1.I don't. But requirements rarely end at "medium-sized and stealthy" even for the least developed air forces.
2. It isn't about new dimensions, it's about commonality with the basic fc-31v2.
3. Please remember, how many parts are in common between f-35a and f-35c.
To be frank, for the result obtained, it was hardly worth it.
But f-35a is thousands of planes, any degree of commonality will at least keep the costs down.
While fc-31 has some export prospective, is it worth it? I frankly don't think so.
4. Everything mentioned requires fuselage redesign. Perhaps not in external shape(if you're a f-35 program director and try to use same tooling as much as possible), but internally - certainly.
Su-33/J-15 are essentially a new planes inside, distinctively separated from the rest of Flanker family. And even it(at least for su-33, but it's very unlikely for J-15 to be very different) was clearly not enough.
5.My point is, it will most likely require a new airframe, in both cases.
Maybe it will remind externally fc-31, why not. Raptor-like shape is great and proven.
2. It isn't about new dimensions, it's about commonality with the basic fc-31v2.
3. Please remember, how many parts are in common between f-35a and f-35c.
To be frank, for the result obtained, it was hardly worth it.
But f-35a is thousands of planes, any degree of commonality will at least keep the costs down.
While fc-31 has some export prospective, is it worth it? I frankly don't think so.
4. Everything mentioned requires fuselage redesign. Perhaps not in external shape(if you're a f-35 program director and try to use same tooling as much as possible), but internally - certainly.
Su-33/J-15 are essentially a new planes inside, distinctively separated from the rest of Flanker family. And even it(at least for su-33, but it's very unlikely for J-15 to be very different) was clearly not enough.
5.My point is, it will most likely require a new airframe, in both cases.
Maybe it will remind externally fc-31, why not. Raptor-like shape is great and proven.