Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

China’s ‘DeepSeek Moment’ in Military Tech – Pakistan’s 6–0 Air Battle Upsets US Confidence

Blog

China’s ‘DeepSeek Moment’ in Military Tech – Pakistan’s 6–0 Air Battle Upsets US Confidence
Blog

Blog

China’s ‘DeepSeek Moment’ in Military Tech – Pakistan’s 6–0 Air Battle Upsets US Confidence

2025-05-21 13:27 Last Updated At:13:27

A few days ago, I found myself discussing the “India–Pakistan Air Battle” with a young acquaintance. To my surprise, he had no idea what I was talking about. It made me realize just how little coverage this textbook case of modern warfare has received. For the benefit of those who don’t follow military affairs, let’s break down why this event matters.

Earlier this year, India suffered a terrorist attack, which it swiftly attributed to a group operating out of Pakistan. In response, the Indian Air Force launched “Operation Sindoor” in the early hours of May 7, targeting what it called “terrorist facilities” inside Pakistan. India expected a swift, overwhelming victory—after all, it had the numbers and the hardware. Yet, the outcome was a resounding victory for Pakistan.

What unfolded was a beyond-visual-range(BVR) air battle—jets from both sides never even saw each other. India fielded over 70 fighters; Pakistan, just 30. Neither side crossed the border; missiles flew across invisible lines. Despite India’s numerical advantage, it got nothing for its trouble. On that day, Pakistan scored an astonishing 6–0: using Chinese-built J-10CE fighters and PL-15 long-range air-to-air missiles, it downed three of India’s latest French Rafale jets, two Russian Su-30s, a MiG-29, and even an Israeli drone. In over an hour of dogfighting, Pakistan’s J-10CEs emerged unscathed. In the days that followed, they also downed an older French Mirage 2000 and even neutralized a Russian S-400 air defense system.

So, what happened? Pakistan deployed a fully integrated Chinese aerial combat system. India threw its best jets into the fight (notably, the US refused to let Pakistan use its F-16s). Indian jets, shielded by early warning aircraft, tried to sneak in at ultra-low altitude to avoid Chinese-made HQ-series missiles. They stayed well inside Indian airspace, planning to hit-and-run. Yet, despite their careful planning, they were tracked and shot down 70–90 kilometers from the border—without ever crossing it.

How? Pakistan used Chinese ZDK-03A early warning planes, electronic warfare jets, and ground radars to monitor the whole airspace. They even intercepted the downed Indian pilots’ radio chatter. The attack model was “A shoots, B guides”: early warning aircraft locked onto Indian jets, relayed targeting data to the J-10CEs, which, without switching on their own radar, fired PL-15 missiles from extreme range. The Rafales didn’t even know they were being targeted.

The PL-15 is the world’s first air-to-air missile with a dual-pulse engine. It’s guided by external data links in its early phase—no need to use its own radar, so it flies “silent.” The Rafale’s sensors pick up nothing. Only when the missile is 20 kilometers from its target does it ignite again, sprint for the kill, and switch on its own radar for a terminal lock. By then, the pilot has only seconds to react—nowhere near enough time to evade or jam the missile.

The PL-15’s range is up to 300 kilometers; the export version Pakistan uses is rated for 145 kilometers. By comparison, India’s air-to-air missiles don’t exceed 100 kilometers. The Rafale’s MICA missiles, with an 80-kilometer range, were found still attached to the wreckage—never fired. The Indian pilots likely never even knew what hit them.

No other country in recent years has fought such a lengthy, large-scale air battle. This India–Pakistan clash is a case study for every air force—a 6–0 scoreline that shocked even seasoned observers. For years, claims about China’s advanced, affordable weapons were met with skepticism. But after this battle, with $50 million J-10CEs downing $250 million Rafales, the evidence is hard to ignore.

Many analysts have called this China’s “DeepSeek Moment”—a breakthrough as significant as the debut of its AI language models earlier this year. Even the usually skeptical US magazine The National Interest acknowledged the J-10CE’s performance, saying China’s air combat capabilities now have “undeniable credibility.” And remember, the J-10CE is only China’s fourth-ranked fighter.

What does this mean for international relations?

First: China understands what it means to be weak. Recently, a clip of US scholar John Mearsheimer resurfaced online. He said:

“The Chinese talk at great lengths about the “Century of National Humiliation,” which ran from the late 1840’s to the late 1940’s. The cause of that was that China was weak, of which the Great Powers in the system took advantage. So if you’re Chinese today, you understand full well that you don’t want to be weak, because you don’t want to suffer another Century of National Humiliation.”

Second: The US is a ruthless power. Mearsheimer also said:

“The United States, as many of you know and probably many of you don't know, is a ruthless great power. You never want to underestimate how ruthless the United States is. Despite all the liberal rhetoric that we use to cover up our ruthless behavior, we are tough customers, and the Chinese are finding that out now.”

The US is ruthless if anyone dares to challenge it's position

If China cannot develop the world’s most powerful military, how can it face America’s ruthlessness? Fortunately, China has now proven its capability—validated not in its own war, but in real combat elsewhere. In the 2020 China–India border clash, the PLA faced Indian troops with broadswords and spiked clubs, leaving the J-10C on the sidelines. That’s Chinese restraint.

