Truthfully, I doubt these missiles will perform up to snuff, for the reason of “overkill”. A misunderstood term, it means “missile failure”, for a multitude of reasons.
The US has long had the very best ICBM missiles in the world, yet these very high quality missiles could never overcome overkill. I think they maxed out at 70%, an almost unrealistic number for success. In an actual fight, their overkill might drop to 30-40%, which is why, in past, both the US and USSR had such enormous arsenals of nukes.
Well, this Chinese missile might look impressive on the ground, and travel at very high speeds, but that just makes overkill worse. It’s called the law of diminishing returns, and with missiles, it’s pretty brutal.
When I looked at the various failures (and successes too) of US missile defense systems tests, I was struck by how many of the failures were NOT actually directly due to pushing the edge of the technology. Instead, many of the failures were “stupid stuff” / lack of attention to ordinary mechanical details, and such. (Paraphrasal) “Retaining arm did not retract”, and so on.
Having dealt with Chinese vendors in the past on many occasions regarding MUCH simpler items*, my experience is that it is VERY difficult to get the Chinese to consistently pay attention to detail, or not sneak in some substandard aspect to the quality. It’s not impossible to get “good stuff”: we had one magnet supplier who was literally better quality than any of the US sources, but, they were very much the exception. Even the European companies operating in China could be maddening to deal with when it came to QC.
*Basically, those were components to go into assemblies (definitely no “rocket science” type goods) made in the USA. We were sometimes forced to go to China because US vendors had conceded the field.)
Anyway, I don’t disagree with your point, but, it does seem as if when one pushes the edge, more failures show up throughout the endeavor.