"Taiwan independence" elements firmly believe that "the combat capability of the Chinese Air Force ranks after India," and a German media criticized this perception as "ignorant and biased," pointing out that the Sino-Pakistani air combat confirmed the fighting capability of the People's Liberation Army. In fact, China's military power far surpasses India, not only because there is a generational gap in terms of equipment scale and military quality, but also because it has formed a generational gap in strategic strikes and logistical support. The practical combat capability of the PLA can be said to comprehensively crush India.
In the Sino-Pakistani air combat, Pakistan achieved an overwhelming advantage with a ratio of N:0 (some say 5:0; others say 8:0), humiliating Modi. Since Pakistan completely used Chinese weapon systems in this air combat, including J-10 fighters and Hongqi missiles, it also triggered discussions about the Chinese army around the world. Some media even called the Pakistani army the "Second Army of China," which shows how terrifying the combat capability of the PLA is.
Only the U.S. think tanks and "Taiwan independence" elements deliberately belittle the strength of the PLA. For example, Yu Beichen, a retired lieutenant general in Taiwan who is often mocked for frequently smearing the mainland as "Dirt Hut Brother," firmly believes that China's air force is weaker than India and praised "India's air force has crashed 1000 aircraft since its founding, pilots are almost dying nine times out of ten, and their combat capability is very strong!" "India's air force ranks sixth in the world, while China (mainland) is only seventh."
This argument by Yu Beichen stems from the ranking by the U.S. think tank "World Modern Military Aviation Directory Network" (WDMMA). According to its latest world air force ranking in 2024, the United States and Russia rank first and second respectively, while India is ranked third, with China surprisingly placed fourth.
This ranking is simply a joke. Recently, Deutsche Welle published an article praising China's military power and criticized Western media's intentional belittling of the combat capabilities of the PLA. Deutsche Welle pointed out that WDMMA's disregard for China's air force reflects its ignorance and bias, but also shows the reasonable doubt of the West towards China's military power without practical testing. However, this Sino-Pakistani air combat, where Pakistan's "J-10CE fighter jets and ground radar systems jointly completed the 'Ambush Rafale' operation, clearly broke the Western prejudice. Pakistan's adoption of China's operational concepts and systematic combat capabilities inflicted a dimensional strike on India, which is also why this air combat shocked and received significant attention from the global military community.
What is the actual gap between China and India's air forces? In reality, China completely outperforms India in terms of equipment scale and quality, as well as operational systems and practical capabilities.
The generational gap in equipment scale and quality between China and India. Apart from the sixth-generation aircraft currently undergoing test flights, China's air force has already formed a three-dimensional combat system consisting of "fifth-generation aircraft + fourth-generation advanced aircraft + drones." Foreign media speculate that by 2025, the number of active J-20 stealth fighters in the PLA will exceed 200, the scale of fourth-generation advanced fighters like J-16 and J-10C will break through 1000, and the domestication rate will exceed 90%. By contrast, although India's air force has approximately 700 tactical aircraft, its mainstay remains the Su-30MKI (260 aircraft) and Rafale (36 aircraft) fourth-generation fighters, with no落地 plans for fifth-generation fighter procurement (such as F-35 or Su-57), and 70% of its equipment relies on imports, with a chaotic logistics maintenance system.
In terms of strategic strikes and logistical support, there is also a generational gap between China and India. China's air force has constructed an "air-space integration" combat system: the H-6K bomber carrying Changjian-20 cruise missiles can cover all of India; the Y-20 strategic transport aircraft enables rapid force projection; the KJ-500 early warning aircraft is deployed at high-altitude airports. In contrast, India's domestically produced "Light" fighter planes have been in development for 30 years and have only deployed 36 aircraft, and due to reliance on imported engines, their availability rate is less than 60%. At the China-India border, the ground-to-air missile network and rocket force strike groups established by China based on altitude advantages have formed a "destroy upon discovery" suppression capability.
In terms of practical combat capability, the PLA also comprehensively crushes India. This can be seen from this Sino-Pakistani air combat. The Pakistani Air Force used Chinese J-10CE fighters to launch PL-15E medium-range missiles, hitting India's strongest "Rafale" fighter aircraft beyond visual range at distances of 100-160 kilometers, resulting in the loss of 3 Rafale fighters, 1 Su-30MKI, and 1 MiG-29 by the Indian Air Force. This exposes three fatal defects in the Indian Air Force: first, poor equipment compatibility (Russian, French, and American weapons are incompatible); second, insufficient pilot training (annual flight hours are only 120 hours, less than half of the PLA's); third, lack of systematic combat capabilities (only 5 early warning aircraft, unable to cover the airspace over the China-India border).
