A look inside the Chinese Beidou system receiver

The Chinese Beidou system receiver. Let's see. From the markings of the components, it's using all kinds of foreign components, there's Texas Instrument, Samsung, Micron, Analog Device, TriQuint and others.

Is that a national security issue for China to rely so much on foreign components into their very sensitive military systems?

As US government decide to block anything Chinese like Huawei and ZTE in US government and even commercial branch.


Also, the HQ9 SAM system have been spotted using Japanese Panasonic sensors and actuators.

And Chinese subs have installed Japanese Electronic Navigator.

Well, Chinese systems still have a long way to go before fully self sufficient.

Is that a commercial beidou receiver or military use receiver?

From what I know large number of Chinese merchant fleet use beidou GPS system. So beidou is not strictly for military use only. I don't see how commercial beidou receiver will affect the security of Beidou GPS or Chinese military strategic interest.

Lion said:

Is that a commercial beidou receiver or military use receiver?

From what I know large number of Chinese merchant fleet use beidou GPS system. So beidou is not strictly for military use only. I don't see how commercial beidou receiver will affect the security of Beidou GPS or Chinese military strategic interest.

Click to expand...

that unit is from the Military receiver.

Would a US military system allows Chinese components inside?

TyroneG said:

that unit is from the Military receiver.

Would a US military system allows Chinese components inside?

Click to expand...

Welcome to globalization. You get components from all over the world, and was build in China, then mixed and match these components into your system.

Frankly, I do not believe that military systems in US, Europe, Japan, Korea, etc, are not using any sub-system from countries like China. I remember a saying from an old movie,

"American system, Russian systems... they are all made in Taiwan." And that show is way back in the 90s. Now it would be like... "American systems, Russian Systems... they are all made in China."

rhino123 said:

"American system, Russian systems... they are all made in Taiwan." And that show is way back in the 90s. Now it would be like... "American systems, Russian Systems... they are all made in China."

Click to expand...

It's Armageddon.

TyroneG said:

View attachment 8527

The Chinese Beidou system receiver. Let's see. From the markings of the components, it's using all kinds of foreign components, there's Texas Instrument, Samsung, Micron, Analog Device, TriQuint and others.

Is that a national security issue for China to rely so much on foreign components into their very sensitive military systems?

As US government decide to block anything Chinese like Huawei and ZTE in US government and even commercial branch.


Also, the HQ9 SAM system have been spotted using Japanese Panasonic sensors and actuators.

And Chinese subs have installed Japanese Electronic Navigator.

Well, Chinese systems still have a long way to go before fully self sufficient.

Click to expand...

Does using small component chips and sub system means China is not self sufficient? Rather its more from a practical point of view that reduces further R&D cost and time.

USN uses Italian Oto Melera 76mm gun and US Army uses Belgium M240 machine gun. Does that means American is incapable of design and producing those things by themselves?

TyroneG said:

View attachment 8527

The Chinese Beidou system receiver. Let's see. From the markings of the components, it's using all kinds of foreign components, there's Texas Instrument, Samsung, Micron, Analog Device, TriQuint and others.

Is that a national security issue for China to rely so much on foreign components into their very sensitive military systems?

As US government decide to block anything Chinese like Huawei and ZTE in US government and even commercial branch.


Also, the HQ9 SAM system have been spotted using Japanese Panasonic sensors and actuators.

And Chinese subs have installed Japanese Electronic Navigator.

Well, Chinese systems still have a long way to go before fully self sufficient.

Click to expand...

The drive for autarchy (full self-sufficiency) is an idiot's quest. It bespeaks of either failure of foreign policy, or failure of understanding of economics, most likely both. One of the most basic principle of economics is expressed by Richardo's law of comparative advantage. It in effect says social wealth is maximized only if each party restrict itself to producing only that in which it enjoys the greatest comparative advantage in efficiency, and trade for everything else it needs.

This is why successful countries don't put itself in the situation that requires it to produce everything it needs for defence itself. Countries which strive for total self sufficiency in defence during peacetime, like the USSR and Nazi germany, or North Korea, tend to be diplomatic or economic failures.

TyroneG said:

View attachment 8527

The Chinese Beidou system receiver. Let's see. From the markings of the components, it's using all kinds of foreign components, there's Texas Instrument, Samsung, Micron, Analog Device, TriQuint and others.

Is that a national security issue for China to rely so much on foreign components into their very sensitive military systems?

As US government decide to block anything Chinese like Huawei and ZTE in US government and even commercial branch.


Also, the HQ9 SAM system have been spotted using Japanese Panasonic sensors and actuators.

And Chinese subs have installed Japanese Electronic Navigator.

Well, Chinese systems still have a long way to go before fully self sufficient.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between having the ability to develop and produce something yourself, and whether it is more cost effective or consistent with timelines to simply procure it from other sources.

That's the nature of trade, to acquire goods from other places which others can do either better than you, or at better cost, while you yourself focus on other products.

If your claim is that china is unable to develop its own equivalents if imports of the internationally sourced subcomponents are ceased, then that is ridiculous.

for US, the general rule of thumb is outsource somethings that it can do easily. Somethings that are less in advance of what it already has.

for China the case is different, it outsource to somethings that it can't make themselves, very much like the import of foreign engines for its planes.

Bltizo said:

There's a difference between having the ability to develop and produce something yourself, and whether it is more cost effective or consistent with timelines to simply procure it from other sources.

That's the nature of trade, to acquire goods from other places which others can do either better than you, or at better cost, while you yourself focus on other products.

If your claim is that china is unable to develop its own equivalents if imports of the internationally sourced subcomponents are ceased, then that is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

this is a military not a commercial related site, so everythings are related to national security issue.
Looks like you talking general economy. No.