@Bltizo ok just for the sake of argument let us assume it will not operate manned fighters for whatever reason, does China have a maneuverable unmanned fighter aircraft that can be as effective in A2A as an STOVL manned fighter?
After all Pop3 said it will solve the problem of not having STOVL by having catapults, STOVL fighters can do both land attack and A2A combat, so again the question is does China have a maneuverable unmanned fighter aircraft that can be as effective in A2A as an STOVL manned fighter? Because if China doesn't have something like that then that means even before this ship exists the Type 076 has already failed in completely circumventing the issue of not having STOVL for the LHDs.
I'm genuinely asking, I will be happy if China has such an amazing drone that is as capable in A2A combat as an STOVL fighter taking off of an LHD, because if China doesn't have that then the Type 076 is already a big overpriced flop because it can only target helpless land and sea targets (eg: Somali pirates) but can't match an STOVL fighter in A2A.
My answer is simple -- I believe that the 076's fixed wing complement will not be as capable as the USN LHDs in terms of A2A.
The 076's reason for having catapults and arresting gear is to make up for the fact that China doesn't have a high end STOVL manned fighter.
The catapults and arresting gear is to enable a fixed wing solution for this ship.
However -- and I can't emphasize this enough -- the primary role of this ship, the 076 is still amphibious assault.
It doesn't matter if the drones are much less capable than an F-35B in the A2A role because it can conduct as capable strike if not more capable strike missions than the F-35B.
The naval A2A role will be left to other friendly assets in the area like carriers where operating manned tactical fighters makes sense. 076's drones otoh will be supplementing the task force's strike capability.
I think the 076's UCAVs will -- by virtue of their design -- be capable of conducting strike missions against well defended targets against high technology foes, as well as conducting persistent ISR in high and medium intensity environments. Not against pirates and undefended targets, but rather against command centers, air bases, naval ports, all defended by IADS and CAPs, or secondarily against high technology naval targets and formations.
When the insiders have said that 076 will have a solution to make up for its lack of F-35Bs -- I interpret that to mean they will have a solution to give 076 fixed wing aviation capabilities relevant to its mission. But that doesn't literally mean giving it a manned fighter to match or exceed the F-35B.
=====
@Bltizo Also one last thing, since the tonnage of the LHD was increased to at least 50k tonnes from the previous 36k tonnes of the Type 075, and since the flight deck will be modified and will have arrestor wires and catapults, that means the price of this ship will increase significantly and it will be as costly as any other regular aircraft carrier in this tonnage range.
Now does it make any sense why the F would China build such an expensive ship while not giving it the capability to launch manned fighters?
For a smaller cost, the Chinese could have built a proper smaller conventionally powered aircraft carrier the size of the Charles De Gaul so it can operate all kinds of aircrafts not just drones, this would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars, and if they want to transport soldiers this much they could use some of the money they saved to buy one or two Type 071 (a single type 071 costs 200$ million).
If this giant expensive type 076 realy does turn out to have no manned fighters then it will be the biggest expensive flop in the history of Chinese shipbuilding.
Just to make it clear, I bet my left test*cle that the Type 076 will have manned fighters and will be more capable than the America-class in A2A since the J-35 will take off of it with their full load unlike the F-35.
Displacement doesn't translate automatically to cost. An 076 LHD design with a single catapult and arresting gear is going to cost less than an equivalent tonnage proper dedicated carrier with multiple catapults and a greater speed.
For modern ships, displacement is not the primary driver, but rather its subsystems are.
You are arguing that because 076 is bigger than 075 and has CATOBAR facilities therefore it must be expensive and equivalent in cost to a full sized carrier -- but I see it the other way around. I think the fact they were willing to build an LHD with CATOBAR facilities must mean that such a ship must be substantially cheaper than a proper carrier.
As for 076, your comparisons with the Charles De Gaulle is absolutely telling, because you are thinking about 076 as an aircraft carrier first rather than as an LHD first.
Everything that has been written so far has stated that 076 is primarily an amphibious assault ship.
Just because 076 may not normally operate manned fighter aircraft and not be capable in the A2A role doesn't change that. This is not forgetting of course that fielding a complement of fixed wing UCAVs would provide a much more attritible and potentially even stealthier and longer ranged strike capability than the F-35B as well.
I don't see how that is a flop.
Rather than seeing 076 as an enlarged 075 LHD with the ability to conduct stealthy long range fixed wing strike and ISR, you're comparing it with proper CATOBAR carriers or comparing it with the F-35Bs that the USN operates and expecting 076 to be able to match or exceed the USN's F-35B+LHD combination in every single domain.
Temper your expectations a little.
Finally, I want to again add that I am not saying 076 will be unable to launch or recover manned fighter aircraft.
However I am saying that I don't think 076 will operate with them routinely -- and 076s primary fixed wing complement will be UAVs instead.
