Chinese Engine Development


taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Why would total production fall from 25 WS-15 engines in 2020 to 10 in 2026? We're among friends so I don't mind stating aloud that the Chinese stock market is a fraudulent pile of crap, so its regulators don't impress me.
I quote my post #5263
Along with the maturity of the production specification, the pre-production volume will decrease or even cease earlier than 2026.
From my experience in my company, the pre-production phase is another kind of R&D process where the focus is to fine tune the best practice to guarantee quality consistency in quantity. The time may be short or long. If everything goes well, it is short and need less pre-production pieces, so the decrease over time. Although not guaranteed, it is how planner's do.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
I quote my post #5263

From my experience in my company, the pre-production phase is another kind of R&D process where the focus is to fine tune the best practice to guarantee quality consistency in quantity. The time may be short or long. If everything goes well, it is short and need less pre-production pieces, so the decrease over time. Although not guaranteed, it is how planner's do.
And from my company experience, I can say if you don’t do this step carefully you’re welcoming a lot of headaches down the road.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Before we go off in a thousand different directions, someone qualified should do a careful translation of the documents so we can all be on the same page about at least the facts. There's already ambiguity about the number of engines (5 per year through 2026 or 25 -> 10 per year).
Before we go off into a thousand directions, why didn’t you wait for a proper translation before jumping the gun...
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The "they" may be just CISRI who is one among other suppliers. The report says some share of 20 to 50%. So we may be seeing 10 to 25 engines per year through 2026.

We should also keep in mind that, this is a projection (wish) of the said company regarding their own share of the work. It does not reflect the overall WS-15 pre-production volume.
WS15.png

Yes, there are a few important things to clarify or to ponder, I think.

1: what equipment exactly is this company likely to supply?
2: is this company likely to be the only supplier for this type of equipment
3: what does it mean when it says market share of 20%, then 30%, then 50%?
- Because in that table, for each year the WS-15 and WS-19 is the same, so I'm not sure why the market(share?) changes from 20% to 30% and then 50%
- Furthermore, if the "market(share) row is meant to represent what proportion of the "market" the company is supplying, then would a shift from 20% to 30% to 50% (while the each yearly WS-15 and WS-19 supply is the same) suggest that the overall yearly WS-15 and WS-19 supply is reducing???
- So looking at it, to be honest I'm not sure how to make heads or tails of this table.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Senior Member
Registered Member
Before we go off into a thousand directions, why didn’t you wait for a proper translation before jumping the gun...
Mea culpa. I know better than to jump the gun and shouldn't have done so, so I'm not going to comment on this topic again until the documents are translated correctly and we clearly understand what they're saying, what they're not saying, what we're inferring or misinferring, etc. I've already witnessed a pointless exchange on PDF because someone mistranslated 120万 as 120 million rather than 1.2 million.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
We've all been expecting mass production of the WS-15 in 2025. 5 engines/year then is a couple of planes and a spare - it might as well be zero. It most certainly is the farthest thing possible from what we've been expecting. SDF has an unfortunate habit of granting a degree of acceptance to every piece of information it gets regardless of the source (I've seen users here take Minnie Chan's lemons and try to make lemonade out of them.)

I hope to see better in this case. The documents should read carefully by someone (preferably more than one) who is familiar with all the technical and legal terms and can translate them accurately.

Yes, 2025 has been the date we've been expecting production to ramp up, but it was never a fixed "it will happen exactly this year".

To be honest, given what PLA watching in the engine domain has been like in the past, I think more than a few of us understood it was not unlikely if things slipped back a little.


Now, this isn't to say this table and our current interpretation of it is true, but it just means that the current interpretation of it is not exactly unbelievable.



(As for some here users taking Minnie Chan seriously, I consider you to review who those users have been and who the current users are that you're discussing the current topic with. They're not the same bunch)
 

ZeEa5KPul

Senior Member
Registered Member
(As for some here users taking Minnie Chan seriously, I consider you to review who those users have been and who the current users are that you're discussing the current topic with. They're not the same bunch)
I'm not talking about the trolls we have here. To give you an example, I consider @Lethe a very credible user, yet I've seen him give Minnie Chan's worthless assertion (does she have any other kind?) that the PLAN will cut carrier production because its supposedly running out of money a hearing. That was a discussion in the 003 thread for a bit. The words "Minnie Chan" should have aborted that entire exchange.

It's not really taking Minnie Chan seriously, it's more like people will take something she says and go "well, maybe if you hold it up like this and squint and sort of look to the side then..." No. Everything she says should be dismissed. Absolutely everything.
 
Last edited:

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I think the two rows that I've outlined below should be of particular interest:

The one outlined in red seems to say marketshare(?)

The one outlined in blue has the first two words I'm unable to read, but the rest of it seems to be "chanzhi zhengchang yugu" aka normal output value estimate.

Now, if we look at how the numbers for "marketshare" and "normal output value estimate" rows change from 2020 to 2026, they are consistent:
2020: 20% -> 234
2021 to 2022: 30% -> 351
2023 to 2026: 50% -> 585

That is to say, it seems like "100%" is meant to be 1170.
10% is 117
20% is 234
30% is 351
40% is 468
50% is 585
60% is 701
70% is 819
80% is 936
90% is 1053
100% is 1170


Yet the numbers in the WS-15 and WS-19 rows remain the same each year???

I do wonder if it may be possible that the WS-15 and WS-19 numbers may actually not have been put in for the years after 2020.
Let's say 5 WS-15s is 20% in 2020
Then in 2021 to 2022 (i.e.: 30%), assuming the same relationship continues, we should be looking at something like 7.5 WS-15s per year
Then from 2023 to 2026 (i.e.: 50%), again assuming the same relationship continues, it should be something like 12.5 WS-15s per year

That is the only way I'm able to reconcile the way the yearly "marketshare" and "normal output value estimate" numbers seem to move consistently with each other between 2020 and 2026, because the numbers for WS-15 and WS-19 literally do not change between 2020 and 2026 while the bottom two rows change in a logical pattern


wtf.png


Edit: I've tried looking at the other tables from the document and tbh I'm not able to extend this particular theory to all of the other tables. They all seem to have their own slightly different patterns -- or unless all of them have some kind of mistake.
 
Last edited:

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm not talking about the trolls we have here. To give you an example, I consider @Lethe a very credible user, yet I've seen him give Minnie Chan's worthless assertion (does she have any other kind?) that the PLAN will cut carrier production because its supposedly running out of money a hearing. That was a discussion in the 003 thread for a bit. The words "Minnie Chan" should have aborted that entire exchange.

It's not really taking Minnie Chan seriously, it's more like people will take something she says and go "well, maybe if you hold it up like this and squint and sort of look to the side then..." No. Everything she says should be dismissed. Absolutely everything.

I wouldn't go quite that far.

I think all of her articles have aberrations in logic in at least two major ways -- however there are also things that she writes which are not illogical.
For example one of her recent articles talked about the new PLA long range MLRS having a range of 350km. That MLRS was always thought to have a range of 280km given we assumed it would be the same as the export AR3 it was based on, but there have also been previous hints its range may be longer than 280km as that number seems deliberately designed to be below MTCR limits.


This isnt' to say Minnie Chan produces good or even average quality content -- they are mostly overwhelming poor and should be read with that level of caution, and I'd say most people who bring her content up here are not doing so with sufficient caution. However I'm also not a fan of superlatives because usually they're not too helpful either.
 

kurutoga

Junior Member
Registered Member
Only thing we are certain is the existence of ws-19 and ws-15. They both use titanium casting parts. Each engine needs such parts priced around 200k to 300k USD per set.
 

Top