As far back as 2004, PAF had publicly stated they were unlikely to operate anything American beyond F-16. J-10 was available back then, PAF evaluated it later, but with the availability of new/old F-16s they simply decided to stick to F-16/JF-17 approach. They are already looking at 5th gen options and the current PAF chief is on record saying this is their top priority/challenge. Due to the lack of financial resources, PAF has largely been a reactionary force rather than a proactive one. If they can’t get any more F-16 airframes, they will turn to the Chinese for an alternative, depending on their requirements.

Regarding JF-17, it is not just about assembly from SKD/CKD kits. A large portion is being manufactured in Pakistan from raw materials under ToT from China.

It’s not PN thread, but their strategy is likely to based around subs (contract for 8 Type 041s last year), coastal batteries and some surface vessels. Unless they get some larger Chinese vessels with LR SAM (they want those but their finances are limited) I think they may end up going the shore based LR SAM route in the next few years.

‘Buy more rafales’ is the obvious and IAF’s favoured solution. 🙂

126 Rafale as part of MMRCA was too expensive, so 36 plus some and then some more… is an alternative route to the same goal. IAF might end up with what it wanted initially, even though it would do some irreversible damage to some of their home grown programmes.
Regarding offsets, assuming each Rafale costs $240 million (including what not), would Dassault be willing to reduce the overall price by a mere 25%, if GoI all of a sudden said they didn’t want those 50% offsets? Theoretically speaking (using the logic in some previous posts) Dassault’s overall profit margin should increase.

Even with Baraks IN will not be risking their principal assets atleast 300-400km from Pakistani coast.

Unlikely.
You are talking about max ranges, and there is no point in wasting expensive missiles at such ranges. PN will need those subs and expansion together with a much better SAM cover. I’d not be surprised if you see Pak philosophy shifting to a more SAM/sub oriented in a few years, in a manner similar to what is currently being suggested to Taiwan via-a-via China, I.e. make the losses unbearable to your opponent.

Why not WMD-7, instead?

They already have WMD-7 in service. But Damocles is better. This is PAF expressing interest in French avionics.

How does that work that if you undertake to do something that you cannot do, it’s someone else’s fault that you’ve undertaken to do something you cannot do? I’m talking about a developer/manufacturer promising deadlines that are unreachable. If I’m Airbus or Boeing and I promise a customer delivery on the A380 or 787 in a certain month then discover I cannot do it, how is that the customer’s fault? Why do I have to pay the customer penalties (possibly in the $millions) if it’s not my fault? If you screw up, that’s your problem. Your fault. Your failing. Not the customer’s. End of story in the grown up world. In this case the customer concerned is IAF. They are not to blame if they were promised what could not be delivered.

My thoughts precisely!
But that was a while back.
If I want a top of the line product in a certain timeframe, I would want a top of the line producer and not a new kid on the block. Either IAF didn’t realise DRDO et al.’s capabilities (damn!) and/or both parties were forced into a relationship where unrealistic promises were made (double damn!), both are at fault. As for an AF, if they can’t get the best, they usually settle down for something which is a little less capable. Not IAF!! They want the best regardless of whether the numbers are depleting, but of course this adds more pressure on the relevant ministries. And of course, China and Pakistan are about to enter a strategic alliance, which would prove to be an existential threat for IAF, I.e. 2 front war.

UAE Mirages are far more advanced.

IIRC, those mirages do use RDY-2 as well as some UAE specific munitions and a derivative of Damocles. But a recent news piece indicated that UAE won’t be signing a contract until 2017/18, which indicates that these machines won’t be available in the immediate-near future.

Added later…some info regarding from Dassault…

→ Navigation and Weapon System: Modular avionics, new RDY-2 multimode radar, digital terrain following system, new IMEWS countermeasures suite, Thomrad radio with frequency evasion and enhanced encoding, glass cockpit with new LCD visualisations, 4-display digital recording system and night vision goggles compatibility, tactical data-link, gyro-Iaser inertial navigation system, navigation Forward Looking Infra-Red system (NAHAR)….

→ Air-to-Air role: A unique capability available on the Mirage 2000-9 version, allows to use simultaneously IR and EM MICA in BVR mode (Beyond Visual Range) to deceive electronic warfare system of the target.

→ Air-to-Ground strikes: Conventional bombs, day/night video and laser-guided bombs, “Black Shaheen” stand-off cruise missiles, long range recce pod, and “SHEHAB” laser designation pod.

→ Plus an in-flight refuelling capacity and the automatic speed control system thanks to the implementation of the autothrottle function.

Modular avionics and countermeasures suite are particularly worth mentioning in view of their unusual nature.

The Mirage 2000-9 is equipped with a pioneering IT “core system” architecture as of last generation aircraft (Rafale, F-22 & F-35/JSF).

When it comes to countermeasures, they break new ground by adopting interferometry technology, providing the aircraft with high self-protection capability and accurate EW threats localisation.