How Do China’s and India’s Air Forces Stack Up?

By

 


China’s air force is stronger than India’s—but much of it is tied down in the Pacific, allowing India to punch above its weight.

China and India are the world’s two largest countries by population, with India recently surpassing China. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they are also Asia’s two largest military powers—and have a historic rivalry across the Himalaya Mountains of central Asia. Both states are nuclear-armed, and both are working to expand their respective air fleets. Indeed, with flashpoints along their contested border and in the Indian Ocean, the relative abilities of each nation’s air power is increasingly relevant.

Today, China holds a quantitative and technological advantage in airpower, while India retains geographic and defensive strengths. But both nations are working to update their capabilities—in a matchup that reflects broader great power competition in Asia. 

China’s Air Force Is Somewhat Stronger than India’s

China has a large fleet of nearly 2,000 combat aircraft. Modern fights like the J-20, J-35, J-16, and J-10 give China both ability and depth. Beijing’s heavy bomber force consists mostly of the H-6 variant, with plans for strategic and tactical stealth bombers reportedly under development. Chinese platforms benefit from integration with an advanced SAM network, and a robust ISR and AEW&C fleet. The UAV inventory, already significant, is growing. 

India’s air force is smaller, but still impressive by global standards. It has between 600 and 700 combat aircraft, with a diverse fighter fleet including the Su-30MKI backbone, Rafale, Tejas, and Mirage 2000. India has a limited but growing AEW&C capability, but a strong pilot training tradition. 

With respect to air superiority, China maintains a clear edge. Beijing’s J-20s grant it a stealth advantage, while its AESA radars are widely fielded. Chinese jets also have access to a strong BVR missile inventory—particularly the PL-15 air-to-air missile, which Pakistan used to great effect against India during the two countries’ four-day war in May 2025. India, meanwhile, operates the Rafale with Meteor BVR missiles, making for a competitive long-range option. Though the Su-30MKI is older than the J-20, it is highly maneuverable. And the pilot corps has gained experience in multinational exercises.

How Geography Shapes the China-India Air Rivalry

In terms of geography, China’s Western Theater Command is focused on India, with high-altitude Tibetan airfields. The thin air reduces aircraft payload, while the runways are vulnerable to attack. India, fighting defensively, enjoys lower-altitude bases on its side of the Himalayas, plus faster logistics and sortie generation in certain sectors. From a defensive perspective, the geographical advantage lies with India.

With respect to air defense integration, China has a layered A2/AD network, dense SAM coverage, and space and ISR integration. India has strong Russian-origin SAMs, like the S-400, but these are less well integrated than their Chinese counterparts; New Delhi is still modernizing its air defense grid.

Strategically, however, China has a critical disadvantage against India: much of its air defense resources are tied up in the Pacific region, in anticipation of a future conflict against the far stronger United States. In that region—especially in the South China Sea—Beijing uses air power as part of a broader anti-access strategy, focused primarily on Taiwan. India, meanwhile, can treat China as its primary conventional military concern, with the somewhat weaker Pakistan as a secondary front.

China and India Each Have Their Own Strategic Advantages

China benefits from a larger industrial base and greater defense spending. India benefits from strategic partnerships and Western tech access. China sees India as a continental challenger, not a primary rival, while India sees China as an existential long-term competitor. For both, air power is crucial in rapid border crises, limited punitive strikes, and deterrence signaling. Neither side is likely to seek a total war; the most plausible scenario is a limited high-altitude skirmish, perhaps using air power for escalation dominance and signaling. Both sides are nuclear armed, in turn making both sides escalation-wary.

China holds the systemic advantage, especially with respect to numbers and stealth; India retains credible deterrent and defensive strength. The air power balance in the region reflects the broader Asian power dynamic, where China is a global great power and India is a rising regional power. Air power competition between the two countries is less about dominance and more about deterrence stability in a multipolar Asia. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Quantum computing, decentralized energy and Ai-driven autonomous weapons will in control.

