 5 more carriers by 2030, that's an incredible increase in pace.

Time will tell though. I think reality will turn out to be somwehrre in between the extremes of Peter Zeihan's "China won't exist by 2030" and the popular "China will dominate the world by 2030". I think China will very much be around in 2030, but I don't think they will be much more powerful or influential than they are today, and probably less so given their economic and demographic struggles.
 

staknhalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
3,071
They have some serious economic problems going forward, so I highly doubt they will be able to keep up the economic growth they have seen to date, which pays for their massive military expansion.

China today has by one metric - total number of ships - the second largest navy in the world (only second to North Korea, which apparently has a fuck ton of little patrol boats or something)

View attachment 510820

Most of those Chinese ships - however - are small frigates and coastal corvettes lacking the capability to stray far from China.

If we look at a more meaningful metric, total displacement, things look very different:

View attachment 510821

These are - of course - today's numbers (well, maybe a few months ago's numbers, as I don't think the Russian displacement has been adjusted for the loss of the Moskva yet) and there is no accounting for how much China will expand in the near future, but given all of their challenges ahead, I highly doubt they will be able to keep up the pace they have to date, and building 5 more carriers by 2030, that's an incredible increase in pace.

Time will tell though. I think reality will turn out to be somwehrre in between the extremes of Peter Zeihan's "China won't exist by 2030" and the popular "China will dominate the world by 2030". I think China will very much be around in 2030, but I don't think they will be much more powerful or influential than they are today, and probably less so given their economic and demographic struggles.

Also number of aircraft carriers matters, floating militaries on their own

1663366393344.png
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
They have some serious economic problems going forward, so I highly doubt they will be able to keep up the economic growth they have seen to date, which pays for their massive military expansion.

China today has by one metric - total number of ships - the second largest navy in the world (only second to North Korea, which apparently has a fuck ton of little patrol boats or something)

View attachment 510820

Most of those Chinese ships - however - are small frigates and coastal corvettes lacking the capability to stray far from China.

If we look at a more meaningful metric, total displacement, things look very different:

View attachment 510821

These are - of course - today's numbers (well, maybe a few months ago's numbers, as I don't think the Russian displacement has been adjusted for the loss of the Moskva yet) and there is no accounting for how much China will expand in the near future, but given all of their challenges ahead, I highly doubt they will be able to keep up the pace they have to date, and building 5 more carriers by 2030, that's an incredible increase in pace.

Time will tell though. I think reality will turn out to be somwehrre in between the extremes of Peter Zeihan's "China won't exist by 2030" and the popular "China will dominate the world by 2030". I think China will very much be around in 2030, but I don't think they will be much more powerful or influential than they are today, and probably less so given their economic and demographic struggles.
And Canada doesn't even make the list...
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,025
Also number of aircraft carriers matters, floating militaries on their own

View attachment 510825

Lists like these are always difficult.
Russia's one carrier - for instance - the Admiral Kuznetsov hasn't left port since 2017 when it returned from Syria for an overhaul. It entered Russias only floating dock large enough to hold it, but the dock sank, and a crane collapsed ontop of the ship punching a huge hole in the flight deck. A couple of years later there was an accidental fire on board, from what I hear gutting the ship.

Since then little work has been done, as I understand they need a new dry dock to work on it in, and while Putin has ordered one be built, the company that is supposed to do the work hasn't even started, as I understand they fear not getting paid for their work. Last the ship was seen in satellite images, it looked unrecoverably rusted:

1663367431596.png



But more importantly, even in it's heyday, the Admiral Kuznetsov is less than half the displacement than a U.S. Super carrier, and is more similar in capability to what we in the U.S. would call an "Amphibious Assault Ship" which can carry almost as many aircraft. Oh, and the U.S. has 9 in addition to our 11 super carriers, with 11 more either under construction or in the planned construction queue.

The same goes for the supposed Spanish aircraft carrier, which is half the size of a U.S. America Class Amphibious Assault Ship

The British carriers are a little bit larger, but still only about 65% the size and capability of a U.S. super carrier.