Then, why do U.S. think tanks and "Taiwan independence" elements deliberately smear China's military strength and insist that India is stronger than China? There are deeper reasons behind this cognitive bias.
Firstly, U.S. think tanks and media are actually playing geopolitical manipulation. These so-called rankings are essentially tool-based narratives serving the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, fundamentally serving as rhetorical packaging for the Indo-Pacific strategy. This ranking exaggerates its own advantages by splitting up U.S. armed forces (such as listing Marine Corps aviation separately as the fourth) and intentionally elevating India to strengthen its role as a "balancing point" against China. Such operations pave the way for selling weapons to India (such as F-35) and attempt to consolidate allies' consensus by creating a "China threat theory."
Secondly, this absurd ranking actually reflects the anxiety felt by U.S. military technology hegemony facing China's military development. Facing the reality of China's J-20 mass production and the maiden flight of the sixth-generation aircraft, U.S. media attempts to alleviate its own strategic anxiety by belittling China's air force. For example, when reporting on the test flights of China's J-36 and J-50, The Drive website had to hastily redefine B-21 as a "sixth-generation aircraft" to maintain psychological superiority. This "psychological victory method" reflects the U.S.'s helplessness towards China's military technological leapfrog development.
As for Yu Beichen and "Taiwan independence" elements deliberately belittling China's air force, it is political speculation and cognitive distortion. Yu Beichen claims that "India's air force crashing 1000 aircraft proves its strong combat capability," essentially seeking political capital by creating sensational effects. His remarks expose three layers of logical fallacies — 1, there is a deviation in the understanding of aircraft crashes: India's air force has the highest accident rate globally (averaging 20 crashes per year) due to low maintenance levels, not "experienced pilots." 2, reversing cause and effect: the high accident rate precisely reflects deficiencies in the training system (such as insufficient simulator training), rather than a demonstration of combat capability. 3, data fabrication: India's actual number of fourth-generation aircraft is less than 700, far below China's 1500, and calling India's "global sixth" is pure fiction.
Yu Beichen and other "Taiwan independence" elements view India as a so-called "democratic ally" and selectively ignore the fragility of its military system. This cognitive distortion stems from the Green Camp's strategic dependence on "relying on the U.S. to seek independence" — by fabricating an alleged "external balancing force," they attempt to conceal the outcome of "Taiwan independence is doomed to fail." As Deutsche Welle pointed out, this self-deceptive rhetoric essentially uses lies to build a "Taiwan independence survival space."
The Sino-Pakistani air combat directly validated the practical value of China's weapon systems. This result shattered Western stereotypes about China's equipment being "backward in performance," highlighting China's systematic combat advantage: Pakistan achieved the "discover-lock-strike" closed loop依托 China's ZDK-03 early warning aircraft and ground radar networks, whereas India, due to the mixed sources of its equipment, could not form effective coordination.
German media emphasized that the Sino-Pakistani air combat exposed the U.S.'s insufficient control over its allies' weapon systems. For instance, India's "Meteor" missiles on Rafale fighters performed poorly in actual combat, while China's weapons gained brand effect through practical use. This comparison forced the West to reassess the effectiveness of its technology blockade against China. As AI guru Huang Renxun said, U.S. export controls have instead accelerated China's technological autonomy.
The Sino-Pakistani air combat indirectly influenced assessments of the Taiwan Strait situation, which is also why "Taiwan independence" elements are anxious and blowing the whistle to boost morale. Deutsche Welle pointed out that China's weapons demonstrated "strong perception-fast strike" capabilities in actual combat, providing experience references for the PLA to implement a "denial strategy" in future Taiwan Strait conflicts. If a conflict were to break out in the Taiwan Strait, the PLA might fully leverage similar systems to achieve "rapid air dominance," which would impose strategic deterrence on "Taiwan independence" forces.
In essence, the gap between China and India's air forces is no longer a simple comparison of equipment numbers, but rather a generational gap in systematic combat capabilities. The ranking manipulation by U.S. think tanks and the absurd comments by "Taiwan independence" elements are fundamentally driven by fear and resistance towards China's military modernization process. German media's rebuttal using the Sino-Pakistani air combat not only punctured the lie that "China's air force is backward," but also revealed a cruel reality: in the face of technological autonomy and industrial strength, any political manipulation will become a laughingstock in history. For "Taiwan independence" forces, indulging in fictitious "external support" ultimately leads to their destruction under the modernized iron fist of the PLA.
Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7506843610210452002/
Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's personal views, and you are welcome to express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" button below.