China-made counterfeit parts found in US military aircraft

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

pants3204

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 117
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 04:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post22 May 2012, 16:07

The US Senate Armed Services Committee has issued a report stating that China is a major source of counterfeit electronic components found on aircraft such as the L-3 Communications/Alenia C-27J, Lockheed Martin C-130J and Boeing P-8A.

The committee's investigation discovered 1,800 cases of counterfeit parts, with the total number of individual parts involved exceeding 1 million, the Senate Armed Services committee said in a statement.

"Our report outlines how this flood of counterfeit parts, overwhelmingly from China, threatens national security, the safety of our troops and American jobs," says committee chairman senator Carl Levin.

"It underscores China's failure to police the blatant market in counterfeit parts - a failure China should rectify."

The 112 page report details how counterfeit parts made their way into several high profile programmes.

In November 2010, cockpit display units produced by L-3 Display Systems were found to contain a counterfeit memory chip. At the time of the discovery, over 500 displays had been installed in types such as the C-27J, C-130J, C-17 and CH-46 helicopter.

L-3 had purchased the chips from a distributor in California, which had in turn bought them from a Shenzhen company called Hong Dark Electronic Trade.

Aside from the suspect memory chips, the report claims that L-3 Communications bought "tens of thousands" of Hong Dark's parts in 2009 and 2010.

As for the P-8A, on 17 August 2011, Boeing informed the navy that an ice detection module aboard the aircraft had "a reworked part that should not have been put on the airplane originally and should be replaced immediately."

BAE Systems, which made the module, informed Boeing of the suspect parts in January 2010 - over 18 months before Boeing informed the US Navy about the issue.

BAE had purchased the parts from a California firm called Tandex Test Labs, which had not tested the parts. Tandex had obtained the parts from a Florida distributor, which had in turn bought the parts from an affiliate of Shenzhen-based firm A Access Electronics.

The report cites several such examples. One theme is the failure of contractors to notify their military customers about the counterfeit parts in a timely fashion. It noted that counterfeit parts change hands many times before being purchased by contractors and that "contractors may know little about the ultimate source of the electronic parts they purchase."

The report called for more exhaustive testing processes for parts and for more timely reporting of counterfeit part issues when they emerge.

A committee statement added that the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act has provisions that should "address weaknesses in the supply chain" identified by the investigation.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... te-372155/
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post23 May 2012, 14:31

China? Knockoffs? Never.
Offline

icemaverick

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012, 23:05
  • Location: New York

Unread post23 May 2012, 15:07

Is there any possibility these counterfeit parts could be used for espionage purposes?
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post23 May 2012, 20:42

Yes there's that possibility.
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1930
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post23 May 2012, 23:38

Sabotage is more likely.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
Offline

archeman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post24 May 2012, 09:35

It is possible to try the Espionage bit, but you would need to have your components with secret additional logical processors in a position to send a message out and the memory isn't that place. Besides you couldn't be sure that your invading components with secret transmitters etc were ever ending up in the hands of defense contractors at all. Most will end up in the back of a soda machine counting coins. So espionage would require an extremely precise insert into the right component in the right supply stream of the right contractors that would almost certainly demand the help of an insider.

Count210 has it more correct methinks with Sabotage. It would be far far easier to build tens of thousands of components likely to get picked up as mil spec components and have them all or most rigged to fail after a certain use/hours. That would inflict certain damage and would be difficult to undo.
Offline
User avatar

JoeSambor

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 780
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2004, 05:56

Unread post24 May 2012, 22:09

I wouldn't ascribe any other motive to it but $$$. The fault is in the procurement process and dishonest parts suppliers. There's plenty of counterfeit parts suppliers out there and they will sell to anybody anywhere at any time.

Best Regards,
Joe Sambor
LM Aero Field Service Engineer
Woensdrecht Logistics Center, The Netherlands

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests