In the early hours of 7 May, red alerts appeared across screens in the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) operations room. Enemy aircraft had entered Indian airspace and were now visible across the border. Air Chief Marshal Zaheer Sidhu, who had been resting nearby, was quickly briefed and prepared to respond.
India had launched air strikes following a deadly attack in Indian-administered Kashmir the previous month. That attack, which killed 26 civilians, was attributed to militants allegedly supported by Pakistan. Although Pakistan denied any involvement, India promised retaliation, which arrived in the form of aerial bombardment.
Immediately, Sidhu ordered Chinese-made J-10C fighter jets into action. According to a senior PAF official, he specifically instructed the team to target India’s prized Rafale fighters French-built aircraft that had never been shot down in combat.
The aerial battle lasted about an hour and involved roughly 110 aircraft. Experts described it as one of the largest air combat operations in recent decades. As reported by US officials to Reuters, at least one Rafale was shot down during the engagement. This outcome surprised many within defence circles and triggered debates about the capabilities of Western versus Chinese military systems.
Following the news, shares in Dassault Aviation the Rafale’s manufacturer dipped. Indonesia, which had ordered Rafales, announced it was now reconsidering a shift towards the J-10C. This development offered China a significant opportunity to boost its arms exports.
However, officials from both sides noted that the Rafale’s performance wasn’t the central issue. Instead, the turning point appeared to be a serious Indian intelligence error. Indian pilots assumed the Chinese-made PL-15 missile had a range limited to 150 km—the known range of its export model. As a result, they believed they were flying outside of Pakistani missile reach.
In contrast, Pakistani J-10s launched a PL-15 from a distance of around 200 km, catching the Indian pilots off guard. Some Indian sources even suggested the missile was fired from beyond that range. If accurate, this could be among the longest air-to-air strikes ever recorded.
India’s defence and foreign ministries did not issue public statements. Although New Delhi has not confirmed the loss of any Rafale fighters, France’s air chief later said he had seen evidence that one Rafale and two other Indian aircraft, including a Russian-made Sukhoi, were downed. A Dassault executive also acknowledged the Rafale’s loss but did not offer specific details.
Pakistan’s military stated that its success stemmed from professionalism and coordination, rather than just its equipment. Meanwhile, China’s defence ministry and the aircraft manufacturers involved declined to comment.
Electronic warfare and multi-domain integration
Both Indian and Pakistani officials pointed to Pakistan’s superior integration of military assets as a key factor. Pakistan managed to create a real-time network known as a “kill chain” linking air, land and space systems to maximise situational awareness. This network allowed pilots and command staff to act with greater precision.
According to four Pakistani officials, a domestic system known as Data Link 17 played a crucial role. It connected the Chinese-made aircraft to other assets, including a Swedish surveillance plane. Consequently, J-10Cs flying close to the Indian border could receive radar information from aircraft further away. This setup enabled them to keep their radars switched off and remain undetected.
Indian officials admitted they are working on a similar system, although they face technical challenges due to their diverse fleet sourced from multiple foreign suppliers.
Retired Air Marshal Greg Bagwell, a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, explained that the clash did not conclusively prove whether Chinese or Western aircraft were superior. Nevertheless, it clearly highlighted the value of information and coordination.
India’s tactical errors and subsequent adjustments
After India’s initial air strikes, Air Chief Marshal Sidhu shifted Pakistan’s stance from defensive to offensive. Five Pakistani officials said India deployed more than 70 aircraft—far more than anticipated. This gave Pakistan’s PL-15s a wider selection of targets.
Notably, both air forces avoided crossing into each other’s airspace. Instead, they engaged from long range. Bagwell pointed out that this encounter marked a new phase in air warfare, where beyond-visual-range weaponry played the dominant role.
Furthermore, Pakistan launched an electronic attack aimed at disrupting Indian radar and communication systems. Pakistani sources claimed this weakened the Rafale pilots’ ability to respond. Indian officials disagreed. They insisted that the Rafales continued to operate effectively, though they acknowledged that the Sukhoi jets experienced system problems. These aircraft are now undergoing upgrades.
In the aftermath, some Indian security officials suggested the real issue lay in the orders given to the air force. One Indian defence attaché told a seminar in Jakarta that political leaders had restricted attacks on Pakistani military targets and air defences. These limitations, he argued, had placed Indian pilots at a disadvantage.
General Anil Chauhan, India’s Chief of Defence Staff, later confirmed that the air force had quickly modified its tactics in response to the early losses.
India’s escalation and cruise missile strikes
Following the 7 May engagement, India intensified its operations. It deployed domestically produced BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles to target Pakistan’s military infrastructure. According to officials on both sides, these missiles successfully penetrated Pakistani defences.
On 10 May, India said it struck at least nine Pakistani air bases and radar installations. It also targeted a surveillance aircraft parked at a southern airfield. Later that day, a ceasefire was negotiated, reportedly after diplomatic pressure from the United States.
Claims of foreign assistance and Beijing’s response
In the days that followed, India’s Deputy Army Chief Lieutenant General Rahul Singh accused Pakistan of receiving real-time intelligence from China. He suggested that Chinese radar and satellite feeds may have supported Pakistani efforts. However, no evidence was provided, and Pakistan denied the claims.
When asked about the allegations, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said the military cooperation between China and Pakistan was routine and not directed at any third party.
In July, China’s air chief Lieutenant General Wang Gang visited Pakistan. Two Pakistani officials said the visit focused on how Pakistan had used Chinese equipment in combat operations. According to a statement from Pakistan’s military, Wang expressed a strong interest in learning from the PAF’s experience with multi-domain warfare.
