Yes. China’s state broadcaster CCTV confirmed that engineers from the Aviation Industry Corporation of China, known as AVIC, were physically present on Pakistani military air bases during the four-day India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025. Two named engineers, Zhang Heng and Xu Da, described their on-site role keeping Pakistan’s Chinese-made J-10CE fighter jets at full combat readiness during active operations against India. This is China’s first official public admission of personnel-level involvement. It was not a leak. It was a deliberate state media broadcast.
You watched Operation Sindoor on your phone. You forwarded the headlines. India struck inside Pakistan for the first time since 1971. Nine terror sites, four days, a ceasefire. You were told it was India versus Pakistan.
It was not. It was India versus Pakistan, China, and Turkey.
China was there. Its engineers, employed by a Chinese state company, were on Pakistani air bases while Indian jets were in Pakistani airspace. They were keeping Pakistani fighter jets airborne, calibrating weapons systems between sorties, and collecting performance data on how Chinese aircraft and missiles behaved against Indian countermeasures.
One year later, China broadcast this on its own state television. Voluntarily. With named engineers. Framed as a point of national pride.
India’s government has filed no formal diplomatic protest.
That is the story. Everything below is the proof, the context, and what it means for you.
What Exactly Did China Admit About AVIC Engineers at Pakistani Air Bases?
China’s state broadcaster CCTV aired an interview with two engineers from the Aviation Industry Corporation of China who confirmed they were physically present at Pakistani military air bases during Operation Sindoor in May 2025.
Three specific facts were confirmed in the broadcast:
- AVIC engineers were on Pakistani soil during active hostilities with India. This was not remote support from Chengdu. This was on-site.
- Their job was keeping the J-10CE combat-ready during live sorties flown against India.
- They experienced the same operational conditions as Pakistani air force personnel: air-raid alerts, extreme heat, and jets taking off and landing on a war footing.
China’s AVIC engineers Zhang Heng and Xu Da confirmed on CCTV that they were physically present at Pakistani air bases during Operation Sindoor in May 2025, providing on-site technical support to keep J-10CE fighter jets at full combat readiness against India. This is China’s first official public acknowledgment of personnel-level involvement in the conflict.
What China did not admit is whether its support crossed from maintenance into operations: real-time targeting data, intelligence feeds, or mission coordination. Lieutenant General Rahul R Singh, India’s Deputy Chief of Army Staff, stated after the conflict that China provided Pakistan with real-time intelligence and surveillance updates. The CCTV broadcast does not confirm this claim. It does not deny it either.
Who Are Zhang Heng and Xu Da, the AVIC Engineers at Pakistani Air Bases?
Zhang Heng works at the institute that designed the J-10 series and the J-20 stealth fighter. His team knows the J-10CE the way a cardiac surgeon knows a specific patient’s heart. When he says his team ensured the aircraft operated at “full combat potential,” he is describing avionics calibration between sorties, weapons integration checks before each mission, AESA radar verification under combat load, real-time fault diagnosis during active operations, and electronics cooling management in 50-degree heat. This work cannot be replicated by a Pakistani technician reading a manual. It requires the engineers who designed the system.
Xu Da described the J-10CE as a child his team raised, nurtured, and handed over to Pakistan. The language of parenthood implies ownership of outcome. If the aircraft performs, it is because of what they built into it. Xu Da was present because AVIC could not afford to leave performance outcomes to chance in what was effectively a live demonstration of Chinese aerospace capability against Indian air power. “The aircraft just needed the right opportunity,” he said. “And when that moment came, it delivered exactly as we knew it would.”
Pakistani air bases in Punjab in May reach temperatures that degrade avionics, affect fuel systems, and push human endurance to its limits. Operating weapons systems in that environment requires constant active management, cooling protocols, and calibration adjustments. The Chinese engineers were not watching. They were working.
The Hardware: What Is the J-10CE Fighter and What Is the PL-15 Missile?
