Why?
Infact the fact that the Block-III would be just the next step was reiterated ad-nauseum by more experienced and/or professional members here for the past 5 years. Yet, we had so many here and those p—-dus posting YouTube videos proclaiming that Block-III was the Ibn-Raptor al Bakistan?
The F-16 Block-20 is barely different from the block-30 to the casual observer -only when the EW spine on the family model was added for the Israelis did some change get noticed. Infact the block aspect of F-16 gave it a huge advantage when it came to upgrades and capabilities. Also why our block-15MLU’s can go toe to toe with Raptors of the east in terms of avionics.
The block-III isn’t just a JF-17 step, it is a AZM step as well. Everything from the systems integration for AESA,EW and cockpit changed has added knowledge to PAC. The Block-I’s are nearing their mid-life to twilight stage - not sure how much but a lot could be recycled from there.
More importantly,while the Chinese have been holding us back purely for their own financial interests - today with a bit more effort you can at the least roll out a complete fuselage of a high performance fighter, add components from suppliers you are not afraid of sanctions or restrictions, and use any weapon you want so long as it is compatible and restriction free - and fly it to your hearts content without worrying about spares stock or approval from some foreign power.
From the year 2001 where you were rationing your only high end aircraft and cannibalizing them , praying and hoping that your mig-21 facsimiles would be able to defend using meagre GCI against an adversary having 140 high tech jets and fairly potent strike assets while you could only hope to provide CAS with some degree of success; to being able to paralyze your enemy , gain air superiority in their airspace to carry out offensive operations at will - while knowing that one of your top two assets has enough spares to keep it going at full wartime tempo at high double digit serviceability while the other you make the jet, service and fly to your hearts content.
Did I mention that from 2001 with ZERO high performance interception assets with BVR and potent ECM to having about 180+ of those?(About 60% of your interception/air superiority assets)
All the while you went into essentially a country ravaged by extremism, corruption and social unrest for the better part of the last 20 years..
Why were people expecting anything different? Does everyone in Pakistan have Bani-Israel heritage? No, tell you god to make us an idol - we don’t want to work, pray or get mon and salwa.
In as far as multirole assets go, the PAF seems to be happy with the JF-17, especially as a defensive system.
With AEW&C and BVR, it's a credible threat.
Sure, the Gripen and F-16 might present a
bigger threat by virtue of their subsystems and weapons, but that is a question of net-improvement over any gap in the PAF's capabilities.
When the U.S. goes to war, the USAF has the luxury of knowing its enemies generally lack fleet-wide modern BVR, AEW&C, etc.
In the IAF's case, it's a question of 'who has better BVR, AEW&C, etc.' While they can make some informed conclusions about a few capabilities (e.g., Meteor), but in most cases, it's a toss-up.
The more the PAF draws on Chinese technology, the more the IAF's challenge will mirror that of the US.
Though the Chinese want to keep us as a customer, I'm interested in seeing if they'll be OK with releasing the technology we need for strategic purposes.
The JF-17 delivers the baseline defensive capability, and the J-10CE is on offer with an improved set of systems and weapons on that front.
However, the PAF is perpetually lacking in a long-range strike element. Besides the B-57, Pakistan never caught a break in that department -- e.g., America balked on the A-7s, we couldn't secure Mirage 2000-5/9s, etc.
There's a reason why the CAS said AZM should be a twin-engine fighter -- i.e., the PAF wants a true strike-capable platform.
That would be a game-changer as it would not only complete our strategic triad, but give us the means to inflict lasting damage conventionally.
I'm sure the US is going to raise a stink with China on this issue. I actually don't think the Chinese can even export such a system to us, hence AZM may well be a ploy to get the capability without the US being able to cleanly pin it on Beijing.