By
Image
  1. Whether quantum computing destabilizes all current deterrence models.   2. Whether decentralized energy microgrids undermine state-level energy leverage.   3. whether AI-driven autonomous weapons lower the threshold for global conflict.                Could Quantum Computing Destabilize All Current Deterrence Models? A. Quantum Computing’s Strategic Potential Quantum computing (QC) promises: Breaking current encryption (RSA, ECC) Ultra-fast optimization of logistics and supply chains Simulation of complex systems (e.g., nuclear reactions) Enhanced AI training efficiency Immediate strategic implications : Cryptography : Current nuclear command-and-control relies heavily on secure communications. QC could make conventional encryption obsolete. Missile Defense : Quantum-enhanced optimization could allow more precise interception simulations, potentially undermining confidence in current missile det...
Read more

Would Great Powers Accept Relational Accountability Over Strategic Dominance?

By
Image
  At the core of international politics lies a persistent tension: are great powers primarily guardians of order or maximizers of advantage? The modern state system, especially since 1945, has been structured around strategic dominance—military deterrence, economic leverage, technological supremacy, and geopolitical positioning. Relational accountability, by contrast, demands that powerful actors accept responsibility for how their actions affect weaker states and the broader global community. It requires constraint, reciprocity, and moral transparency. The critical question is not whether relational accountability is ethically desirable. It is whether great powers—given structural incentives—would rationally accept it over dominance. 1. The Logic of Strategic Dominance Great powers operate within an anarchic international system. There is no global sovereign capable of enforcing universal rules. Institutions such as the United Nations exist, but enforcement ultimately depends...
Read more

Why Petrol Cars Still Dominate in Most of the World—Despite EV Hype

By
Image
The global narrative around electric vehicles (EVs) suggests an unstoppable march toward an all-electric future. Headlines highlight rising EV sales in wealthy countries, bold government bans on petrol cars, and ambitious climate pledges from automakers. Yet step outside a few high-income markets and the picture changes dramatically. In most of the world—across Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, and large parts of Eastern Europe—petrol (and diesel) cars continue to dominate roads, sales, and consumer preferences. This persistence is not simply due to resistance to change or lack of awareness. It reflects deep structural realities: economics, infrastructure, energy systems, industrial capacity, and social behavior. Understanding why petrol cars remain dominant requires moving beyond hype and examining how mobility actually works for the majority of the global population. 1. Cost: The Decisive Barrier The most immediate and decisive factor is price . EVs remain significantl...
Read more

China and the United States approach income and wealth differently, especially when considering how the rich, middle class, and poor are affected.

By
Image
                                        1. United States (U.S.) Tax Approach a. High-Income / Ultra-Rich: Income Taxes: The U.S. uses a progressive federal income tax system; the highest marginal rate is 37% (as of 2026) for individuals earning above roughly $600,000 per year. Capital Gains Taxes: Wealthy Americans often earn more from investments than wages, which are taxed at lower rates (0–23.8% depending on income and type of gain). Wealth Inequality Factor: Many rich people use tax deductions, offshore accounts, trusts, and business structures to reduce effective tax rates, sometimes far below the statutory rate. Estate Taxes: The U.S. has an estate tax, but it applies only to very large estates (over $13.6 million for individuals), so most inheritances are untaxed. b. Middle Class / Hard-Working: Income Taxes: Progressive but lower brackets; they pay between ...
Read more

Is Democracy Being Universalized as a Value—or Selectively Applied as a Foreign Policy Tool by the United States and the European Union?

By
Image
The promotion of democracy has become a defining feature of Western foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Both the United States and the European Union consistently articulate democracy, rule of law, and human rights as universal values. Official documents, strategic doctrines, development programs, and diplomatic engagements frame democratic governance not merely as a political system but as a normative global standard. Yet critics argue that democracy promotion is not applied consistently. They contend that democratic principles are often subordinated to strategic interests—security alliances, energy access, trade partnerships, or geopolitical competition. This tension raises a central question: Is democracy genuinely being universalized as a value, or is it selectively instrumentalized as a foreign policy tool? The answer is not binary. It involves both normative commitment and geopolitical calculation. 1. Democracy as a Universal Normative Framework Following the Col...
Read more