Interview with Nikolai Ivanovich Shelepin, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Head of the scientific department of Microelectronics, Institute of Nanotechnology of Microelectronics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in the yearbook "Living Electronics of Russia 2025"
We met with Nikolai Ivanovich Shelepin to discuss the results of the recent Microelectronics 2024 forum, in which he participated as a moderator, the feasibility of the Microelectronics Industry Development Strategy, issues of import substitution, technological safety and personnel training.
Brief biography of N. A. Shelepin, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Head of the scientific department of Microelectronics, Institute of Nanotechnology of Microelectronics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Year of birth: 1954 He graduated from MIET in 1980 with a degree in Electronics and Automation.
He defended his PhD thesis in 1991 and his doctoral thesis in 2002.
1980-1990: Research Institute of Molecular Electronics.
1990-2005: NPK "Technological Center", Deputy Director for Scientific Work.
2005-2012: JSC NIIME and Micron, Deputy General Director.
2012-2021: NIIME JSC, First Deputy General Director.
Government awards: medal "850th Anniversary of Moscow", Order of Friendship, medal of the Order "For Services to the Fatherland, II degree". Winner of the Russian Federation Government Prize in Science and Technology in 2001, 2007 and 2015.
He is the author of about 200 scientific publications and reports at scientific conferences, including 15 copyright certificates and 12 patents for inventions.
Since 2022, he has been the head of the scientific direction "Microelectronics" at the INME RAS.
The main functions in accordance with the "Regulations on the head of the scientific direction "Microelectronics":
• coordination of the activities of scientific schools and areas of scientific (research), scientific and technical
and INME's innovative activities in the field of microelectronics;
• general scientific guidance and coordination of the implementation of scientific grants, scientific and technical programs, contracts and agreements in the field of microelectronics.
In one of your recent interviews, you suggested that microelectronic companies do not need the most modern photolithographs to meet the urgent needs of the Russian market – it is enough to master the range from 180 to 40 nm and create a foundation for the future. In this regard, how do you feel about the statement by the representative of the Ministry of Industry and Trade at the Microelectronics 2023 forum that by 2027 Russia will have mass production of microprocessors according to 28 nm standards on 300 mm wafers?
Judging by the numerous information gleaned from the media, the plan for the development of 28nm technology on plates with a diameter of 300 mm in 2027 really existed and had reason to succeed. This plan was drawn up long before 2022, and it seemed that there was an opportunity to overcome the existing difficulties, mainly related to sanctions restrictions. I believe that the statement made by the representative of the Ministry of Industry and Trade was based on exactly those plans. Now, in conditions of severe total restrictions on the supply of microelectronics equipment, due to which even Chinese companies, as a rule, do not risk openly cooperating with Russian companies, this deadline will be postponed indefinitely. At the same time, I believe that, despite all the difficulties, this goal should remain a priority for Russia, since only walking can master the road.
I would also like to note that the reason for the judgment about the irrelevance of creating our own extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) installations is the lack of all other equipment for technology levels 16-14 nm and below, for which the use of EUV is relevant. These developments have not yet begun, as in order to implement them on their own, it is necessary to go through previous levels, gain experience, achieve positive results and overcome mistakes. In addition, 28nm technology is carried out without the help of EUV lithographs – lithographs operating with a wavelength of 193 nm are used.
This question follows from the previous one. A few years ago, speaking at the microelectronics forum, you said that the goals set out in the Strategy for the Development of the Electronics Industry until 2030 were impossible to achieve either financially or technically in the face of sanctions. Accordingly, it is necessary to set other real tasks. Has anything been done to correct these impossible goals?
