The USN wasn’t too high on the J65 aka domesticated version of the Sapphire turbojet. It needed a better engine at the time.

One important aspect of J-8II was its indigenous origins, complete independence from external players.

The size of the program indirectly gave UAC marketers a snapshot of market potential to undercut it. J-11 more or less allows the Chinese the sovereignty card while standardizing around a commonized Flanker that includes both domestic and import origins, correct? This would explain the dwindling need for J-8II development. Concentration on the Flankers really cemented in the past five years. J-10 complements that strategy whereas J-8II would not.

I believe MiG-35 is more or less a land version of MiG-29K.

The difference in losses has been debated ad nauseum and only slightly favors twin engines.

Bring back was the biggest capability change between original Hornet and Super Hornet. LO was the latters most improved asset.

I’d think if they had done any redesign it would reflect lessons learnt in the JF-17 program. LERX to a low chord wing, wing tip launchers for heatseekers, five wet stations, data bus from the JF-17, emphasis on compatibility with future programs, etc. Then I realize the JF-17 is already a better program for any role it would fit.

The Super Hornet IMO grew in size disproportion to its gain in engine performance, in turn necessitating the need for added drag penalties. If they had upgraded to F100/110 it would have had excess thrust in combat situations and could have avoided some of the current compromises. Imagine downscaling F-15 with F414’s; it would be unacceptable. The F/A-18E/F are basically similar dimensions to F-15, yet it’s acceptable.

Just integrated omnidirectional antenna.