Chinese semiconductor industry

Shenghejing Micro 3D multi-chip integrated packaging project J2B clean room decoration and MEP project started

According to the news released by Jiangyin High-tech Zone, the total investment of the project is 1.2 billion U.S. dollars. After the project is completed, it will reach production capacity of 80,000 pieces of bump technology products per month and 16,000 pieces of three-dimensional multi-chip integrated packaging products per month. The project will focus on the industrialization of three-dimensional multi-chip integrated packaging, and build a new high-end packaging and testing base that is China's leading and world-class.

On February 18, 2022, Shenghejing Micro's 3D multi-chip integrated packaging project officially started in Jiangyin High-tech Zone. According to the news at that time, the Shenghejing Micro 3D multi-chip integrated packaging J2B plant project started this time is expected to be completed and put into use by the end of 2023. After the completion of the project, the company will have a monthly production capacity of 120,000 wafer-level packaging and 20,000 chips for integrated processing.

It is reported that Shenghe Jingwei is the first company in mainland China to focus on the high-density bump processing of 12-inch mid-section silicon wafers, and is committed to the development of advanced silicon wafer-level advanced packaging technology and chip system integration processing business

Focuslight Technology: Achieved breakthroughs in application scenarios such as integrated circuits, advanced displays, photovoltaics, and lithium batteries

proelite said:

So the Lu's willing to give up BATX as sacrificial lambs? Chinese tech companies will retreat en mass from the world market if they can't source the latest technologies to compete in end products.

Click to expand...

Develop mature nodes first, then ban mature nodes from the US and its allies. Doing it before domestic capabilities exist would be a strategic mistake for obvious reasons. The US has its hands tied on banning the supply of mature nodes - which would be the "counter" move to maximize damage to China's industries - because it doesn't want its companies to implode over night. However, you can bet there are people in the US who'd be willing to make that trade because they figure it'd hurt China even more, so the arms race to see who could remove their reliance on the other is on. The strategy for the US and its allies would be to move electronics manufacturing out of China and invest in other markets like India; then they could shift the gravity of chips demand and in so doing, make a ban on mature nodes much easier.

China wins if it builds up 28 nm+ capacity before US companies can successfully disengage. China loses if the US and its allies successfully disengage before it's able to build up mature node capacity, because then the collapse of Chinese tech. companies on the world market will happen any way.

Companies like Xiaomi, Oppo, Huawei, ZTE, DJI, etc. are nothing without chips. Even the electric vehicle companies, the green energy companies, and the quantum computing and biological technology companies will be devastated if China does not secure mature nodes capacity before the US and its allies pull the plug. This is how dangerous this ultimately is - the vulnerability China has to a chips embargo is acute and this is why it needs to be an all of society effort.

Bellum_Romanum said:

last post from the interview:

9. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
Interviewer: Some might argue that if China were to start engaging in fully independent manufacturing, this would clearly indicate its intention to decouple. China's relations with the US and its allies might [then] become increasingly frosty to the extent that the US and the West might in the short term carry out their ban on tech exports to China even more stringently. This would result in what you call ‘a peace of terror or balance of terror’ [‘恐怖的和平或者恐怖的平衡’]. This may be the reason why we do not yet have the resolve to counter it [i.e. the West’s tech crackdown]?


Interviewer: Since you don't advocate decoupling either, how can China not decouple while at the same time establishing fully independent manufacturing in the IC sector?

Click to expand...

absolutely uncanny how people here actually predicted some things correctly. I remember @tokenanalyst saying the exact same things as Lu, who is a professor with 20+ years of experience in development economics.

1. if a company is prohibited from selling advanced semiconductors, then ban anything they make that has a domestic counterpart.
2. focus on tools tools tools and get a 100% domestic supply chain in analog/power/MCU first to dominate the industrial sector
3. use the market as a source of pressure

proelite said:

So the Lu's willing to give up BATX as sacrificial lambs? Chinese tech companies will retreat en mass from the world market if they can't source the latest technologies to compete in end products.

Click to expand...

I understood it as ban any product they make that has a domestic counterpart. BAT are service companies anyhow with tons of tricks to make older node chips work well. Data centers don't toss computers every 5 years after all, right? only Xiaomi would go down, and what is 1 Xiaomi compared to winning independence?

FairAndUnbiased said:

absolutely uncanny how people here actually predicted some things correctly. I remember @tokenanalyst saying the exact same things as Lu, who is a professor with 20+ years of experience in development economics.

1. if a company is prohibited from selling advanced semiconductors, then ban anything they make that has a domestic counterpart.
2. focus on tools tools tools and get a 100% domestic supply chain in analog/power/MCU first to dominate the industrial sector
3. use the market as a source of pressure

Click to expand...

simple, it's the mainstream chip and people need it, it's 90% of the industry...

