We can do a parallel comparing:
The WS-9 turbofan engine, aka Spey Mk 202, passed the design certification(domestic improved version) in 2003, but got its production certification only this month(2007).
For WS-10a, the design certification was done in Dec, 2005, it's reasonable to assume the production certification takes 3-5 years. After that, the improved version will get mutured much quicker.
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure all the JH-7A are using WS-9 Qinling, as the engine was featured back then when the JH-7As were being released (CCTV clip). The numbers of Spey imports don't support the JH-7s + JH-7A fleets plus spares.
the production certification of the engine you may be referring to is the WS-10A, since J-11B has already started.
WS-10/10A has been in test for a long time, and has been flying in J-11 since June of 2002. I think its about time J-10 will use it too.
From the recent news, we can see clearly that J-10, or WS-10a are just transitional goals for PLAAF. The new airplanes are coming from the drawing board(there are other speculations as well), same improvement probably from the engine as well.
I have some doubt that the current configuration of J-10 or WS-10a will go to mass production. The engine, WS-10a needs at least 3-5 years to get mutured for that. The Chinese real goal at least should be the improved version of WS-10a that powers the J-10 Mod version airplane with some kind of stealth feature.
I do think that a slightly improved version of the J-10 with upgraded systems and wS-10A will come into production soon. You cannot take a step further without taking baby steps. There are things even that IOC/OPVAL of the platform will miss,and the only way to know is to actually field numbers of the plane in service. It does not have to be a large number, but something like 100 to 200. To bring the plane to the field is important because that will provide you with the feedback to improve the plane further. One does not roadmap the path of progress in a vacuum.
It's quite prudent for them just do small batch production, to solve all the problem encounted for the brand new versions of engine and airplane, not unexpectedly. In 1970s, when China rushed to mass produce the new turbo engines, the problem of broken blade merged from that and forced to ground the whole airplane fleet. They couldn't solve the problem in the short time and the case went up finally to Chinese prime minister, Zhou Enlai. They definitely learned something from that.
People do that all the time actually around the world, many of whom are more serious than our Chinese examples. The early F-16s and PW F100s for example. The MiG-29 and the RD-33 for example. The MiG-21 for example. The Su-27 and the AL-31 for example. The fiasco on Starfighters. It is totally amazing what the rest of the world actually put up with. You want to see smokey trails? I'm sure people hit on the RD-33 on the MiG-29 all the time for that, but look, every J-79 fitted on the Phantom, Starfighter and a few others like the Kfir, belches smoke like no tomorrow. And yet, there were thousands of these fighters ever made and even more of those engines.
Nonetheless, this is no excuse to field a knowingly defective product.
There are other concerns as well. The PLAAF fleet is aging fast, and you can't keep giving them J-7G as an interim substitute. There is a yearly quota of many units in the PLAAF gets a true modern upgrade. At the same time, in CAC, for a continous production line with full time workers, you need a set quota of production to keep that line running and to maintain that skillset. Its very hard to restore production once a line is stopped and the labor behind the skillset disbanded and moved to other sections, even other employment. So you need a modest production rate.
My personal estimate, is that we see around one to two regiments each year being converted with an average of 26 to 28 aircraft per regiment, which means a production rate of 26 to 50 aircraft per year. I think its possible for the production line and the modernization program to run concurrently while more advanced versions of the J-10 is being developed. I don't believe the PLAAF will put all its eggs in one single basket of J-10 version-model. Subsequently we will see various improvement on the J-10 and J-11B till their full replacement is at hand, and even then, some production will continue. Furthermore, as China is obsessively capitalistic, there will be every effort to sell the aircraft overseas, and that's going to drive development.
One feature the FC-1 has over the J-10 is that the FC-1 is being driven by outside customer demands other than the PLAAF. Because you cater to outside customers, your are not designing specs myopically towards one specific customer. You get different insights from facing different customer demands. One market is trying to beat F-16 but the other market is trying to beat MKI. By being export driven, you have to try harder. Marketing J-10 overseas will do it a good.