J-10CE vs Rafale: Head to Head
| Specification | J-10CE (China) | Rafale (France) |
|---|---|---|
| Generation | 4.5 gen multirole | 4.5 gen multirole |
| Radar | AESA (KLJ-10A) | AESA (RBE2-AA) |
| Primary BVR missile | PL-15E (200km+ claimed) | Meteor (150km+ range) |
| Unit cost (approx) | $40 to $50 million | $100 to $115 million |
| Export operators today | Pakistan only | Egypt, Greece, UAE, Indonesia, others |
| Combat record before 2025 | None | None |
| Chinese engineers on-site during conflict | Confirmed | Not applicable |
What Is the PL-15 Missile?
The PL-15E is China’s most advanced air-to-air missile. It has an active radar seeker and a two-way data link that allows it to receive updated targeting information while in flight. Its claimed range means the J-10CE can fire and turn away before an adversary aircraft is close enough to respond. Pakistan used PL-15E missiles during Operation Sindoor.
Pakistan claims its J-10CEs shot down multiple Indian aircraft including Rafales during Operation Sindoor. India has acknowledged operational losses but has not confirmed which aircraft were involved or how they were lost. That ambiguity is commercially more useful to China than a verified kill would be. Every month the question stays open, defence procurement officers around the world hesitate before signing a Rafale contract.
India Was Officially Fighting Pakistan. It Was Actually Fighting Three Countries.
| Adversary | Role During Operation Sindoor |
|---|---|
| Pakistan | Territory, pilots, air bases, ground forces |
| China | 81% of Pakistan’s hardware, J-10CE jets, AVIC engineers on-site, real-time intelligence (alleged by India’s DGMO) |
| Turkey | Armed drones supplied to Pakistan for retaliatory strikes on Indian positions |
India’s government communicated Operation Sindoor as a bilateral response to Pakistan’s terrorism. This framing was politically necessary. Officially acknowledging, in real time, that Chinese nationals were at Pakistani bases would have triggered a simultaneous diplomatic crisis with Beijing during an active military conflict. India chose not to do that.
The AVIC admission now removes that constraint from history. When Indian jets flew into Pakistani airspace, they were not flying against a poorly-equipped adversary. They were flying against a Pakistani air force whose most advanced jets were being maintained in real time by engineers from the company that builds China’s frontline combat aircraft.
When India launched its response to the attack that killed their relatives, it flew into a conflict where China was on the other side. The official story was India vs Pakistan. The operational reality, now confirmed by China itself, was more complicated than any anniversary statement has acknowledged.
Why Did China Admit This Now? The Real Reason Has Nothing to Do With Transparency.
China said nothing for a full year. Then it put named engineers on CCTV to describe their work at Pakistani air bases. This was not honesty. It was a commercial decision.
The problem China needed to solve: The J-10CE has a credibility crisis. Pakistan claimed its J-10CEs shot down Indian Rafales. If true, this is the most significant aerial combat result in decades: a cheaper Chinese jet defeating France’s most advanced export aircraft, the one with $100 billion in active global contracts. The problem is that Pakistan is not a credible narrator of its own victories.
The solution: Tell the story through its own engineers, on its own broadcaster, in language that sounds humble and technical rather than triumphant. Zhang Heng describing the heat and the sirens is more believable than a Pakistani press conference. Xu Da calling the J-10CE a child is more emotionally resonant than a defence ministry statistic.
China is running a weapons advertisement. The product is the J-10CE. The case study is Operation Sindoor. The test subjects, without their knowledge or consent, were Indian pilots and Indian aircraft. China collected the performance data and is now using it to sell more jets. The target audience is every defence procurement official in every country currently choosing between a Rafale at $100 million per aircraft and a J-10CE at less than half the price.
The Rafale Assassination Campaign: China Is Going Country to Country
The CCTV broadcast is not China’s first move in this campaign. In July 2025, French military and intelligence officials told the Associated Press that Chinese embassies had been systematically contacting countries that had purchased or were considering Rafale jets. The message to each was consistent: the Rafale underperformed against Chinese systems in real combat. Pakistan’s J-10CE demonstrated superiority. Buyers should reconsider.
