The MiG-35 is a good platform. The fact that it has engine commonality with the JF-17 makes it a particularly attractive option. However, we have to answer the same question, is the added improvement worth the added cost? Remember, we are dealing with a financial situation where every decision made can affect the PAF in the long-term.If we want to buy used F-16's from another country like EU or Jordan , do we have take NOC from US ?or in any way US can block the sell ? ask the seller to stop the sell ? or the selling rights is in complete control of the Operating country ?
Availability of used F-16 always remain a unanswered question for PAF , the price and performance wise, F-16 can be a good addition cause we have a required setup to add more fighters without extra training or other cost .
but Europe and Pakistan relations were never been so good , recently as per Zarvans posts, Belgium is looking for a new fighter to replace old F-16's , they have 150+ F-16 A/B , block 10-15 .. we can get our hands on 18-36 , but again , US wont let that happen .
@Oscar @Quwa how will you guy rate Mig-35 ? quality and cost wise ? thrust , payload , maneuverability , and other factors ? will it be wise for PAF to look into Mig-35 ?
Unfortunately, even the MiG-35 - while a welcome addition - wouldn't add enough to justify the cost of inducting a new fighter platform that is in the same general area of an existing fighter, i.e. F-16. The PAF should focus on securing a platform that would meet its medium-weight fighter needs of the future, i.e. replace the F-16. For that, I recommend looking at the FC-31.
If you want an interim platform that can offer a significant capability boost, i.e. justify the added cost, then a heavyweight fighter, such as the Su-35 and Su-34, would be a good start. At least there the PAF is building out a credible presence in terms of its maritime operations and long-range strike needs.