As I mentioned that it takes approximately two years to train a candidate to become a competent pilot, from my 10yrs in the USAF, it also takes two years to train someone to be competent at whatever system he is responsible for on an aircraft, even a generalist role like a crew chief, it also require two years of decreasing supervision until full independence. During the Cold War, NATO was numerically inferior to the Warsaw Pact, even in nuclear forces. We made up for it with our superior technology. After the Soviets collapsed, testimonies from the former Soviet satellites also hinted that this two years time span is an appropriate training time. I have trained foreign nationals on avionics maintenance on the F-16 and I can say with confidence that this time span is reasonable and applicable for most aircrafts out there.
As you admitted that the JF-17 is at best %90 as capable as Western fighters, now ask yourself which version of the Pakistani Air Force is the more capable one after that two years time span to train pilots and ground crews, the version using Western fighters or the version flying the aircraft that is %90 as capable? Who is Pakistan's closest potential enemy? What are his air force's capabilities? Pakistan may enjoy numerical superiority with the JF-17 but how much of that can and actually is offsetted by superior technology from this potential enemy? Superior technology often forces the user to develop superior support organizations. Look at your own personal computer for a closer to home example of this. This in turn raises the sophistication bar for the entire force. Numerical superiority is indeed a compelling argument, but it should not run roughshod other factors outside of Pakistan's controls that may sway the decision making process into buying versus building.
Let us take a radical example of a fight between a Sopwith Camel and a P-51D Mustang. Who will prevail, the pilot with one year of training in the Mustang or the pilot with one year of training in the Camel? I am not saying that the JF-17 is that distant from any of the Western fighters listed as that between the Camel and Mustang. The point of that mental exercise is to establish some kind of a baseline of differences for a rational discussion that would have us move this sliding scale of performances, from combat radius to weapons load, of the JF-17 closer to any of the Western fighters listed. The closer the JF-17 approaches any of the Western fighters, the more compelling the argument become for Pakistan to build over purchase.
Finally...Past armed conflicts, like the Vietnam War for example, have shown that the force that is technologically inferior but numerically superior can prevail only if that force is willing to be sacrificial in its tactics and that they must be sustainable. Can the Pakistani force of 200-something JF-17s withstand losses against a technologically superior enemy over weeks or possibly months in an armed conflict? I am not saying that Pakistan would be foolishly sacrificial. I am saying that in an armed conflict against a technologically superior enemy that Pakistan has a numerical lead, the question become: Is that lead sufficient where losses will not cause Pakistan to abandon planned operations to achieve certain goals? If that question is uncomfortable or unanswerable, then perhaps Pakistan would be better off purchasing Western fighters that is technologically par with this potential enemy and come up with other tactics that best exploit their capabilities.
I agree on some of your comments but not all. The quality benchmark of JF-17 is F-16, and
its ongoing project.
JF-17 is 100% capable to use western avoinics and those which are used in F-16 (A/B/C/D). So u can not say that JF-17 is complete China product. Also mentioning that JF-17 is using Russian engine.
JF-17 early development is to replace old F-7 (China) and Mirage 5(France). But future developments are focused on more advance radars and batter engine.
May be you havent heard that PAF is seriously considering western engine for JF-17 next version, ofcourse it might ask for minor modifications in airframe but that can be done. USA did that for F-16 or F-15, F-18, even Russia did that for Mig 29.
Yes, I agree that Pakistan can't compete with the latest developments of western countries but atleast Pakistan always work to counter Inida, for that Pakistan either develop equips locally, or take help from china or they purchase from western market.
If you look the strength of IAF, no doubt its superior then PAF in quanity and quality and thats worried part for PAF.
As I said 250 (before 2015)+ JF-17 are to replace old PAF fleet F7, Mirage etc.
Till 2015, I dont see any new things in IAF and 250+ JF-17 would surely be capable to counter 100 Jaguar, 40 Mirage, 60 Mig 29.
Besides JF-17, PAF having 45 F-16, and by 2011-12 PAF would get + F-16 (If USA remain sencior) and 36 J-10B (equlant to F-16Block 52).
Looking IAF Su 30 MKI, Yes IAF have edge for that PAF must buy western jet atleast 50+.
Yes Pakistan is lacking in quantity (which ever remained since 1948 war) and some quality. But its not that poor as you showed in your post.