China has 3 carriers at this point. The first 2 are ex-Soviet carriers, similar in size and capability to the Admiral Kusnetsov above (albeit in better shape)

Their 3rd, and newest carrier, the Fuijan, which is currently fitting out is a little bit more capable. Exact displacement and potential air wing size is unknown, as China is more tight lipped about these things than the west, but best guesses from pictures suggest that it is similar in capability to a UK Carrier, maybe a little larger, about 70% the size of a U.S. super carrier. The difference is that the UK carriers are "ski jump" types, and the Fuijan is CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) like U.S. designs.


I guess this is just a really long way of saying that the U.S is in a league of its own when it comes to carriers. Not only do we have 11 super carriers, of the ~100k ton size, but we also have 9 more amphibious assault ships, large enough and with the capabilities that other nations would call aircraft carriers.

If China is able to reach the 5 level by 2030 as suggested in the article above, that likely means 3 of them are these 70% size models compared to U.S. super carriers, and the remaining 2 are the size of our amphibious assault ships (and are really old and unreliable Russian designs)

Even then, which seems a stretch for China, their "aircraft carrier" fleet would - if we count Super carriers as 100%, Fuijan style carriers as 70% and Amphibious Assault Ships and China's two older carriers at 50% be only a fraction of ours. 20% of the U.S. Carrier capacity, to be exact.

And they also need to build the escort ships to follow those carriers out into blue waters....
 

staknhalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
3,071
Yeah while I wasn't even going into different classes of carrier, and even with accounting for margins of error of 'not really in service/seaworthy', or not discovered/disclosed yet, it was more to show just that no matter what way you slice it

I guess this is just a really long way of saying that the U.S is in a league of its own when it comes to carriers.

Kinda like the old saying, the largest air force in the world is the US Air Force, the second largest air force in the world is the US Navy 😁
 

NickM

Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
522
Lists like these are always difficult.
Russia's one carrier - for instance - the Admiral Kuznetsov hasn't left port since 2017 when it returned from Syria for an overhaul. It entered Russias only floating dock large enough to hold it, but the dock sank, and a crane collapsed ontop of the ship punching a huge hole in the flight deck. A couple of years later there was an accidental fire on board, from what I hear gutting the ship.

Since then little work has been done, as I understand they need a new dry dock to work on it in, and while Putin has ordered one be built, the company that is supposed to do the work hasn't even started, as I understand they fear not getting paid for their work. Last the ship was seen in satellite images, it looked unrecoverably rusted:

View attachment 510837


But more importantly, even in it's heyday, the Admiral Kuznetsov is less than half the displacement than a U.S. Super carrier, and is more similar in capability to what we in the U.S. would call an "Amphibious Assault Ship" which can carry almost as many aircraft. Oh, and the U.S. has 9 in addition to our 11 super carriers, with 11 more either under construction or in the planned construction queue.

The same goes for the supposed Spanish aircraft carrier, which is half the size of a U.S. America Class Amphibious Assault Ship

The British carriers are a little bit larger, but still only about 65% the size and capability of a U.S. super carrier.

China has 3 carriers at this point. The first 2 are ex-Soviet carriers, similar in size and capability to the Admiral Kusnetsov above (albeit in better shape)

Their 3rd, and newest carrier, the Fuijan, which is currently fitting out is a little bit more capable. Exact displacement and potential air wing size is unknown, as China is more tight lipped about these things than the west, but best guesses from pictures suggest that it is similar in capability to a UK Carrier, maybe a little larger, about 70% the size of a U.S. super carrier. The difference is that the UK carriers are "ski jump" types, and the Fuijan is CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) like U.S. designs.


I guess this is just a really long way of saying that the U.S is in a league of its own when it comes to carriers. Not only do we have 11 super carriers, of the ~100k ton size, but we also have 9 more amphibious assault ships, large enough and with the capabilities that other nations would call aircraft carriers.

