That's an interesting point. I didn't know the domestic Chinese turbine industry was so limited. Do you know why? Chinese industry certainly is capable of high tolerance machining, and they're literally the best at the world in complex assembly, so I'd have to guess they're behind on the design or materials side.
The Liaoning is a bit of a weird duck. It provides air cover and anti-submarine capabilities to naval formations, but it's not capable of projecting power into a region via strike missions the way US carrier groups do. It fits within the posture I described. But also it seems like it may just be a boondogle to satisfy some admirals that want to be one of the nations that has a "carrier".
The public claim is that the quality control and reliability on the WS-10 production lines is poor, but there's evidence that there's more to it than just that. The WS-10 is produced mostly natively, but its design is largely reverse engineered from the AL-31F. In fact, its turbine blades are imported from Russia. This corroborates reports that the Chinese lack the design expertise at present to design a fighter engine from scratch.
Also, keep in mind that the WS-10A is derived from the AL-31F, which was first flown on the Su-27, but has since been replaced in Russia by modernized AL-31FM1 and 2 or the new 117 family engines. The FM and 117 series engines have generally better performance than the older F/FN parts, and likely are more efficient. Thus, we can see that the Chinese are working off an old design.
I feel upvoting this and your other comments is insufficient for saying thank you to adding to the discussion. I know little about military tech, but you've hit the very few bits that I do know (grandfather was a career B-52 pilot) and I appreciate learning more from someone who seems like a reliable source (unusual on the internet, right?).
The Liaoning is a bit of a weird duck. It provides air cover and anti-submarine capabilities to naval formations, but it's not capable of projecting power into a region via strike missions the way US carrier groups do. It fits within the posture I described. But also it seems like it may just be a boondogle to satisfy some admirals that want to be one of the nations that has a "carrier".