RE: Single engine vs. Twin engine.
I agree with
@ougoah that in principle, the "low
-est [possible] cost" fighters are single-engine by virtue of less moving parts and materials, and agree that FC-31 was not originally designed for the "lowest possible cost" category for 5th gen fighters. Engine availability is a critical deciding factor as
@Bltizo suggested, how can you supply J-20, single-engine J-YX, and future 6th gen when WS-15 isn't even mature? So twin-engine it must be...
BUT I also agree with
@latenlazy suggestion that twin-engine medium fighters are "low
-er [relative] costs" than twin-engine heavy fighters, and since cost comparisons are relative, not absolute, the absence of single-engines is not an overriding disqualifier of whether it's "low
-er [relative] cost" than the alternative. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be single-engine fighter to actually be lower costs.
Overall, if there is a necessity to achieve 5th gen fleet numerical parity ASAP (e.g. war-time scenario), then pump out J-20 like sausages or go with twin-engine land-based J-XY. If there is no urgency to go to war, then perhaps pump out J-20's and 4.5 gen semi-stealth like sausages and invest in disruptive 6th gen tech. Becuz even if you wanted a single-engine land-based J-XY, there aren't enough mature engines available. We must win with the cards we are dealt.