I must state with satisfaction that a lot has been done. Most importantly, the volume of public investment in the development of microelectronics has increased many times and is currently comparable to similar investments in a number of countries with a developed microelectronics industry. At the Microelectronics 2023 Forum, Deputy Prime Minister D.V. Manturov said that the state allocated 147 billion rubles for the development of the industry in 2023, and in 2024 the volume of 2010 billion rubles was planned. In 2020, the volume of financing amounted to only 10 billion rubles. Developments have begun in all areas: technological equipment, ultra-pure materials, computer-aided design systems, technologies for manufacturing photomasks and the microcircuits themselves. Of course, Russian investments are inferior to American or, even more so, Chinese investments, but they are many times more than before. And if back in 2021, after reading the Strategy, the state of Russian microelectronics could be expressed in the words "frozen in anticipation," then already in 2022 and, moreover, in 2023, it can be considered that Russian microelectronics "ran." Question: where will we reach by 2030? In addition to the whole range of scientific, technical and technological problems that need to be solved, the problem arises very acutely: where will many new highly qualified specialists come from at once to implement the tasks set in these terms?
Formally, the "Strategy for the development of the electronic industry until 2030", approved in January 2020, has not changed. At least, there are no reports about it. But the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade is developing specific plans for the development of microelectronics. In the spring of 2023, two key documents for the domestic microelectronic industry were approved – the "Concept of Technological Development for the period up to 2030" and the decree of the President of the Russian Federation "Fundamentals of Russia's state Policy in the field of electronic industry development for the period up to 2030 and beyond." All this proves the seriousness of the government's intentions to bring the microelectronic industry to a decent level.
However, the solution of these tasks in terms of achieving the technological level of 28 nm in 2027 and 14 nm in 2030, provided that it is impossible to purchase the appropriate technological equipment, seems unrealistic. It should be noted that the key technological equipment for the production of the most advanced chips is manufactured by a very limited number of companies. These include: ASML (Holland), Applied Materials (USA), Lam Research (USA), KLA (USA), Tokyo Electron (Japan), which have been reaching this level for decades. At the same time, even Chinese microelectronic companies that have mastered the level of 28 nm or less are still manufacturing on the equipment of leading global companies, and not on their own. By the way, in 2023, $40 billion worth of chip manufacturing equipment was imported to China.
What were your impressions of last year's Microelectronics 2024 forum? How do you assess the overall quality of the reports and the relevance of their topics? Are you not embarrassed by the fact that many of the papers presented by the speakers are still at the level of research or intent?
The Forum was very representative and well organized. The quality of the reports and their relevance correspond to the level of development of our science and technology in the field of microelectronics. The fact that many reports still remain at the level of research or intentions reflects objective reality – significant investments in the development of the industry began almost only in 2022, and the time for their return in the form of practically realized achievements has not yet arrived.
What are the main difficulties you see in ensuring the technological security of our state? How to get around them? What mechanisms of interaction with the Government should be adjusted or adjusted to better address these challenges?
To answer such a difficult question, it would be necessary to proceed from the definition of what "technological security of the state" is. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a definition of this concept in regulatory government documents. Therefore, I would like to reduce the question to the following: the concept of technological security is equivalent to the concept of technological independence. And to move from general technological independence to technological independence in the field of microelectronics, which in modern conditions is a key factor in general technological independence. At the Microelectronics 2024 forum, discussions were held on the topic "Technological independence in microelectronics – what is it?", including at the TASS Round Table, where the following conclusion was drawn: technological independence in microelectronics is the ability of the state to provide manufacturers with the forces of the domestic microelectronic industry, with some interaction with microelectronic companies from friendly countries. The electronic equipment of the defense industry and CII is a necessary set of electronic component base to ensure national security.
Based on these definitions, the answer to the question of the difficulties is obvious. There is only one difficulty – to raise the microelectronic industry to the specified level. This problem cannot be avoided. It must be overcome. Currently, the level of interaction between the entire microelectronic community and the government is the highest, as the main representative of this community is the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who is a professional in microelectronics.
To what extent, in your opinion, are Chinese microelectronics manufacturers able to replace the departed Western companies? We are not talking about simple products like universal operational amplifiers, but about high-performance microcontrollers, precision time-lapse chips, etc.
