A bit of Indian and Russian logic - USAF will buy F-15EX therefore F-22s and F-35s are worse than the F-15EX just like PLAAF buying the Su-35 and still building J-10 and J-16 definitely means the J-20 is less capable. This is why India has superior intelligence and superpower status.
On a serious note though I really doubt the J-11D will include any radical changes to the airframe. The RCS problem is an airframe one and the J-16 has already made as much effort as economically viable on reducing RCS. You just can't hide the weapons or the engines with this design. I don't see how the J-11D can be much better than what the J-11BG and J-16 are already unless they include integrated TVC or intending to integrate WS-15 engines. The idea of the J-11D is increasingly pointless now when the focus should be forward. Flankers will continue to be "upgraded" and built in dianzhi versions of J-15 and J-16 along with more J-15 (newer blocks) and J-16s.
The only worthwhile idea is to pursue some equivalent missile truck idea similar in concept to the F-15EX. However it will demand much better engines so unless the flanker frame can eventually use WS-15s and have the internal fuel capacity to make the whole program worthwhile, the missile truck role may be delegated to the replacement JH program. So the entire idea now rests on WS-15 and using it on a future flanker. Even then there's going to be considerations on fuel and range because they would need to balance the heavy A2A missile load with range, speed, and altitude performance. The F-15EX does this because the design is just more suited for this role - high speed high altitude and a pair of excellent engines. The latest WS-10s may be up for this job but we don't know if the airframe design actually is suited.
I think the PLAAF may be far more inclined at spending development money on 6th gen and sharp sword wingman. While the JH-xx program is probably going to include the role of the missile truck. Therefore any more entirely new flanker variant is going to be unlikely.
Lol. I like your comment of the Russian and Indian logic. Indian logic is self explanatory. But Russian logic is mostly because they are no longer at the forefront of the non-nuclear arms race.
The RCS reduction effort on the J-11 series should be worth it because the Flankers still have much room for RCS reduction. For instance, the Su-35s that China bought has 1/3 the RCS of the old Su-27s. So the J-11D can adopt and improve on the RCS reduction methods from the Su-35s. More RCS reduction would at least buy some more closing distance in BVR combat. I do agree that no matter how much RCS reduction is done on the Flanker design, it is never going rival that of the latest version of light fighters like the F-16s or J-10s. This even applies to any RCS reduction efforts on the F-15s.
If the new Chinese Flankers could get WS-15s, that would be really interesting. Imagine the advanced Chinese Flankers able to add TVC, even more trust to their already formidable agility, and the ability to super-cruise. These could perhaps become the pinnacle of the Flanker design.
6th gen aircraft for the PLAAF looks like something for the future. The JH-XX is promising, but I haven't seen enough visible progress to think it is coming out anytime soon. Unless it is perhaps an adoption of the J-20 for the strike aircraft role.
Without any new 'missile truck' designs coming up in the immediate term. I think the new generation of Chinese Flankers would be the primary stopgap solution. A design that is readily available and can be readily mass-produced for the immediate needs.
