Update
CV-16, CV-17 STOBAR carrier thread (001/Liaoning, 002/Shandong)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Yankee: As everyone knows, the Liaoning carried J-35s on this voyage.
But he said this in context of mocking the Japanese for not providing enough info... So there is some sarcasm.
But it does sound like they already assume J-35s are on the ship, and that they were eagerly waiting for J-35 news from the JP MOD
But he said this in context of mocking the Japanese for not providing enough info... So there is some sarcasm.
But it does sound like they already assume J-35s are on the ship, and that they were eagerly waiting for J-35 news from the JP MOD
State CCTV in May 2026 confirmed that the J-35 and J-15T have “perfectly adapted” to Liaoning’s ski-jump launch system, signalling J-35 has been adopted outside the Fujian class carrier. Liaoning and Shandong with J-35s is such a lethal upgrade.
I wonder if rocket assistance take off for KJ-600 is feasible on Liaoning (ignoring the hangar space limits) or is there sortie limits with rocket assisted take off?
I wonder if rocket assistance take off for KJ-600 is feasible on Liaoning (ignoring the hangar space limits) or is there sortie limits with rocket assisted take off?
No offense, but where is the original source for CCTV’s report confirming that the J-35 “perfectly adapted” to Liaoning’s ski-jump launch? Why cite a report from some random Malaysian military fan site as source?
Trash article from a trash website.
My recommendation is to actively ignore that website and pretend it doesn't exist. They do not source adequately and they do not report accurately.
They are "defence blog" or "eurasian times" or "military watch magazine" tier in terms of diligence, and as you can see in the article they don't have any link to the original claimed CCTV report itself.
I feel like the idea of trying to operate KJ-600 on the STOBARs with various awkward methods come up every six months or so.
It's better to not wonder about it and just accept it as a non-possibility for now.
There is a reason why rocket assisted takeoff isn't practiced by any naval force (or indeed any air force) for their aircraft operations.
Just be straight forward and say that the site itself is trash.
There's way too many military blog/news outlets these days which can masquerade as if they are credible, but it's easy to fall into a trap of thinking they are somehow legitimate if they look somewhat presentable and if they have legible writing (regardless of whether it's written by a human being or AI).
As for the CCTV video itself, it is probably from here -- where CCTV did air a segment indirectly conveying (via "commentator) floating the idea") that J-35 might feature aboard the recent Liaoning excursion:
Then if you put it through a layer of clickbait website writing style, technically one could make the case that a "catapult compatible fighter so far only seen launched from a CATOBAR ship" being operated from a STOBAR ship is "perfectly adapted" in the sense that it can operate from it in terms of flight operations.
Now, on the one hand I'm not a fan of clickbait trash tier military websites and writeups, but it's also pretty obvious to know what they're actually talking about once you strip away the exaggeration.
These trash websites ultimately are annoying partly because they are so transparent. There's barely any mystery to the way they write.
In this video, the relevant segment is from 01:00 to 01:35. He first mentioned the J-15T, stating that it is capable of both ski-jump and catapult launch. He then said,”Therefore, during this training mission in the Western Pacific, it is worth noting whether the aircraft carrier Liaoning is carrying any improved, new carrier-based aircraft.”(“所以呢，这一次到西太平洋进行训练, 航母辽宁舰上有没有改进的新型的舰载机，值得外界关注。”) This phrase clearly has a logical connection to the J-15T mentioned previously. With my grasp of Chinese, I don’t believe this interview can serve as evidence that the Liaoning carries J-35s.
Such insinuations—made by a guest on a CCTV program (we’ve seen guests make baseless claims on these shows before) through very indirect questioning—simply cannot be taken too seriously.
Most importantly, if the J-35 were actually on the Liaoning, I believe we would see it reported on very soon. Until then, there’s really no point in speculating based on such flimsy evidence.
See here
They also titled it with relation to the J-35.. And mentioned J-35 elsewhere when linking the article, like on Weibo
So it’s not as simple as dismissing it outright. But given how noisy the information is, it’s probably best to mostly discount it.
My read of it is that the J-15T is already a well established aircraft, especially as we've already seen Liaoning carry J-15T before. That is to say, it is not "improved, new" because it is considered a known quantity.
The reference to J-15T being capable of both ski jump and catapult launch of course would be a reference to "gosh, what other new and improved aircraft might also be capable of ski jump and catapult launch"
Considering the title of the video is also: " 辽宁舰西太演训，歼-35会上舰吗？", I think it is more than a fair argument to make.
All of that, with the circumstantial indicators (rumours, blurry pics so far, and common sense), means that the CCTV segment imo is less of "evidence" and more "additional indicators on top of existing evidence base".
In any case, as I wrote in my last post, defense security asia and other such outlets are of poor pedigree and exaggerate the veracity of things to fluff up their own articles.
I agree that such insinuations can't be taken too seriously, and the problem with those sort of trash websites is they are too confident and brazen, and they should be taking a nuanced whole of picture view with more conditionals, and hedging their positions a bit more carefully.
But at the same time, we are also in a position where we happen to know it's overwhelmingly likely that Liaoning this time has gone to sea with J-35s onboard.
The conclusion/claim itself is not inherently wrong, but it has just reached there via the wrong premise/logical route (and this sort of thing happens not infrequently).
===
that said, @Phead128
It may be worthwhile to read websites more carefully.
A few weeks ago you posted a similar link in the J-35 thread with a similar premise, from another trash outlet.
Thank you for pointing that out; I hadn’t noticed the text caption on the video. However, that caption may simply reflect the CCTV Social Media team’s own interpretation.
As for the guest’s quote, if the part following “Therefore” isn’t directly connected to what came before, the entire sentence sounds odd. He explained the J-15T’s situation in detail, but the second half of the sentence suddenly shifts to another aircraft.
As for the guest’s quote, if the part following “Therefore” isn’t directly connected to what came before, the entire sentence sounds odd. He explained the J-15T’s situation in detail, but the second half of the sentence suddenly shifts to another aircraft.
This is perfectly normal. After all, CCTV’s primary audience isn’t made up of military enthusiasts who constantly follow the latest developments in the PLAN’s fighters; most viewers don’t even know the difference between the J-15T and the J-15, so it makes sense to explain it again here. (in fact, this is a common issue among military enthusiasts when analyzing public reports—tend to assume themselves as the target audience. Much of the redundant information in these reports is intended for the Muggles.)