Bellum_Romanum said:

My apologies in advance if posting this news on this thread is misplaced or too political, or this news has been posted on this thread already. I don't have any expertise, technical familiarity on this subject matter, in other words am a total layman but since this particular industry/technology is very crucial to China's core objective in advancing into high economy not to mention and important and critical component to America's intention of stopping China's ability to establish/gain a firm foothold into this realm of technology in maintaining it's global rules based order a.k.a. American hegemony.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The following interview was published a couple of weeks ago and is certainly one of the more detailed and interesting pieces discussing the current US-China tech war to have been published in China in recent months. For those of you interested in this topic, I would recommend reading it in full. The lengthy excerpts below have been translated with the kind help of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

who is co-authoring today’s post with me.

Lu’s main arguments:

• The scope of Washington’s tech crackdown has always been constrained by the reliance of US companies on the Chinese market. Lu recommends further weaponising Chinese demand.
• Beijing must stop pursuing individual technological targets and should come up with a comprehensive strategy aimed at developing an “independent industrial base” for semiconductors.
• Chinese companies are already present in almost every part of the semiconductor supply chain. The key for China today is to help foster strong supply and demand links between these companies.
• Beijing should set up a body similar to the Mao era’s Central Special Committee [中央专委] that would directly oversee the development of this industrial base.
• China must pursue “fully independent manufacturing” by first de-Americanising its chip supply chain and ultimately replacing almost all foreign made equipment and materials with domestically made ones. Decoupling is bad for everyone, but needs must.
• China should focus less on developing advanced chips and more on building up a domestic industrial chain capable of producing mature chips (≥28nm).
• China’s goal should be to become the world’s main supplier of mature chips and ultimately use this dominance as a weapon against the US and others (if and when necessary).
• Beijing should impose sanctions on any company that complies with the US’s export controls. For example, by banning the sale of NVIDIA’s mature chips and of ASML’s less advanced lithography equipment to China.
• Lu is adamant that China should implement strong countermeasures in response to the US’s current crackdown. Backing down will only make matters worse, he says.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Interviewer: So in order to deal with the US’s tech embargo, do you think that the key is to build up a supply chain [that depends on] internal circulation?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1. The US’s tech crackdown is constrained by the pull of China’s market
Interviewer: The US has been constantly making new moves to block and remove Chinese technology, with embargoes and bans being issued one after the other. How do you analyse this situation?

Click to expand...

Professor Lu Feng (路风) is a political economist, not a technician or a business man....and it shows.

I read the original article, but regarding how to defend from US attack, I failed to find a single practical point that is not already ongoing now....maybe I missed it.

Regarding how to counterattack US, instead the professor makes some claims on which I strongly disagree:

1. "if the US were to block 20% of advanced process products [i.e. advanced chips], we would reciprocate by blocking 80% of mature process products"
(...and make US happy in the process. US target is the technological decoupling of US and their vassal states from China, this will only make their job far easier)

2. “From the perspective of China’s industrial system as it is today, with our own large aircraft project now completed, our only remaining shortfall at the industrial level is in integrated circuits."
(this is a joke! The C919 project heavily relies on foreign technology, not only the engines are from US (and France), but . IC industry is already now far more independent that the C919. He is talking like a politician here.)

3. “If ASML wants to follow the US’s policy and stop exporting its most advanced lithography machines to China, we could, after implementing reciprocal sanctions, ban [封杀] the sale of its ordinary lithography machines [普通光刻机] to the [Chinese] market"
(professor thinks that Chinese fabs buy ASML machines to make a favor to ASML. They buy ASML machines because there are no localized alternative, and I don't mean an alternative with same performance of ASML, but even just an alternative)

4. My principle is to take a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye.
(China should out-smart US, instead directly confront US is a losing proposition, first because US is currently still in the commanding position, and secondly because direct confrontation is the preferred battlefield of US. You go to war to US against their best and proven (and only one) scheme).


All in all, he is a Chinese hawk. There are China hawks in Washington, there are also Chinese hawks in Beijing. IMO if we let hawks to dictate the policies we will go to war and to a world split in blocks....and I don't want to see this, although this is where we are going now.

european_guy said:

Professor Lu Feng (路风) is a political economist, not a technician or a business man....and it shows.

I read the original article, but regarding how to defend from US attack, I failed to find a single practical point that is not already ongoing now....maybe I missed it.

Regarding how to counterattack US, instead the professor makes some claims on which I strongly disagree:

1. "if the US were to block 20% of advanced process products [i.e. advanced chips], we would reciprocate by blocking 80% of mature process products"
(...and make US happy in the process. US target is the technological decoupling of US and their vassal states from China, this will only make their job far easier)

2. “From the perspective of China’s industrial system as it is today, with our own large aircraft project now completed, our only remaining shortfall at the industrial level is in integrated circuits."
(this is a joke! The C919 project heavily relies on foreign technology, not only the engines are from US (and France), but

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. IC industry is already now far more independent that the C919. He is talking like a politician here.)

