By Nirmal P. Acharya

The recent air battle between India and Pakistan was actually a contest between the military industrial systems of the West and China.

The military industrial systems of China and the West (particularly the United States and its NATO allies) have significant differences in historical background, organizational structure, technological development paths, and strategic goals. These differences have shaped the competitive patterns in the military industry sector between the two sides and will continue to have a profound impact on the future global security landscape.

I. System Differences

1. Organizational Structure and Resource Allocation

a. Western Military Industry System:

-Market-driven + Government-guided: With private enterprises (such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BAE Systems, etc.) as the core, technological innovation is promoted through market competition, and the government indirectly guides through defense orders and research and development subsidies.

-Integrated Production: Deep division of labor among NATO member states (such as the F-35 project being jointly developed by multiple countries), relying on global supply chains, but in recent years, “friend-shoring” has been emphasized to reduce risks.

- Flexible Military-Civilian Integration: Civilian technologies such as commercial aerospace (SpaceX) and artificial intelligence (OpenAI) quickly feed back into the military domain, forming a “civilian-to-military” advantage.

b. China's Military Industry System:

- State-led + Strategic Concentration: Comprised of major military-industrial groups (such as China National Armament Industry Corporation, China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation), resources are concentrated through five-year plans and special projects (such as the “Two Aircraft Special Project”) to break through key technologies.

- Vertical Integration + Domestic Substitution: Emphasizes independent control of supply chains (such as chips, and aircraft engines), integrating state-owned enterprises, private enterprises, and university resources through a “small core, large collaboration” model.

- Military-Civilian Integration Strategy: Officially promotes the “military-to-civilian’ technology transformation (such as the commercialization of Beidou Navigation), while guiding private enterprises (such as Huawei, DJI) to participate in defense projects.

2. Innovation Path

a. Western Countries:

- Disruptive Innovation: Relying on the venture capital mechanism of private enterprises, maintain a leading position in areas such as stealth technology (such as the B-21 bomber), directed energy weapons (laser, microwave), and quantum computing.

- Open Iteration: Quickly improve equipment through cross-border cooperation and practical experience (such as testing drone tactics on the Ukrainian battlefield).

b. China:

- Catch-up Innovation: Through reverse engineering and technology introduction (such as the development of the J-11 series from the Su-27), the initial accumulation was achieved. In recent years, it has shifted to independent innovation (such as the J-20 stealth fighter, the Fujian-class aircraft carrier with electromagnetic catapult).

- Asymmetric Breakthrough: Focus on developing hypersonic weapons (DF-17), anti-satellite capabilities, artificial intelligence command systems (AI "battlefield brain") and other areas that can counterbalance the traditional advantages of the West.

3. Supply Chain Security Logic

a. Western Countries:

- Globalization Dependency and Reconstruction: Critical materials (rare earths, chips) rely on countries like China, and are rebuilding controllable supply chains through initiatives such as the “Chip Act” and the “Critical Minerals Alliance”.

- Utilization of Technology Blockade as a Tool: The “Vassena Agreement” and the Entity List are used to restrict China's access to high-end technologies (such as EUV lithography machines).

b. China:

- Efforts to achieve domestic substitution: The national system strives to break through “technology chokepoints” (such as Changjiang Storage NAND flash memory, and Cimicro semiconductor etching machines), but there are still weaknesses in high-end chips and precision machine tools.

- Resource diplomacy guarantee: Through the “Belt and Road Initiative”, secure the supply of strategic resources (such as investment in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo).

II. Competitive Dimensions and Future Trends

1. Striving for Technological Dominance

a. AI and Unmanned Warfare: China and the United States are competing to develop unmanned aircraft formations (such as China’s “Dark Arrow” drones) and autonomous combat robots. Algorithmic superiority will be the key to victory.

b. Space and Cyber Domains: Low-orbit satellite constellations (Starlink vs China’s “GW Constellation”), cyber offense and defense (quantum encryption vs hacker attacks) have become new battlefields.

c. Energy and Power Revolution: The development progress of high-energy laser weapons power supplies, all-electric propulsion ships, and the sixth-generation variable-cycle engines will create a generation gap.

2. Global Market and Rule Competition

a. Military Trade Market Share: China has eroded Western traditional markets (with a share exceeding 20% in Africa) through cost-effectiveness and political bundling (such as exports to Pakistan and the Middle East), but the high-end market (such as fifth-generation aircraft) is still monopolized by the West.

b. Standard Setting Power: NATO promotes “Interoperability Standards” (such as Link-22 data link), while China promotes its own military technology standards (such as the Beidou positioning system) through the “New Security Outlook”.

3. Projection of regional security influence

a. Focus in the Indo-Pacific: The United States transferred nuclear submarine technology to Australia through “AUKUS”, while China strengthened its anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities with aircraft carrier battle groups (Fujian aircraft carrier) and island bases in the South China Sea.

b. European direction: The conflict between Russia and Ukraine prompted NATO countries to increase their military forces (Germany’s defense budget exceeded 2% of GDP), while China expanded its military cooperation through key countries such as Belarus and Serbia.

4. System Resilience Countermeasures

a. Western “Dynamic Security” Model: Verify the performance of equipment in real-time on the Ukrainian battlefield (such as the “Spring Knife” unmanned aerial vehicle), accelerating the “research and development - testing - actual combat” cycle.

b. Chinese “System Counterattack” Thinking: Build an integrated joint operation system (such as the collaboration between the Rocket Force and the Navy in anti-ship operations), relying on system effectiveness rather than a single equipment advantage.

III. Potential Variables Affecting the Outcome of the Competition

1. Economic Sustainability: The United States spends 3.5% of its GDP on military expenditure but has a high debt level. China maintains a 1.7% expenditure but faces pressure from local debts. The long-term competition tests the economic resilience of both sides.

2. Risk of Technology Diffusion: Whether North Korea’s missile technology or Iran’s drones have been reverse-engineered could disrupt the existing technological balance.

3. Non-traditional Security Challenges: Sudden crises such as climate disasters and pandemics might force both sides to adjust their military resource allocation.

Conclusion: Competition will shape a multipolar military order.

In the next decade, the competition between the two sides may give rise to “parallel military industrial systems”: The NATO alliance will enhance technological sharing, while China will promote military cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS countries. The global military industry may enter an era of “fragmented innovation”, with smaller countries forced to choose sides or seek balance between the two systems.

No matter how you analyze it, in this India-Pakistan air battle, Pakistan achieved a 6:0 victory. This indicates that under the strong support of its entire industrial chain, China’s military industry system has unknowingly surpassed the Western military industry system.