Depends on the aircraft -- after all, for this depiction it's not meant to be able to recover all sorts of aircraft (fighters, AEWC, UCAVs, COD) -- it's only meant to recover a specific category of UCAVs.
Potentially, depending on the UCAV they go for, they may not need a full sized carrier landing strip.
One other thing I would consider changing from the artist is that I think the entire "launch" section (including the jet blast deflector and full length of the catapult) can overlap partially with the landing strip, after all this thing shouldn't be intended to achieve the fixed wing launch tempo of a proper carrier and it definitely shouldn't need simultaneous recovery and take off capability (incidentally from what I've read, that is rarely done in other navies anyhow where instead flight ops are done in launch and recovery "cycles").
The depicted ship looks like it's 300m long, which is near CV-16/17 length and way too large.
Merging the launch section and the landing strip could shave off 30-40 meters in length.
Incidentally I would increase the beam/width by a bit however.
But of course all of this is speculation ++, and results merely from the recent posts about 076 being a project to expect some time in the future and that it will have a capability that is a surrogate for STOVL.
I'm puzzling over how credible it is to have an EM catapult and arresting wires.
I can see an argument for a ship which can switch between Amphibious Warfare and Sea Control.
Given China-centric scenarios, if the Type-75/76 were optimised for Amphibious warfare, it would only be used during the initial stages of an amphibious invasion, then would spend the rest of the time without much of a mission.
So it would make sense that Chinese LHD philosophy would emphasise sea control more than US LHD designs which carry a battalion of marines and emphasises a forced amphibious assault far from home.
For the 200km distance between Taiwan and Fujian, you don't really need to permanently base helicopters on a Type-76.
Helicopters can be based in Fujian and still have more than enough range to reach Taiwan.
For example, a Seahawk or Blackhawk has a range of over 600km.
So the Type-76 could be used mainly as a platform to refuel and rearm attack helicopters and UCAVs.
Intensive maintenance and repairs would be performed on mainland China, which would have the advantage of being cheaper, faster and safer than on a ship.
---
And with the advent of EM catapults, the technology risk is far lower than for steam catapults.
After all, an EM catapult system is essentially:
1. A battery system which can be placed anywhere and should be straightforward to swop out.
2. A power cable which has no moving parts as it is just a long piece of metal.
3. The EM catapult track which runs along the surface of the flight deck, which makes it easy to fix or replace.
4. The Linear Induction motor which runs along the catapult track. It's easy to swop out the motor.
Even if the EM catapult doesn't work, the Type-76 would still be able to operate fine in its primary role as a helicopter carrier.
So perhaps the Type-76 is the test system for the Chinese EM catapult?