If China is able to reach the 5 level by 2030 as suggested in the article above, that likely means 3 of them are these 70% size models compared to U.S. super carriers, and the remaining 2 are the size of our amphibious assault ships (and are really old and unreliable Russian designs)

Even then, which seems a stretch for China, their "aircraft carrier" fleet would - if we count Super carriers as 100%, Fuijan style carriers as 70% and Amphibious Assault Ships and China's two older carriers at 50% be only a fraction of ours. 20% of the U.S. Carrier capacity, to be exact.

And they also need to build the escort ships to follow those carriers out into blue waters....

Key point right there. Attack subs LOVE unescorted carriers.
To add, our navy has been doing this for a long time (blue water ops) and under actual combat to boot. China, not so much...
 

Wade88

Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
851
The initial plan back in the 1950s when the US started investing large sums in rebuilding the Chinese manufacturing sector after Japan destroyed it during WW2 was that they would feel indebted to the US for the help and it would work to improve their relations and they could shift them from a Communistic society to a Democratic one. And like pretty much all of the US's plans for foreign countries and their interference with their progression it didn't work out that way and they ultimately just created another "enemy".
Germany worked out pretty well in that department though.
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
11,252
We've already seen that one company's process node can't be directly compared to another company's process node based on the advertised nanometer measurement alone. And based on how much China fudges it's numbers and outright lies about almost anything for propaganda reasons, I'd be surprised if this new tech is even 25% as good as they claim it is. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if it even works at all.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
We've already seen that one company's process node can't be directly compared to another company's process node based on the advertised nanometer measurement alone. And based on how much China fudges it's numbers and outright lies about almost anything for propaganda reasons, I'd be surprised if this new tech is even 25% as good as they claim it is. Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if it even works at all.
It works, it's a clone of the TSMC 7 process, a good enough clone that it even duplicates some of TSMC 7's known flaws. Side by side under a microscope they are almost indistinguishable.
SMIC steals one of TSMC's nodes every couple of years, they then get sued for it, then they work something out in mediation. It's been their tactic for progressing their nodes for a long time and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
TSMC expects it to happen at some point, industrial espionage there is just too hard to contain, the hardest part for SMIC is getting the equipment to actually pull it off in any significant quantity. The Dutch company that manufactures it is backlogged by years worth of orders and by the time SMIC gets the fab running at full capacity 7nm will be old'ish news for anything pushing the envelope. TSMC builds this eventuality into their node pricing as they know it's only a matter of time before it happens and isn't something they have the power to stop indefinitely.
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
554
It works, it's a clone of the TSMC 7 process, a good enough clone that it even duplicates some of TSMC 7's known flaws. Side by side under a microscope they are almost indistinguishable.
SMIC steals one of TSMC's nodes every couple of years, they then get sued for it, then they work something out in mediation. It's been their tactic for progressing their nodes for a long time and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
TSMC expects it to happen at some point, industrial espionage there is just too hard to contain, the hardest part for SMIC is getting the equipment to actually pull it off in any significant quantity. The Dutch company that manufactures it is backlogged by years worth of orders and by the time SMIC gets the fab running at full capacity 7nm will be old'ish news for anything pushing the envelope. TSMC builds this eventuality into their node pricing as they know it's only a matter of time before it happens and isn't something they have the power to stop indefinitely.
Makes you wonder if this is the product of that AMD / China venture a few years back. :cautious:
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,486
Makes you wonder if this is the product of that AMD / China venture a few years back. :cautious:
No this is the result of 2 years of the Chinese government putting pressure on their fabs to step up their game because there is a demand that isn’t being met. China and India are huge growth sectors, and they don’t want to let that slip by because they couldn’t build it or worse weren’t allowed to build it. The threat of US sanctions on the manufacturing equipment to make the chips is a very serious one that if it ever occurred would be crippling.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,797
So far based on people breaking down and analyzing the 7nm chips it appears to have been built with a knock off of TSMC’s 7nm tech. Right down to some of the flaws in their process. TSMC is probably gearing up to sue them hard so this should get interesting pretty fast.
Na no they won't be suing. At some point China is going to decide having commercial flights flying in listing the destination as Taiwan, Province of China isn't enough anymore. They are not going to be poking the bear.

I mean what is a forgiven court really going to do ? What bar them from selling chips outside of China ? :)
 
Top