Anyone upto the task ? ( As long as it makes sense )
They are different. Two reasons:-
First consider the following image. In it each trajectory is at a different altitude:-
Red trajectory peaks at
1000 km altitude or thereabouts (varies widely per range of missile).
Green trajectory (glide phase) is
below 100 km altitude (Karman line).
Yellow is
less than 1 km above ground.
A1P has a MaRV, not a boost-glide vehicle. Look at the
purple part of the trajectory, that is what A1P RV can do.
Green is what the American C-HGB does. But your question is WHY THE HECK WHEN THEY LOOK SO SIMILAR!? And I could go on about the percieved size in difference of fins as well as their slant, but forget that. Here comes the
second reason:
materials.
Hypersonic flight temperatures through atmosphere can lead to air/spacecraft temperature reaching around
2000 degrees C or more.
In the case of most
atmospheric re-entries (terminal part of red/purple trajectories), be it of Spacecraft, Crew capsules, Nuclear RVs or
MaRVs, the
duration of hypersonic flight through the atmosphere is a few minutes because only that last bit of the trajetory is dipped in the atmosphere, rest is outside of it. And the heat shield of choice in this scenario is an
Ablative Heat Shield, because that can withstand these temperatures, but that eats up the shield rather quickly. Another way is what ISRO uses in RLV:
Carbon-Carbon CMCs in the nose.
But
in the case of the HGV/boost-glide vehicle's cruise and terminal stages (
flat part of the green trajectory),
time spent in atmospheric hypersonic flight is much more than re-entry duration of a spacecraft/MaRV. So now, the
materials on the HGV need to withstand that high temperature for much longer. So the usual
ablative or C/C CMCs are not enough as these will completely
erode in minutes and you need sustained flight. What is likely needed is an even
better class of materials: Zirconium diboride or Hafnium diboride based CMCs.
Then there is the entire
control problem for something flying the entire way while blanketed in a plasma sheath. There are ways of mitigating the
comms. blackout due to the plasma, but not sure how useful it is for HGVs. Not sure how much work DRDO has done there, but its probably a lot considering HSTDV.
There is actually
a third reason as well:
pointy-ness <insert General Aladeen meme>. High lift-to-drag ratios are important for gliding, meaning they are important for HGVs, not for MaRVs.
For high lift-to-drag ratio your nose needs to be pointy. Not blunt like the A1P MaRV or RLV. But
pointy nose means the temperature at that tip is much higher (maybe a 1000 degrees higher) than on the blunt nose of a re-entring spacecraft/MaRV. That again
leads to requirement of better materials.
Now your assertion is that these two things look so similar so why aren't they the same. I believe the Americans when they say theirs is an HGV (tho weird shape, I know) because they are probably world leaders in materials science right now. Especially when it comes to aerothermodynamic materials. I also believe our scientists when they do NOT call it an HGV because had this been an HGV, we would have seen tons of slides on this by now. But
your assertion that it could be a secret NCA and DRDO are keeping from us and maybe its secretly an HGV, not a mere MaRV. To that I say "maybe, but I doubt it. Unless we can be sure that ISRO or DMRL have been working on the materials issue and have made headway."
Another reason is because if A1P RV was an HGV,
the Americans who closely watch our tests, would have picked up on it and we might have been reading about it on some RAND Corp report clamouring for a Hypersonics Control Treaty.
Hence I conclude A1P RV is an MaRV, not an HGV. I have just one request. Please be gentle senpai.