according to the guy who posted stats on engine, weight, thrust, etc...
the lca is lighter and has a more powerful engine so it should be better in performance and prolly better in electronics too
yet the IAF wants a better engine, and there are reports saying lca cant do aoa of something, while the jf-17 can with its inferior engine and heavier weight. that just doesn't make sense.
truth is PAF is accepting jf-17 because they have no other choice, and the IAF isn't accepting lca because they have the MKI which is a beast of an aircraft (5000 km range, 14 hardpoints, 350 km radar, tracks 15 engages 5, TVC, advanced Israeli/French avionics cant get much better than that) , and can wait for the lca block II.
if PAF didn't accept the jf-17, all they would have is the f-16, sure they could buy rafael, eurofighter, or gripen, but they cost too much, and they just cant afford it. if they didn't accept it the world would laugh at them, they would have to operate 30 year old mirages for another 20 years.
however the jf-17 is a very capable aircraft and PAF made the right choice, in the future engine and performance wont matter much, just the electronics. the lca block II will be much better than the jf-17 block II because it will have AESA, EJ-2000, and better electronics. but the lca is meant to be a multi-role, the jf-17 is also multi role but will be used in defense, and wont be used in offensive role.
the IAF seems to be taking a good approach to a/c
heavy: MKI (air dominance)
medium: MMRCA, Mig-29, M2K, Jaguar (strike/air dominance)
Light: LCA (strike/air defense)
PAF on the other hand has this approach
medium: F-16 and J-10 (more capable air defense/strike)
light: jf-17 (air defense)
this means that in the future the IAF will be mainly an offensive force capable of carrying out strikes on almost anyone, same goes with the IN, they are slowly turning into a blue water navy and have that same ambition, the IAF+IN of the future will be very lethal.