Let's formulate the question correctly. There have never been Western manufacturers of microelectronic products in Russia, unlike China or Malaysia. But it was relatively easy for us to buy microchips from Western companies, although this did not always comply with their legislation regarding obtaining licenses (mainly American). For such violations, some suppliers even ended up in American prisons. After the introduction of harsh sanctions, these purchases have become much more complicated. The technological level of Chinese advanced companies significantly exceeds that of Russia. Besides, there are a lot more of them. Accordingly, the purchased chips from Chinese manufacturers are largely capable of replacing chips from Western companies, including high-performance microcontrollers and other ICS manufactured using technology up to 28 nm. But not all of them that we would like to purchase. It should also be understood that Chinese companies do not want to be included in the US restrictive lists for cooperation with Russia.
The Ministry of Industry and Trade has long introduced the status of "Russian manufacturer", which gives certain advantages to its owner. How much will this measure help import substitution?
Any state support for a Russian microcircuit in the form of preferences or other advantages over foreign IP promotes import substitution – recently, for example, it became known about the scandalous exposure of forgery of documents for the assignment of the status of a Russian microcircuit.
Is parallel import a panacea or a palliative? Is it helping to restore domestic electronics or, on the contrary, holding back its development?
Such imports cannot be a panacea – there is a risk of their termination at any moment. Naturally, this is a palliative, since there are many in-demand microchips that are manufactured only by companies from unfriendly countries that support US sanctions. Given the huge number of problems currently being solved, parallel imports are a necessity that does not hinder the development of domestic microelectronics.
It is clear that one cannot count on such a development of domestic microelectronics, which would significantly reduce its lag behind developed countries, and there are many objective reasons for this. And yet: is this the final verdict, or can we hope, for example, that combining engineering efforts, resources, and joint financing within the framework of the BRICS will eventually allow us to master the necessary advanced technologies? Or will generous and well-controlled government financing allow for the implementation of qualitatively new approaches and give a powerful impetus to the development of microelectronics?
Let's start from the middle of the question. Is it possible for several countries to cooperate within the framework of BRICS to create advanced microelectronics? For this, it is necessary that these countries are ready to receive the same level of US sanctions that Russia is experiencing. In my opinion, this is still unrealistic. In addition, the country with the most advanced microelectronics should obviously be at the head of this cooperation. In BRICS, this is China. Is China ready to share its technology with other countries, and especially with India?
As for some qualitatively new approaches that will provide a revolutionary breakthrough in the development of microelectronics technologies, I do not believe in them for two reasons. First of all, you can't fool physics and technology. The revolutionary stages of development were the creation of transistors and planar technology for manufacturing microcircuits. Further, everything has evolved and continues to evolve, mainly due to the reduction in size and complexity of technology. Secondly, in more than forty years of my work in microelectronics, I have had the opportunity to prepare dozens of reviews on supposedly revolutionary proposals from various organizations and citizens. I do not remember any of them that would have a justification for experimental verification.
Now to the beginning of the question. The statement that "... such a development of domestic microelectronics, which would significantly reduce its lag behind developed countries, cannot be counted on," in my opinion, is incorrect. Which countries are we talking about? And what kind of technology? In 2024, only two corporations in the world, TSMC (Taiwan) and Samsung (Korea), manufactured chips with a technological level of 3 nm and planned to reach the 2 nm level in 2025-2026. I agree that so far the way to achieve a level close to that achieved by these companies is not even visible. Owning such technologies is very, very expensive, and many companies that were among the leading ones 5-10 years ago stopped at one or another previous technological level, and then switched to manufacturing chips based on their developments at TSMC and other contract factories (foundations). It is likely that Russia could have followed this path, but advanced foundations stopped fulfilling Russian orders. And now we are overcoming the problems that have multiplied many times and we are very sorry for the missed opportunities. For example, about a project that was proposed back in 2009, when we were just completing the launch of 180 nm technology on plates with a diameter of 200 mm. The project involved the construction of a new plant and the development of 65 nm technology on 300 mm plates. For some reason, there was no funding for it at the last moment. But then it was possible to implement the project without any special problems, by analogy with the launch of 180 nm and then 90 nm technology at NIIME and Micron. The equipment could be bought, and several foreign companies were ready to sell a license for the technology. If that project had been completed and further development had been supported, then 28nm technology could have appeared in Russia by 2014. However, what happened happened.
