Douglas: Thanks for the information. I stand corrected. (I hope I am always willing to change my mind when presented with facts!) :-) Those are pretty compelling numbers. I'm also glad that due diligence was conducted before the legislation was developed. I'll temper my criticism of this particular measure. I also hope it is effective. Any time a human life is at stake there should be no question regarding equipment.
Barbara, I found this statement on page VI of the Committee on Armed Sevices. "Inquiry into Counterfeit Electronic Parts in the Department of Defense Supply Chain" report rather interesting. Our government traced 100 separate counterfeit part incidences back to their source. "China was found to be the source country for suspect counterfeit parts in an overwhelming majority of those cases, with more than 70% of the suspect parts traced to that country. The next two largest source countries were the United Kingdom and Canada. The committee identified instances in which both countries served as resale points for suspect electronic counterfeit parts from China." The same report says that eye witnesses have seen in China ten to fifteen thousand employee staffed factories dedicated to the production of counterfeit parts. So, the Chinese government is not intervening to help curtail this problem. It is, after all, in China's political intererst to trouble our military's effectiveness however passively-aggressive their approach may be. They know they are in the driver's seat and it isn't going to be easy to get the economic car keys back from them.
FLYINGSCOT: Food for thought. There is an advantage to targeting that part of the supply chain as much of the product is funneled to a centralized site--whether it be an EMS or OEM, before manufacturing. It very well may be more efficient than chasing sources of supply.
I don't necessarily disagree that incidents of counterfieting can be linked to trade with China, but I would also point to the following that was mentioned in the above article:
Braasch noted that 58 percent of e-waste generated by the United States is shipped to developing countries. All too often, electronic components such as semiconductors are culled from this waste and then returned to the U.S. and other developed countries in the form of counterfeit parts.
"Free" trade with China has been a huge disaster for the US - a trade deficit of $ 350 billion per year for the last 20 years, xfer and theft of IP, higher cost of commodities, cost of unemployment & loss of tax base here in the US, having to compromise on our standards of human rights due to pressure from China directed through Wall st. and US MNCs who profit from China. It is a cancer that has seriously compromised US competitiveness, economy, society and ultimately our politics, democracy and values.
Contact / interaction with China has changed the US for the WORSE.
So no surprise about the counterfeit parts be it in avionics or jet engines in the military. Contact with China with its still regimented society and population traditionally more concerned about material affluence over democracy has enabled our own shysters to bring in counterfeit components in the name of "free" market and then use a part of their profit / loot to buy lawyers, politicians and the 'free' media here.
@nemos: seems simple, doesn't it? Not only is the US exporting waste to developing nations, but we aren't even following up to make sure it is disposed of properly. Instead of throwing more regulations at the DoD, its contractors and suppliers (although some regs are essential), why not make sure the waste is actually gone? I have to think this is less expensive than following breadcrumbs back to the counterfieters, who won't be prosecuted anyway unless they are "caught" in the US.
Making regulations is one thing and implementing the processes to adhere to the regulations is another thing. The adherence is much more complicated and is more paper work than the actual technical control and that is where the seepage of the counterfeit parts occur.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.