The ideal would be a Flanker. A fully capable multi-role platform with the range to traverse over the seas and the payload to pack a punch; we could have the JF-17s work along the coasts, and the Flanker patrol further into sea. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we will/can secure the platform easily. Having the JH-7 as a bomb truck of sorts is an interesting idea, it would necessitate a symbiotic relationship between the JH-7 and JF-17 though; the two squadrons would definitely have to be in the same wing, and closely coordinate (akin to the Masroor AB force today).
I have been regularly visiting and reading your website after finding it on this forum, very good content and information, my respects. But I, respectfully, differ with your opinion. Just putting up a few points of discussion and hopefully will not be taken as an affront.
Before delving in discussion about it, I also want to raise a point about my impression that this forum's users generally believe twin engine jets to have longer ranges and capabilities. They do tend to have higher payloads but make many design compromises and until more recently used to have lower ranges. For example, until latest incarnation of F-15 (with a CFT, US F-16s do not have CFTs), it used to have lower range and loiter time than F-16. F 15A was considered even short legged than earlier F 16A. The same was the case with earlier versions of F-18 etc.
2. Flanker is a superb platform, no doubt about it, but may actually end up as negatives for PAF in long-term. It will be quite improbable that PAF is able to get more than 20-24 Su-35 even if it is able to find funds for it and will certainly result in limiting other projects it wants to pursue. This may look like insignificant but may result in a sort of "strategic hesitation" as was the case in 90s with small number of F-16s we had. Rather than developing tactics and operations to freely employ your top tier platform you end up keeping it "safe" and to be used only if need is utmost, which is usually when you are already in desperate straits.
3. Now that we are talking about dreams and wishes, lets head straight to fantasy land. First about range, Su-35 has excellent combat range but does it beat F-16s with CFT range?
F-16's "wing-up" CFT are lighter at 900 pounds, carries 3050 ltrs providing it more than 2440 kg of fuel. Its fuel fraction is usually 0.43 which it carries a single engine to feed. Su-35's fuel fraction is 0.45 but it has two very hungry engines to feed.
Rather than spending billions of dollars on procuring a new platform which at best will only result in about 2 squadrons strength, why not throw a couple of hundreds millions at developing and testing a CFT for JF-17? If we can just develop a similar set of CFTs like F-16, it will result in a fuel fraction above 0.5. It will add almost negligible drag, and full flight envelop with full Gs will still be supported. And you can even still attach external drop tanks to extend combat range further. But most importantly it frees up weapon stations to carry more weapons payloads and add no penalties for performance envelop during full combat range. Also remember that once you are going to induct about 250 of these, these all 'second' tier fighters with CFTs will have combat ranges which even Su-35 will be jealous of.
JF-17 already are going to support in-flight refuelling, with F-16 like CFTs in ,lets say block 3, why would it not be "game changing"?
4. Now that we are still in the fantasy land, let's say we have those billions of dollars available and also can expand production capacities as needed. Why just have 2 dedicated naval squadrons, why not spend that funds on having many more?
24 Su-35, even not taking stock of service and spares costs, will cost about 1.5 billion $ @ 65 mn. In these funds we'll easily have 80 Jf-17, roughly 6 squadrons dedicated to naval operations. With CFTs and air-refuelling, why would 6 squadrons of JF-17 be less capable in terms of total payloads and range than 2 squadrons of Su-35. Also which force will be able to provide planner much more choices and offensive 'punch'?
Even if we are able to maintain availability of 75% which indians are still trying to achieve with similar Su-30s what this will result in, about 19-20 jets available any time. I have never heard of any Russian jet having service hours per flight hour of below 20. Indian Su-30s as well as Russian and Chinese versions of Flanker are said to have 30+ service hours per flight hours. Air wars/ campaigns are never about the 'brochured' specs of platforms it is all about how much is available at any time and how repetitively it is usable every hour, availability and sortie rates.
2 squadron strength of Su 35 will provide 20 x 0.8 per day = 16 sorties per day
6 squadrons of JF -17 will provide 72 x 1.6 = 115 sorties per day
About JH7, as a growler like platform, it will be very interesting. We really need a growler or F-111 like EW platform if we can some how secure a podded or integrated version of a powerful EW system.
