A few high-resolution images from the parade...
This is not HGV which is a Glider without power plant. The two holes at the back indicate it is a powered craft.Yeah, agreed on putting HGV on an ICBM is going to be a different game compared to the DF-17. But I am wondering whether the HGV below is for longer-ranged missiles including ICBMs. Its design is different from the DF-17 and looks more like the Avangard renditions.
Having inherited those tunnels from the Soviet Union, I would assume they were designed and built with 80s level of technology. Sure they can modernise them but how well they perform is indeed conjecture. I would assume the more recently built Chinese ones would be better the same way a newer car or computer will be better than an old one, to say nothing of wear. But I know nothing about hypersonic tunnels so thanks for correcting me.
As for intercontinental ranges, what is the science behind the assumption that the HGV mockup seen cannot used on df-31 or some other ICBM/ slbm? I get it's a different problem altogether but since none of us are experts let's not assume that what we've seen certainly cannot be used at higher than mach 10 speeds and that China doesn't have any other HGV for those purposes. Showing something is only the tip of the iceberg. You're saying icbm warheads get accelerated to much higher velocities but how do we know China doesn't have something like Avangard? There was a Chinese report years ago reporting on a mach 10 plus test if I recall. I would assume that since China feels an equal threat from the US, why would they also not prioritise HGV for ICBM? Sure HGV operating at mach 20 is more challenging but the spoken aim for Chinese HGV was always to get them on ICBMs.