I agree with
@JamD
There's no "JF-17 PFX." It's the PAF's last-ditch attempt to give the JF-17 production line more life, and it likely won't succeed. Why? Well, it's not because of the JF-17, but because AHQ is now looking towards J-10CE, J-31, and KAAN; where's JF-17 going to fit?
Personally, I believed - and still do - that the JF-17 should continue. The PAF should look at replacing the Block-Is with a Block-III/B-based system equipped with improved subsystems and next-gen interoperability (E.g., MUM-T).
No matter what, we should maintain a large fleet of lightweight fighters to defend our airspace, even if we induct many larger designs, like the J-31 and KAAN. Dedicate the latter for offensive operations, retain and upgrade the JF-17s for defensive measures.
Stop thinking about export. The truth is that the JF-17 is a niche concept. Not many air forces needed that type of fighter and the ones who did all designed and built their own (i.e., Sweden, South Korea, and India). Thus, you're left with a tiny market and quite a few options. The concept is starting to catch on now, but most buyers are leaning toward the Korean F/A-50, which provides a great balance of cost, capability, and manageable Western integration.
This isn't to indict the JF-17. It gave the PAF the fighter it needed at a critical time, and even with zero exports, I'd call it a success. Unfortunately, the PAF isn't equipped to manage the program for its next chapter.
The PAF leadership is trying to be a warfighting force, business, gentleman's club, tech startup, and foreign affairs ministry all in one. However, the institution isn't equipped to manage any of that non-warfighting work efficiently, nor should it be...
IMO, in the late 2000s, entities such as PAC (alongside HIT, POF, KSEW, etc) should have been reorganized into a separate force focused on defence R&D and production.
Okay, you don't want to trust the politicians and civilians - fine! - then at least set up another military service arm focused on R&D and production.
Put a 3-star/4-star general at the top alongside 1-star/2-stars to form a board of directors, and then delegate, delegate, and delegate the management of the R&D arm to scientists, engineers, business experts, etc. Basically, adopt a similar model to what the Turkish Armed Forces Foundation does with Turkiye's state-owned defence industry players, like TAI.
These experts would've seen the JF-17's market problems many years in advance and, in turn, could've pivoted to a succession program sooner. For example, they might have flagged the J-31 and TFX earlier on in their development cycles and, in turn, pushed for advance funding towards both to secure valuable co-production work, tech transfer, etc, later. They may spot and leverage opportunities (e.g., South Africa's Marlin AAM/SAM program, Ukraine's AI-9500F turbofan, etc.,) to build our domestic capability base.
