manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Betterer question: Why do you believe that that actually happened? Because Western journalism told you they were tipped by "a Chinese scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his family from the CCP?"
Chinese Hypersonic Developments (HGVs/HCMs)
- Thread starter A.Man
- Start date
Best question : How would american "advanced software" help China build hyper-sonic other than F-35 speed boats?
It seems all the technologies talked about in this article are software. If it’s software it’s possible that there’s simply a lot simulation functions that domestically available software doesn’t provide because domestically available software has been stunted be the lack of a market. That doesn’t necessarily mean that work is bottlenecked by the lack of those functions, but there’s probably a lot of time saving from having those functions at hand.
the article is paywalled, so I will just respond based on your comment and other's comments.
imo, there is nothing wrong with the Chinese alternative here. Writing simulation software isn't difficult. It's possible that American chips and software are a little better, so Chinese MIC used them. But if they are not available, Chinese MIC will just use domestic alternatives. People that write these articles fundamentally don't seem to understand anything about technology.
The US had banned the sales and licensing of Matlab to the seven military-related Chinese universities or institutes over a year ago, apparently causing some inconvenience to these institutes, because Matlab is used in many industries. They had to scramble to find alternatives. Some of these universities, for example NPU (Northwestern Polytechnical University), are well-known in conducting (very successful) hypersonic R&D.
So the US apparently had "aided" the development of Chinese military R&D, including hypersonics. I'm even sure these universities are still using PCs equipped with Intel CPUs. By that logic, Intel is also guilty of assisting Chinese military-industrial-complex.
Where do we draw the line?
So the US apparently had "aided" the development of Chinese military R&D, including hypersonics. I'm even sure these universities are still using PCs equipped with Intel CPUs. By that logic, Intel is also guilty of assisting Chinese military-industrial-complex.
Where do we draw the line?
And the authors of the Washington Post articles are any better in your view?
Even better question: why do you believe that there is a Chinese scientist talked to Washington Post?
You have been posting things like "somebody said something" that can not be verified and you took those somebody for granted and made further questions based on these unverifiable sources.
What if People's Daily write an article claiming that "some US defence scientists told People's Daily that US HGV is decades behind China", then I can ask you "a better question is why do US scientists talk to People's Daily".
Such posts from you are very low in quality. Take advice from other members and stop polluting this forum.
That also means that these American elements are nothing unique related to HGV, it is like US buying Chinese screws and nuts to make their weapon, if it is not from China it can be from India. This defeats the purpose of the WaPo article that is "China relies on US tech which must be sanctioned".
Yeah this was part of what I was getting at.
Yeah agreed. I think insofar as China’s own tech development capabilities are concerned this is more a case of availability rather than capability.
You are assuming the "scientists" exist in real life.
They're fake identities. CIA-controlled sock puppets that provide fake quotes to create fake news.