Countries in the Rafale Market China Is Targeting
| Country | Rafale Status | What Is at Stake |
|---|---|---|
| India | Additional order under evaluation | Largest potential Rafale contract in the world |
| Greece | Additional order under discussion | NATO signal market |
| Indonesia | Active Rafale operator | Southeast Asia’s most watched buyer |
| UAE | Contract signed | Gulf region credibility |
| Colombia | Active evaluation | First Latin American target |
India is at the top of that list. India is evaluating additional Rafales even while China runs a campaign to undermine the aircraft’s reputation using data collected during a conflict with India. The circularity is not accidental.
The Trade Betrayal: India Gave China $100 Billion. China Used It to Help Pakistan Fight India.
This is the fact that no defence analysis publication will frame this way, because defence publications do not talk about the grocery bills their readers pay.
In the financial year that Operation Sindoor happened, India and China traded over $100 billion in goods. India is one of China’s most important export markets. Chinese electronics, solar panels, industrial components, and consumer goods flow into India in enormous volumes. Indian payments flow back to Chinese companies, including state-owned enterprises that fund China’s defence-industrial complex.
AVIC, the company whose engineers were on Pakistani air bases during Operation Sindoor, is a Chinese state enterprise. It is funded by the Chinese government. The Chinese government’s revenues include the surplus from trade with India.
Indian consumers, through their purchases of Chinese goods, contribute to the revenues that fund the Chinese state, which funds AVIC, which sent engineers to Pakistani air bases to help Pakistan fight India. No individual Indian consumer is responsible for this. But the structural contradiction is real, documented, and worth naming honestly.
India’s government is aware of this contradiction. It is also aware that decoupling from Chinese supply chains quickly is economically painful in ways that affect exactly the readers who follow GSEB results and LPG price hikes. This is why the MEA has not summoned the Chinese ambassador. It is not weakness. It is a calculation about what a formal protest would cost India economically compared to what it would achieve diplomatically. That does not make the calculation comfortable. It makes it honest.
Is China Using Pakistan to Test Weapons Against India? The Live Lab Is Now Confirmed.
In July 2025, the Indian Army described Pakistan as a “live lab” for Chinese weapons. The AVIC admission converts that analytical assessment into a confirmed fact in China’s own words.
Chinese Systems Tested Against India During Operation Sindoor
| Chinese System | Pakistan’s Use | Data China Collected |
|---|---|---|
| J-10CE fighter | Primary air combat platform | Performance vs Indian Rafales, radar, electronic warfare |
| PL-15E missile | BVR air-to-air engagements | Seeker behaviour under Indian countermeasures |
| JF-17 Thunder | Secondary air platform | Engagement data vs Indian air defence |
| HQ-9 air defence | Long-range SAM network | Tracking performance vs Indian Rafale strike packages |
| Armed drones and UCAVs | Retaliatory strikes on Indian positions | Penetration rates vs Indian layered air defence |
| Electronic warfare systems | Jamming and surveillance | Effectiveness vs Indian radar and communications |
Every engagement produces data no simulation generates. How Indian electronic warfare affects Chinese AESA radar. How Indian countermeasures respond to the PL-15E seeker. How India’s S-400 batteries track Chinese drone swarms. All of this flows back to Beijing. All of it feeds the next generation of Chinese weapons.
China’s fifth-generation stealth fighter is currently under evaluation for export. If Pakistan eventually receives J-35s, and AVIC engineers follow the hardware as they followed the J-10CE, India would face a stealth platform being optimised in real time against Indian S-400 batteries and Rafale radar systems. The Sindoor precedent has established that this is how China operates. The engineers follow the jets.
What Is India’s Government Not Saying, and Why?
India’s Ministry of External Affairs has not filed a formal diplomatic protest. The Chinese ambassador has not been summoned. Here is why India is responding with measured silence, and why that silence is not the same as indifference.
| Reason for Silence | The Actual Calculation |
|---|---|
| Economic dependency | India imports over $100 billion from China annually. Formal confrontation without outcome signals weakness; escalation means economic pain for Indian consumers. |
| Border talks | India and China have been stabilising the Himalayan border post-Galwan. A formal protest risks derailing that process. |
| No legal forum | China holds a Security Council veto. A formal protest produces a formal denial and nothing else. |
| Private leverage | India is using the admission in Quad discussions, bilateral talks with France and the US, and domestic procurement decisions where China cannot see or counter it. |
Whether this restraint is the right calculation is a legitimate debate. What it is not is indifference.
