The Americans also did not expect that Chinese scientists would discover the reasons for the repeated failures of the US military's superb weapons, and also published papers pointing out mistakes.
Recently, the South China Morning Post published an article in which Chinese scientists analyzed in detail the reasons for the failure of the United States' continued hypersonic weapon test launches, and pointed out that the hypersonic aerodynamic simulation and analysis software "Vulcan-CFD" led by NASA may have fatal flaws because it cannot accurately predict the chemical composition and temperature changes of aircraft surfaces.
We know that China and Russia are basically far ahead in terms of advanced weapons, while North Korea and Iran also claim to have mastered the technology, and North Korea recently test-fired the Hwasong-16B hypersonic missile.
However, the process of US research and development is not ideal, and it is a typical "early morning and late gathering." Although the development time is the earliest and the investment is huge, it is divided into three major programs: the LRHW and ARRW gliding hypersonic missiles and the HAWC air-breathing hypersonic missile.
LRHW is a joint project of the U.S. Army and Navy, and AARW is a hypersonic gliding missile project led by the U.S. Air Force and developed by Lockheed Martin. Either it couldn't be ignited, or it lost contact halfway. The U.S. military's summary of the foreign military is basically summarized as "this test has obtained valuable and unique data."
In fact, we know that hypersonic missiles themselves have no technical content, they are just fast in flight, as long as the engine is strong enough. However, with the upgrading of anti-missile systems, it is required that high-speed weapons can be accurately guided, flexible and controllable, and can change orbits and communicate during the hypersonic flight phase. That's going to be very difficult.
Previously, the outside world believed that the United States frequently failed to develop high-tech weapons, mainly due to two reasons, the first was that high-temperature resistant wave-transmitting materials were not good, and the second was that black barrier communication could not be solved.
However, according to the team led by Professor Liu Jun, a researcher at the China Hypersonic Technology Laboratory, published in the newspaper Aerodynamics on March 14 According to a previous paper, there is a fatal error in the complex equation of high-temperature ablation used by the Americans to study hypersonic simulation and analysis, that is, the Vulcan-CFD software banned by the United States from China does not take into account the chemical composition and temperature changes on the surface of the aircraft, which directly leads to the material on the nose cone of the hypersonic missile cannot realize photoelectric signal acquisition and communication at high temperatures.
The paper also gives a specific analysis diagram, and it should be said that Chinese scientists have thoroughly pointed out one of the core reasons for the failure of American high-tech weapons. The Vulcan-CFD software, which is considered a treasure in the United States and used to block wind tunnel experiments and aerodynamic analysis in other countries, has serious vulnerabilities.
However, because China insists on developing its own advanced wind tunnels, including its own simulation and analysis software, and building a comprehensive test platform, it has already achieved breakthroughs in advanced materials for advanced weapons and black barrier communications. As the saying goes, "blockades must be countered", Americans never dreamed that the software they are proud of has flaws that everyone ignores.
So, when the technology is actually pierced, it is a layer of window paper, and why did Chinese scientists write a paper to tell the Americans about the reasons for the failure of the United States' superb weapons? Won't it be leaked?
In fact, everyone's worries are the same as mine, that Chinese scientists will believe the Americans' claim that "science knows no borders", publish some core technologies into papers, and make wedding dresses for others. After all, Europe and the United States have had a monopoly on academic publishing for many years.
However, everyone should also rest assured that in fact, our scientists have to go through a confidentiality review in their published papers, and those involving state secrets will not be published publicly. As the saying goes, "stones from other mountains can be used to attack jade", from the analysis of the failure of the development of hypersonic missiles in the United States, we can grow faster.
Moreover, Professor Liu's paper does not point out all the problems, but only roughly explains the direction, which is actually very difficult to solve. The reason why I want to write a paper and publish it in a domestic professional journal is to remind my peers:
First, we should give full consideration to all the elements, and second, we should not be superstitious about authority.
In aerodynamic simulation and analysis, already in the process of developing hypersonic weapons, Europe and the United States have relied heavily on NASA's Vulcan-CFD software, and almost no one has questioned its authority, rather than fully considering any possibilities, which is one of the reasons for the failure of American hypersonic weapons.
In fact, Chinese scientists writing research articles are equivalent to providing "scientific intelligence" to the industry, and using the cases of the failure of US high-tech weapons to analyze and summarize can improve our research. Of course, we also need to prevent the possibility of leakage of some papers involving major research results.
In fact, in recent years, the influence of mainland academic journals has gradually surpassed that of established journals in developed countries in Europe and the United States, but they have no choice but to become a standard and a benchmark for measuring academic achievements, which requires us to constantly adjust and not be superstitious about the standards they set.
Some key research results do not require papers to determine the results of researchers, and the evaluation of researchers does not necessarily depend on the number of articles published in foreign journals and evaluations.
Chinese should have their own academic exchange and evaluation system, and do not use the number of articles published in foreign authoritative journals as the standard, which is the top priority.