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. **

Trump's Venezuela play just gave Western progressives a masterclass in American hypocrisy.

Steve Bannon, Trump's longtime strategist, told The New York Times the Venezuela assault—arresting President Nicolás Maduro and all—stands as this administration's most consequential foreign policy move. Meticulously planned, Bannon concedes, but woefully short on ideological groundwork. "The lack of framing of the message on a potential occupation has the base bewildered, if not angry".

Trump's rationale for nabbing Maduro across international borders was drug trafficking. But here's the tell: once Maduro was in custody, Trump stopped talking about Venezuelan cocaine and started obsessing over Venezuelan oil. He's demanding US oil companies march back into Venezuela to seize control of local assets. And that's not all—he wants Venezuela to cough up 50 million barrels of oil.

Trump's Colonial Playbook

On January 6, Trump unveiled his blueprint: Venezuela releases 50 million barrels to the United States. America sells it. Market watchers peg the haul at roughly $2.8 billion.

Trump then gleefully mapped out how the proceeds would flow—only to "American-made products." He posted on social media: "These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela's Electric Grid and Energy Facilities. In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner."

Trump's demand for 50 million barrels up front—not a massive volume, granted—betrays a blunt short-term goal. It's the classic imperial playbook: invade a colony, plunder its resources, sail home and parade the spoils before your supporters to justify the whole bloody enterprise. Trump isn't chasing the ideological legitimacy Bannon mentioned. He's after something more primal: material legitimacy. Show me a colonial power that didn't loot minerals or enslave labor from its colonies.

America's Western allies were silent as the grave when faced with such dictatorial swagger. But pivot the camera to Hong Kong, and suddenly they're all righteous indignation.

The British Double Standard

Recently, former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith penned an op-ed in The Times, slamming the British government for doing "nothing but issuing 'strongly worded' statements in the face of Beijing's trampling of the Sino-British Joint Declaration." He's calling on the Labour government to sanction the three designated National Security Law judges who convicted Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai of "collusion with foreign forces"—to prove that "Hong Kong's judiciary has become a farce." Duncan Smith even vowed to raise the matter for debate in the British Parliament.

The Conservatives sound principled enough. But think it through, and it's laughable. The whole world's talking about Maduro right now—nobody's talking about Jimmy Lai anymore.

Maduro appeared in US Federal Court in New York on January 6. The United States has trampled international law and the UN Charter—that's what Duncan Smith would call "American justice becoming a farce." If Duncan Smith's so formidable, why doesn't he demand the British government sanction Trump? Why not sanction the New York Federal Court judges? If he wants to launch a parliamentary debate, why not urgently debate America's crimes in invading Venezuela? Duncan Smith's double standards are chilling.

Silence on Venezuela

After the Venezuela incident, I searched extensively online—even deployed AI—but couldn't find a single comment from former Conservative leader Duncan Smith on America's invasion of Venezuela. Duncan Smith has retreated into his shell.

Duncan Smith is fiercely pro-US. When Trump visited the UK last September amid considerable domestic criticism, the opposition Conservatives didn't just stay quiet—Duncan Smith actively defended him, calling Trump's unprecedented second UK visit critically important: "if the countries that believe in freedom, democracy and the rule of law don’t unite, the totalitarian states… will dominate the world and it will be a terrible world to live in."

The irony cuts deep now. America forcibly seizes another country's oil and minerals—Trump is fundamentally an imperialist dictator. With Duncan Smith's enthusiastic backing, this totalitarian Trump has truly won.

Incidentally, the Conservative Party has completely destroyed itself. The party commanding the highest support in Britain today is the far-right Reform Party. As early as last May, YouGov polling showed Reform Party capturing the highest support at 29%, the governing Labour Party languishing at just 22%, the Liberal Democrats ranking third at 17%, and the Conservatives degraded to fourth place with 16% support.

The gutless Conservative Party members fear offending Trump, while voters flock to the Reform Party instead. The Conservatives' posturing shows they've become petty villains for nothing.

Lo Wing-hung

Recommended Articles