One last point: Pakistan’s 6–0 air battle victory on May 7 proved the strength of Chinese weapons. Four days later, China and the US began tariff negotiations in Geneva. Trump, who bullies the weak but fears the strong, likely pressed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to reach a deal with China ASAP after seeing this show of strength.

Lo Wing-hung




Bastille Commentary

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Some people fancy themselves legal eagles. So they exploit every procedural loophole to challenge the government. The practical effect: draining public resources and burning through taxpayers' cash.

Enter Chow Hang-tung. The former vice-chair of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance took issue with prison dress codes. Her legal gambit hit a wall on Tuesday when High Court Judge Russell Coleman tossed the case and stuck her with the bill.

On September 6, 2024, Chow filed her judicial review application over the CSD's inmate clothing policy. Her complaint: Female inmates must wear long pants during summer unless granted special permission, while male inmates wear shorts. She also alleged that in July and August 2024, she verbally requested permission to wear shorts from CSD staff on two separate occasions—both times refused. Therefore, Chow sought judicial review of both the clothing policy itself and the Department's alleged denial of her shorts request.

Chow was previously jailed after being convicted of "inciting others to knowingly participate in an unauthorized assembly." She's still awaiting trial this year on a separate charge of "inciting subversion of state power."

Court Slams the Door Shut

The High Court judge dismissed Chow's judicial review application. In his judgment, Judge Coleman pointed out that the current inmate clothing policy—including requiring female inmates to wear long pants during daytime in summer—was formulated by the CSD under authority granted by the Prison Rules. The court was satisfied that the Department possessed professional expertise and experience in this area, had carefully weighed various factors and consulted professional opinions during the decision-making process, and conducts continuous reviews. The court ruled that Chow failed to prove the current policy discriminates against female inmates.

The CSD emphasized the importance of uniformity in inmates' clothing. Think of it like school uniforms—it helps train discipline and accommodates female inmates' emphasis on privacy, covering scars, leg hair, and so forth.

Judge Coleman also agreed with CSD Senior Clinical Psychologist Hung Suet-wai's assessment that female inmates' mental health is more vulnerable, and some female inmates are particularly sensitive with unique clothing needs. Additionally, since male staff regularly enter female correctional facilities, appropriate clothing should be provided to protect female inmates' privacy. Wearing long pants therefore allows female inmates to feel psychologically more comfortable and secure.

Regarding Chow's claim that she requested to wear shorts between July and August 2024 and was refused by the CSD, Judge Coleman found her account unconvincing.

What the Evidence Actually Shows

Observing Chow's conduct and the entire judicial review proceedings, several conclusions jump out.

1.⁠ ⁠Chow's passion for making requests

As the High Court judgment pointed out, according to CSD records, between July 2021 and September 2024—a span of 3 years and 2 months—Chow made a total of 297 requests (averaging 21 requests per month).

Yet oddly, never once did she include a request to wear shorts. During the same period, across 136 consultations with CSD doctors, she never mentioned feeling uncomfortable or overheated from wearing long pants, nor had she ever requested to wear shorts for any health-related reasons.

This clearly shows her allegation of making requests that were refused by the CSD was completely fabricated. She's simply hunting for various reasons to challenge the CSD, constantly wanting to sue the government.

2.⁠ ⁠Burning public funds on the public's dime

Chow formally submitted hundreds of requests to the CSD. Just responding to her requests already left CSD Staff exhausted. If dissatisfied, she'd complain through various channels, or even file for judicial review to challenge the Department's decisions—wasting massive CSD resources and court time.

Many people complain about lengthy scheduling delays at the High Court. These "serial filers" constantly filing lawsuits occupy precious court time.

3.⁠ ⁠Prison is not a holiday resort

Jimmy Lai's children complained that it was too hot for him in prison without air conditioning. Before the judgment, Chow's Patreon account grumbled about the inability to shower or change into fresh pants when the trousers get dirty from daily prison routine—freedoms she suggested ordinary people take for granted. They seem to treat imprisonment like a vacation, expecting various freedoms.

Prison indeed, as Chow said, has "no such freedom." If prison offered all sorts of freedoms, plus basically provided food, accommodation, and priority medical care, many people would deliberately commit crimes to go to prison.

How Prison Oversight Actually Works

I am a Justice of the Peace and regularly inspect prisons. I fully understand that to ensure inmates' rights are protected, the CSD provides various channels both within and outside the Department for inmates to voice complaints—for example, to Justices of the Peace who conduct regular visits or to the Ombudsman.

The Department has continuously implemented multiple measures to improve the detention environment within prisons. I've seen powerful fans installed in prisons. New gates and windows with better ventilation efficiency are also being installed to improve air circulation within facilities.

Hong Kong's treatment of prisoners is already very humane—unlike the United States, which sends unconvicted illegal immigrants to prisons in El Salvador with harsh conditions. That Barbie-doll-like US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem even made a special trip to pose for photos outside prison cells in El Salvador, treating inmates' privacy as nothing.

I fully support the High Court's dismissal of Chow's judicial review application and ordering her to pay the CSD's legal costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers.

Lo Wing-hung

Recommended Articles