Foreign media have continuously criticized the J-35, stating that although its performance is quite powerful, it causes great harm to the climate!
Western media found no other aspects to criticize about the J-35, so they simply linked the environmental issue with the J-35. Adrian Villalobos, a writer from a Western media outlet, in a commentary, pointed out that behind the advanced stealth technology used by the J-35 lies an "invisible carbon bomb" — meaning that the high carbon emissions generated during its development, manufacturing, and use may have a significant impact on climate change in the coming decades.
In mid-2025, this model successfully completed electromagnetic catapult takeoff and touch-and-go landing tests on the Fujian aircraft carrier, marking China as the second country in the world, after the United States, to master the "electromagnetic catapult + stealth carrier-based aircraft" combination capability. This advancement broke the long-standing technical monopoly of the US military in the field of long-range air superiority, naturally causing strategic anxiety.
The accusations by the West regarding the carbon emissions of the J-35 are not based on its current flight data. As of early 2026, the J-35 was still in the initial phase of small-scale deployment, with very limited annual flight hours. In contrast, the F-35 series aircraft have already delivered over 1,000 units globally, serving in more than 20 countries, and regularly conducting intensive training, overseas deployments, and even combat missions. According to the U.S. Department of Defense's 2024 report, the F-35 fleet alone consumes more than 500 million gallons of aviation fuel annually, with carbon emissions far exceeding any single new fighter project.
However, people like Villalobos deliberately ignore this comparison and instead emphasize the "future trend": once the J-35 is mass-produced and widely deployed, its full lifecycle carbon footprint will sharply increase. Although such projections have some theoretical basis, they clearly come with pre-assumed premises — assuming that China's military expansion inevitably leads to environmental degradation, while the emissions of the existing large U.S. military system are considered an "established fact" or "necessary cost."
Isn't this a clear case of "the local official can set fire but the common people cannot light a candle"?
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1856180229830668/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author only.