Just over a week after a tense ceasefire with India, Pakistan’s foreign minister arrived in Beijing, the nation’s primary arms supplier.
This visit occurs as international analysts and governments are intently scrutinizing the performance of Chinese-supplied weaponry following recent aerial engagements between Pakistan and India.
A striking claim emerging from four days of fighting earlier this month was Islamabad’s announcement that its Chinese-supplied jets had successfully shot down six Indian aircraft, including three French-made Rafale fighters. This assertion has led some observers to interpret these alleged victories as a potent symbol of Beijing’s burgeoning military prowess on the global stage.
However, experts who spoke to AFP have cautioned against drawing definitive conclusions about the capabilities of Chinese equipment based on the limited scope of the recent skirmishes. Lyle Morris from the Asia Society Policy Institute noted, “This was a rare opportunity for the international community to gauge Chinese military hardware on the battlefield against Western (Indian) hardware.”
While China invests hundreds of billions of dollars annually in defense spending, it lags significantly behind the United States as an arms exporter. Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), informed AFP that China’s drones are employed in counter-terrorism operations, and its weapons have been deployed by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and against rebel forces in African countries.
“But this is the first time since the 1980s that a state has used large numbers of Chinese weapons of many types in action against another state,” said Wezeman, referencing the Iran-Iraq war where Chinese arms were utilized by both sides.
According to SIPRI, Pakistan accounts for approximately 63% of China’s arms exports. In the recent conflict, Pakistan utilized the J10-C Vigorous Dragon and JF-17 Thunder planes, armed with air-to-air missiles. Yun Sun from the Stimson Center stated that it was the first instance of the J10-C being used in active combat.
Islamabad’s air defenses also incorporated Chinese equipment—including the HQ-9P long-range surface-to-air missile system—and deployed Chinese radar as well as armed and reconnaissance drones.
“This was the first sustained fight where the bulk of Pakistan’s forces used Chinese weapons and, basically, relied on them as their primary option,” remarked Bilal Khan, founder of the Toronto-based Quwa Defence News and Analysis Group.
India has not officially confirmed any aircraft losses, although a senior security source privately informed AFP that three jets had crashed on Indian soil, without specifying their make or the cause. Rafale manufacturer Dassault has also refrained from commenting.
James Char from Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University noted that while the Rafale is considered one of Europe’s most advanced jets, the J10-C “is not even China’s most advanced.”
However, if Pakistan’s claims prove accurate, Char suggested, “this should not be surprising… considering that the Rafale is a multirole fighter, whereas the J-10C was built for aerial combat and is also equipped with a stronger radar.”
In the days following the dogfight reports, the stock of J10-C manufacturer Chengdu Aircraft Company soared by over 40%.
“We most likely will see more orders going to Chinese contractors,” stated Sun from the Stimson Center. Nevertheless, Jennifer Kavanagh from the US think tank Defense Priorities cautioned that “it will take time and significant reorientation by Chinese arms manufacturers for the country to be a big arms exporter.”
She specifically noted that China “cannot mass-produce certain key inputs, including aircraft engines.”
Wezeman expressed his belief that the stock markets “overreacted,” as “we still have to see how well all the weapons used worked and if it really means much.” Analysts added that even if more data emerges, the conflict still does not reveal much about the Chinese military’s own capabilities.
China’s domestic military systems and weapons are considerably more advanced than those it exports. While possessing high-tech hardware is important, “much more important is how those weapons are used,” emphasized Kavanagh.
Brian Hart of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) advised caution against “reading too much” into recent developments. “I don’t think you can make direct comparisons to how these Chinese-made systems would fare in different environments against more advanced adversaries like the United States,” he explained.
“Since the number of data points is small and since we don’t know much about the proficiency and training of the personnel on either side, it is hard to draw definitive conclusions,” Kavanagh concluded.