3. “If ASML wants to follow the US’s policy and stop exporting its most advanced lithography machines to China, we could, after implementing reciprocal sanctions, ban [封杀] the sale of its ordinary lithography machines [普通光刻机] to the [Chinese] market"
(professor thinks that Chinese fabs buy ASML machines to make a favor to ASML. They buy ASML machines because there are no localized alternative, and I don't mean an alternative with same performance of ASML, but even just an alternative)

4. My principle is to take a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye.
(China should out-smart US, instead directly confront US is a losing proposition, first because US is currently still in the commanding position, and secondly because direct confrontation is the preferred battlefield of US. You go to war to US against their best and proven (and only one) scheme).


All in all, he is a Chinese hawk. There are China hawks in Washington, there are also Chinese hawks in Beijing. IMO if we let hawks to dictated policies we will go to war and to a world split in blocks....and I don't want to see this, although this is where we are going now.

Click to expand...

C919 uses foreign components mostly for certification purposes unless you think the infotainment system is much more mission and safety critical, and of far higher difficulty, than the wingbox.

What is your way of outsmarting, follow foreign laws and make it so that the de facto lawmaking body in China is a foreign government? I asked before and nobody could answer: since sanctions are necessarily unilateral, they can just demand the arrest of Xi Jinping or they impose total sanctions. By your logic, what is the freedom of 1 man compared to an entire industry?

european_guy said:

Professor Lu Feng (路风) is a political economist, not a technician or a business man....and it shows.

I read the original article, but regarding how to defend from US attack, I failed to find a single practical point that is not already ongoing now....maybe I missed it.

Regarding how to counterattack US, instead the professor makes some claims on which I strongly disagree:

1. "if the US were to block 20% of advanced process products [i.e. advanced chips], we would reciprocate by blocking 80% of mature process products"
(...and make US happy in the process. US target is the technological decoupling of US and their vassal states from China, this will only make their job far easier)

2. “From the perspective of China’s industrial system as it is today, with our own large aircraft project now completed, our only remaining shortfall at the industrial level is in integrated circuits."
(this is a joke! The C919 project heavily relies on foreign technology, not only the engines are from US (and France), but

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. IC industry is already now far more independent that the C919. He is talking like a politician here.)

3. “If ASML wants to follow the US’s policy and stop exporting its most advanced lithography machines to China, we could, after implementing reciprocal sanctions, ban [封杀] the sale of its ordinary lithography machines [普通光刻机] to the [Chinese] market"
(professor thinks that Chinese fabs buy ASML machines to make a favor to ASML. They buy ASML machines because there are no localized alternative, and I don't mean an alternative with same performance of ASML, but even just an alternative)

4. My principle is to take a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye.
(China should out-smart US, instead directly confront US is a losing proposition, first because US is currently still in the commanding position, and secondly because direct confrontation is the preferred battlefield of US. You go to war to US against their best and proven (and only one) scheme).


All in all, he is a Chinese hawk. There are China hawks in Washington, there are also Chinese hawks in Beijing. IMO if we let hawks to dictate the policies we will go to war and to a world split in blocks....and I don't want to see this, although this is where we are going now.

Click to expand...

I don't think he means now to ban ASML DUV, but when domestic options are available.

As for the C919, yes it contains a large amount of foreign parts, but while replacing those parts with domestic parts is not trivial, it's easier than mastering the skills and tech required as a designer and integrator, just like Boeing and Airbus.

Eventine said:

Develop mature nodes first, then ban mature nodes from the US and its allies. Doing it before domestic capabilities exist would be a strategic mistake for obvious reasons. The US has its hands tied on banning the supply of mature nodes - which would be the "counter" move to maximize damage to China's industries - because it doesn't want its companies to implode over night. However, you can bet there are people in the US who'd be willing to make that trade because they figure it'd hurt China even more, so the arms race to see who could remove their reliance on the other is on. The strategy for the US and its allies would be to move electronics manufacturing out of China and invest in other markets like India; then they could shift the gravity of chips demand and in so doing, make a ban on mature nodes much easier.

China wins if it builds up 28 nm+ capacity before US companies can successfully disengage. China loses if the US and its allies successfully disengage before it's able to build up mature node capacity, because then the collapse of Chinese tech. companies on the world market will happen any way.

Companies like Xiaomi, Oppo, Huawei, ZTE, DJI, etc. are nothing without chips. Even the electric vehicle companies, the green energy companies, and the quantum computing and biological technology companies will be devastated if China does not secure mature nodes capacity before the US and its allies pull the plug. This is how dangerous this ultimately is - the vulnerability China has to a chips embargo is acute and this is why it needs to be an all of society effort.

Click to expand...

That is why nation get stuck in the middle income trap, the west has pretty much locked in higher tech needed to burst through the middle income trap. Only client states like Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have access or are allowed to contribute to that high end tech product catalog for maximum profits.