I believe that the current goal of the development program for our industry should not be the pursuit of the most advanced level, but the achievement of technological independence in microelectronics, as defined above.
How can we accelerate the development of domestic microelectronics? How to ensure a close connection between the Research Institute's developments and microelectronic production?
Let's start with the second one. Industrial "microelectronic" research institutes have long become joint-stock companies and earn money by fulfilling orders from the government and other customers for the development and production of microelectronics products. Therefore, there is simply no such question, for example, for the Research Institute of Electronic Technology (Voronezh) or the Research Institute of Molecular Electronics (Zelenograd).
The institutes of the Academy of Sciences, which are funded from the budget, are quite another matter. Until recently, they worked according to their own programs, often unrelated to the practical tasks of the industry. In addition, their equipment does not allow them to carry out developments that could be immediately used in industry. And this seemingly intractable problem has a simple solution, which naturally requires costs.
In a country planning significant development of microelectronics, it is necessary to have a common research center equipped with standard technological equipment for manufacturing CMOS chips with a technological level of at least 180 or 90 nm with the possibility of further modification. This center should be equipped with good analytical and control and measuring equipment, have a sufficient number of free NPPs to accommodate new pieces of equipment during the development of new technological processes, testing and testing of technological equipment and materials being created. This center should not mass-produce any products. Developments should be immediately transferred to production at existing plants, which will coordinate technical specifications and ensure implementation. Thus, this center is a kind of analogue of the IMEC research center in Belgium, which has long been dreamed of in our microelectronic community. I believe that without such a center, the creation of advanced Russian microelectronic technologies and equipment will be severely hampered.
By the way, in 2023, five institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences dealing with microelectronics were transferred to the Kurchatov Institute National Research Center. Apparently, it is assumed that the concentration of efforts under a single management will allow the Kurchatov Institute to make some major breakthroughs in domestic microelectronics. Let's hope, but time will tell.
As for the question of how to accelerate the development of domestic microelectronics, the answer to it could take several pages of recommendations, but I will offer only four. Since the main investor in the development of microelectronics is the state, the ministry, which manages this process on behalf of the state, must implement:
− qualified management of allocated investments, for which appropriate decisions are made based on the opinions of professionals;
− qualified control over the implementation of research and development at all stages of R&D;
− adoption of the program's purpose and roadmap, indicating clear nodes and time stages of technology development;
− government support for enterprises and organizations that ensure the implementation of key technology development nodes.
To what extent, in your opinion, does the training of future engineers meet the requirements for their future activities in the field of microelectronics? As an MIET graduate, what would you recommend, for example, to add to the student training program in order for them to adapt to production faster?
The training programs for future engineers are quite satisfactory. The question is about the quality of their presentation to students and the willingness of students to perceive the material. The goal of higher education is to provide future engineers with basic knowledge and the ability to apply it to master their future specialty, including information about books and reference books in which the required information can be found. None of the graduates will be ready for professional activity immediately after university without an internship in their future specialty directly at the enterprise during their studies. The practice of completing an internship and completing a thesis (or master's thesis) directly at enterprises provides full-fledged training of specialists, fairly rapid adaptation to production or R&D as part of the enterprise's team. If there is no such practice, then a graduate who has come to a specific job from the university will become a specialist in about a year with a good mentor. I would not risk suggesting any changes to the content of the training programs. I repeat, the programs are quite satisfactory. Of course, we need highly qualified teachers, who for some reason are always in short supply. And I have a parting message for students who have chosen a job in microelectronics.:
1. In any work related to microelectronics, you can always find something very interesting.
2. Our foreman, during my military service in the Soviet Army, said: "For any higher education, it is necessary to have at least average intelligence."