Should You Be Worried? A Plain English Answer.
The most important question this story raises for an ordinary Indian reader is the simplest one: does this make India less safe?
The yes: India now knows, officially, that any future conflict with Pakistan begins with China already embedded on the other side. Not arriving. Already there. The engineers follow the hardware, and 81 percent of Pakistan’s military hardware is Chinese. India is not fighting a bilateral conflict. It is fighting the combined defence-industrial output of the world’s second-largest military spender, delivered through Pakistan’s territory and Pakistan’s pilots.
The no: India’s military performed in Operation Sindoor with full knowledge that China was involved, even before the formal admission. India’s S-400 batteries intercepted the bulk of Pakistani drone and missile attacks. India struck nine targets inside Pakistan, including locations in Punjab not struck since 1971. That is a deterrence signal even if it is an incomplete one.
What this means for the next ten years: India’s indigenous defence programme, the Tejas fighter, the AMCA programme, the Astra missile, is no longer just about self-reliance as an economic principle. It is about ensuring that China cannot optimise its next weapons using data collected during conflicts with Pakistan. Every Indian platform China cannot study is a platform China cannot build countermeasures against. The AVIC admission has made the case for indigenous defence viscerally and undeniably real.
Is It Legal for Chinese Engineers to Operate at Pakistani Air Bases During a Conflict With India?
Direct answer: Probably not prohibited under current international law, certainly without consequence, and deliberately without an enforcement mechanism India can access.
International humanitarian law classifies AVIC engineers as civilians, not combatants. Civilian contractors providing maintenance to military equipment occupy a legal grey zone that Western nations, including the United States, have also occupied extensively. Lockheed and Raytheon personnel have been present at bases under live fire in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If AVIC engineers were providing real-time operational support during active sorties rather than between-sortie maintenance, international law treats that differently. Direct participation in hostilities strips a civilian of protected status under Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. Whether Zhang Heng’s work meets that threshold has not been tested in any legal forum. It will not be tested.
| Forum | Why It Cannot Act |
|---|---|
| UN Security Council | China holds a permanent seat and veto |
| International Court of Justice | Requires state consent; China will not consent |
| Bilateral diplomacy | No India-China-Pakistan dispute mechanism exists; Shimla Agreement suspended |
| INTERPOL | Operates on criminal law, not laws of armed conflict |
What the admission does create is a diplomatic record in China’s own words. India can now cite CCTV in every multilateral security forum where it argues that Chinese operational integration with Pakistan constitutes a regional security threat. That is not a legal remedy. But it is not nothing.
China chose to tell the world its engineers were on Pakistani air bases. That choice is the message: we were there, we know what happened, we know what our aircraft did, and we are not concerned about your response. We will be there again. That is not a confession. It is a warning.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Free Press Journal — China Admits Providing On-Ground Technical Support to Pakistan During Operation Sindoor
- Indian Defence News — China Confirms On-Ground Role in Supporting Pakistan During Operation Sindoor
- Daily Pioneer — China Admits Sending Technical Experts to Pakistan Air Bases During Operation Sindoor
- Republic World — Beijing Admits to On-Ground Military Support for Pakistan During Operation Sindoor
- Eurasian Times — China “Child Tested” J-10C Fighter in India Clash: Chinese Designers Reveal On-Site Role
- Asian Mirror — China Admits Direct Technical Support to Pakistan During Operation Sindoor
- Defense Mirror — Chinese Diplomats Spreading Doubts About Rafale Fighter After Indo-Pak Aerial Engagement
- SIPRI Arms Transfers Database — China-Pakistan Arms Transfers 2015 to 2024
- South China Morning Post — AVIC Engineers Describe Role at Pakistani Bases During Conflict
- The Northlines — China Admits Providing Technical Support to Pakistan During Operation Sindoor
Leave a Reply