The primary function is amphibious operations.
But I'd be surprised if an LHD even spent half its available time on amphibious operations.
So what about the rest of the time?
The secondary function is air operations, as an escort/auxiliary carrier
Your first response said the Type 76 would spend "not much time at all" in support of amphib ops.
My response was based off that. If we move the goal post to "half" the time, my response would be different. See my following response to Andy1974. There are middle grounds that can be a point of discussion.
---
Just look at US Navy doctrine with respect to LHDs.
They're building a new class of LSTs because LHDs are too big, expensive and vulnerable for operations in the First Island Chain
So in a US-China conflict, are these LHDs going to be sitting around in port doing nothing?
Or will the US Navy load the LHDs with aircraft, and use them to support the fleet carriers in the Western Pacific?
Once we get the role wrong, the discussion will always go haywire.
The New Landing Ship Medium or Light Amphibious Warship is there not because the LHDs/LHAs are too big and expensive (well kind of but not kind of). They are to enable the USMC Force Design 2030 role of island hopping, missile launching skirmish in platoon sized units.
Comparing the LSM to LHA/LHD and saying the latter is too big and expensive for ops in the 1IC is therefore rather missing the point. Technically, ARGs are meant for littoral roles and if they have to perform a large amphibious landing within the 1IC, what else are you going to use? That is literally what they are designed for. The big caveat is that Amphib ops require sector air/sea superiority - just like air assaults require sector air superiority. So just like you won't do an air assault into a hive of functioning ADS, you logically would not send a USMC ARG into the 1IC if the PLAF/PLAN are contesting the space. This, by definition is not too big and expensive - you just haven't set the precursor conditions for them to execute their designed for roles.
Enter the Landing Ship Medium/Light Amphibious Warship. Again, saying they replace LHAs/LHDs because they are too big and expensive for 1IC ops is glossing over that they are designed for a different role. They perform a different function. One does not obsolete the other. Under "Force Design 2030", the PTO USMC will be operating in platoon sized missileer units in the Pacific. In peace, they will relocate and resupply these island outpost. Once it goes kinetic. they will then either be performing exfiltration and then bedding down (LSM) or, continue to perform the role of supplying and relocating such missile units in a hot zone (LAW). Apples and Oranges.
The point is, this is a new additive role to the USMC and as such, they have to restructure to fulfill the role. The legacy platforms have not failed at their designed for roles, they still exist. Put it into perspective, 18 LAWs will barely carry what a single LHD does. How does this then even start to scratch the the troop lift capability within a 30 (large and expensive) ship amphib fleet? When you absolutely need to put a division on shore within the 1IC, you will need your LHA/LHD and their ARGs to do it.
Can the LHAs/LHDs be re-tasked as CVLs? Sure ... if there is more value to them in that role. But that value is heavily predicated by their ability to sustain air ops while operating in Deep Blue water. Something which is heavily compromised by having an inherent well deck and cargo decks. Go look at the report on the Lightning Carrier trial for the pro-cons.
---
Also note that US Navy LHDs would primarily operate the F-35B.
In comparison, Chinese LHDs would be expected to primarily operate ISR and maybe subsonic strike aircraft
So we could expect fuel and munitions storage requirements to be lower for the Chinese.
There is also a geographic advantage where Chinese ships can resupply a lot easier.
And if the J-35A flies off the Type 76?
That would make the Type 76 your analogue to the Wasp/America class wouldn't it?
Same-same but different.
If you say that the secondary role of a Type 76 is to perform ISR support via MALE drones, then yes, your overheads will be low(er) and time on station can be sustained even with the amphib compromise. But once you start going into strike/CAS roles, then subsonic/supersonic matters less than how much you are throwing and how often. A F-35B going subsonic, running 4 x 50nm CAS sorties per day in beast mode will consume more stores than a F-35B doing 1 x 500nm strike per day. Your log requirements goes beyond how fuel efficient a single platform is and is really dependent on your mission tasking. When it comes to bombs on target, there is no way for munitions requirements to be less for the PLAN for a similar task unless you're telling us that Chinese bombs are just ... better?
Having easier resupply is a plus. Depending on it is not necessarily good.
Pulling a combatant off the line to regen combat capability simply means that is one less combatant in the fight. So if you are going to leverage the advantage of short lines, you really need more platforms to perform the rotation. Good to have cos numbers means greater ability to sustain but expensive.
If you're doing RAS, then distance to port matters less as your AO/Es will be doing the transiting - something a competent log planner can plan around and for a lot less cost than carrying extra combatants to rotate in port.
