In my opinion, a great portion of the blame also lies in our expectations. Arms deals to the third world aren't like a car sale, unless the Japanese government twists my arm and passively forces me to buy a Honda Civic, as a part of a wider deal in which they rebuild half my house, receive permission to land armed forces in my backyard and gain my support on most political issues and agreement to buy almost exclusively Japanese cars as a means to prop up their automotive industry. As a car buyer, I am not a slave to Japanese policies against other nations and am free to flip flop on which brand to give my business, without having to worry about loosing access to Civic parts and electricity to my house.
Money speaks above all else in arms purchases, but it does not do so at the expense of what a purchase entails for the buying nation. This is magnified in the case of third world nations, because many of these sales are sweeteners to higher level diplomatic and economic dealings and come with favorable financing terms, which are the price for the strings attached. The f-16 was such a success, not simply because it is a great fighter, but because, in the same mold as the mig-21 for the Soviets, it forms a significant part of the American global diplomacy. F-16s and the like are a gift for: surrendering an authentic foreign policy to the American cause, a free pass to use sovereign territory for US power projection, and as a means to support American arms industry.
While this is an exaggerated assumption that doesn't apply to all cases of arms transactions, it highlights the very problem with the jf-17 sales push: the type of nations looking to buy such an aircraft seldom do so based on merit alone. It is a balancing act consisting of which nation a buyer chooses to ally with, the benefits received from the seller's government (financial, economic, diplomatic), the advantages to local industry and, possibly last,how effective the aircraft is in filling it's intended role. The jf-17 may be very cost effective, but Pakistan does not offer a fellow third world nation any overarching protection against potential adversaries, nor does it have funds to invest in local economic projects; as such siding with Pakistan on a geopolitical level brings no advantages of any kind.
The jf-17 sales pitch failed the day Pakistan was attached to the project. It may garner sales at some point, but to expect it to become a volume seller, it will require the Chinese to become active in global politics in the same mold as the Americans are today; at which point the Chinese and all the perks that come with doing business with them, will sell the aircraft. We should be satisfied with what the jf-17 is doing for the PAF, it is unfair to expect anymore.
