Is confirmation based on official PLA statements or just pictures of launches? Confirmation of launches itself does not necessarily equate to being in service. For example, the first in flight carry of the Meteor missile on board the Rafale was on 9/9/2005. The in service date of the Meteor on board the Rafale is this year. There is a gap of 15 years between first picture and in service date. Weapons integration is typically a long drawn out affair. My point is there is a wide degree of interpretation especially with the opaqueness of PLA activities.
Read what I wrote in my last post -- "At present, the only confirmed missiles
that can be launched from the UVLS on 052D and 055 are YJ-18 (AShM variant) and HHQ-9."
So what did the paper actually said which I will reproduce below.
Emphasis here is “top priority”
Emphasis here is “could be”
Emphasis here is “will be”
Emphasis here is “would”.
Essentially those statements are describing probable future state of inclusion rather than your preferred approach based on differentiation between credible and non-credible rumors. Just because they take a different approach in describing the situation does not make their analysis less credible. or effective. Rumors after all are rumors until proven otherwise.
Nice try, but no.
For example, their description for image six states "This graphic illustrates seven different missile types compatible with the vertical launch system (VLS) aboard the Type 055. These include two types of antiship cruise missiles, three types of anti-air missiles, an anti-submarine rocket-torpedo system, as well as a land-attack cruise missile"
-- and that is a non-official CGI depicting YJ-18, HQ-16, HQ-9, DK-10, YU-8, CJ-10, and YJ-83.
Even the part that you quoted is incorrect; for example this part -- "For the Type 055, the air and missile defense mission is described as “top priority” (重中之重). 64 SAMs for air defense include the HHQ-9B long-range surface to air missile and the HQ-16B midrange air defense missile." -- describes air and missile defense as the top priority mission for 055 which is completely sensible, but then it describes HQ-16 as being one of the SAMs for this role, which is inconsistent with what we know about the UVLS.
The idea of 055 being equipped with CJ-10 is also illogical because that would go against what we know about the LACM YJ-18 variant for the UVLS which would fulfill essentially the same role.
Not to mention your "future qualifiers" doesn't work here, because 052D and 055 uses the same UVLS and any weapon that is physically compatible with one will be
physically compatible with the other of an equal length (that's the whole point of having a universal VLS), and we have no evidence that any missiles other than HHQ-9 and YJ-18 have been launched from 052D's UVLS either.
Even the use of "future qualifiers" for 055 doesn't absolve the authors of their mistakes, because given the lead 055 was only commissioned last month, it goes without saying that integration of various weapons will take time to happen in the
future. However, they are clearly writing it in a way where they
expect those weapons to be part of 055's future weapons package.
All of this says to me that these authors took a look at some modern ships articles and some non-official CGIs and took their interpretations at face value rather than doing a bit more critical thinking.
Let's dispense with this charade and just accept that the authors didn't look too closely at some of what they've written and they put too much value on some sources and diagrams. Everyone here knows that foreign analyses of new PLA weapons are usually of dubious quality.
The foreign analyses and papers that do a
legitimately good job on leading edge PLA matters are organizational structure and changes, and they are usually the first to provide hints of new PLA ballistic missiles being developed or tested, usually by virtue of being able to receive word of mouth relays from contacts within the US military establishment.
(Some defense journalists who visit trade shows or who have contacts with foreign military forces that use Chinese military equipment are also worth their salt as well)
But for matters of analysing domestic PLA ships and aircraft, foreign analyses and papers are of dubious quality at best, and I'm in awe that you would try to suggest otherwise.
.... and nothing that you or anyone else has written so far has made any good points to counter this statement "As far as English language articles on the 055s go, this one is above average, but it is
obviously below the quality of understanding that most of us have for the 055."
Unless of course you don't pay attention to what the community provides in terms of 055 related pictures, rumours and information, in which case I can understand how that paper may be seen as impressive.