One thing I'll say about HTV-2 was that it a pretty ambitious program that tried to achieve very high velocity. It was launched on essentially a Peacekeeper ICBM (Minotaur IV) but the mission failed during the glide phase.
China seems to have solved a lot of the associated issues in the 2021 test on the CZ-2C. It's a different class of gliders to the DF17 glider which has less demanding requirements.
C-HGB is not in the same category at all.
What was the 2021 test on the CZ-2C rocket? Was it the Xiamen university project? (actually on second thought that was certainly not riding on a CZ-2 rocket)... or the one that the US branded as a "FOBS" like weapon? Didn't know that one was confirmed to be a type of glider with much of its flight designed for within the atmosphere. Please elaborate.
Conic design is a natural evolution of MaRV type, they work on much similar fashion. Wedged glider is a much larger step away. If MaRV is Homo Habilis, CHGB is Homo erectus, Wedged glider is Homo Sapien.
I don't know if China ever seriously studied conical "HGV". I speculate that considering China has gained lot experience from DF-21 that works very similar to CHGB type, China sees no reason to repeat something that doesn't add much value and the experience gained from DF-21 is enough to move to the next step.
I do recall a Chinese paper shared on the forum many,
many years back that studied the conical style HGV. In fact, several configurations were shown. Clearly the wedge shaped gliders are superior because China
has indeed test flown conical style HGVs for certain. It is a much lower branch of the HGV tech tree. According to quite a number of US political and military representatives, China has been test flying HGVs since the late 2000s. I do not doubt that some of China's earlier HGVs tested were the double conical type. It makes sense to replace a design with a superior design. Since we see China fielding wedge type HGVs over conical ones, it does seem to suggest wedges are superior to conical.
I like your analogy. Despite there being quite some difference between actual conical gliders and MaRVs, it doesn't stretch the imagination to stipulate how much aerodynamic and control are shared between the two. Certainly much more so than the next evolutionary leap in your example.
As for the venom from CMP, honestly please save that for the actual west stronk retards online rather than sinodefenceforum members who simply do not crowd in on the exact wordings with enthusiasm. That doesn't make us retards... in fact I have completed university level physics albeit a long time ago. totenchan's posts have mostly been fair. I think there's a critical lack of understanding here and potentially also misidentification. But attack the arguments. CHGB is clearly a glider in a way that a MaRV is not. No one here has claimed that the CHGB is the same as the DF-17... I have suggested it is the US attempt and creating a DF-17 equivalent in the sense that it is a HGV... not a capability equivalent. By questioning the whole CHGB beause US gov said so, we absolutely are employing the same faulty logic. A gov isn't necessarily correct or honest but it also isn't necessarily going to lie about this. We know from other sources including Chinese ones that double conical shaped designs are gliders. Again I wanna stress the no equivalency point before people get angry for not chest thumping China stronk.
