Chinese Engine Development


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Yep, this was my original point about market share relative to other suppliers. It’s entirely possible, even likely, that the marketshare figures have no mathematical relationship to the production output projections, and has everything to do with where CISRI thinks it will be in terms of competing with other suppliers for the share of those fixed outputs. After spending time to read the whole document, there’s nothing I saw that would specify how those marketshare figures should be interpreted. However, keep in mind that the objective of the document is to report on and sell CISRI’s future prospects for the part of the business they supply to the final assembler, not to document production output for the final assembler themselves, and thus it would make sense to interpret figures like market share as about their position relative to other suppliers, not as a figure related to total output of engines.

Even if the market share only has to do with where CSRI thinks it will be in terms of competing with other suppliers, that doesn't really make sense, because in 2020 if producing 5 WS-15s is meant to represent "20%" of market share relative to competitors and if producing 5 WS-15s (the same number) in 2026 is meant to represent "50%" of overall market share relative to competitors.... then that means in 2020 overall it means they are projecting there would be 25 WS-15s produced in 2020 and only 10 produced in 2026.


The table as it is just doesn't make sense, because if production of engines is fixed every year between 2020 and 2026, yet CISRI's "market share" increases from 20% to 50%, then the only way that would make sense is if the overall market size has shrunk! I consider that to be rather unlikely.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
3: The market share is a mystery. Probably means they don't expect to get all jobs? After all they are not the only, nor would the WS-15 program rely on sole supplier as risk avoidance measure.
  • IMO, the reducing is reasonable for pre-production when the purpose is to reduce fabrication variables (to standardize everything). Every piece or batch in this phase is NOT standard/final, along the progress there will be less and less variants to try. At the end one only need ONE piece which full-fill every specification and pass through a settled fabrication procedure.

This part is what I'm struggling to reconcile.

Each year the number of actual WS-15s and WS-19s is constant between 2020 and 2026. That is to say, the product that the value is supplying between each of these years are not suggested to be changing in any way.
However, the market share of this company is increasing from 20% to 50%, despite not changing in any way.
(Keeping in mind the "market" here is AVIC/PLA's demand for WS-15 and WS-19 engines)

If we assume the numbers in the table are accurate, then it has to mean that the overall market size of engines is reducing -- i.e.: that AVIC/PLA is requiring less WS-15 and WS-19 engines. Now, it is possible that perhaps the AVIC/PLA are choosing to be conservative with WS-15 and WS-19 engines for some reason, or perhaps AVIC/PLA foresee some kind of massive spending crunch in the future.... however I find that to be very unlikely.

Either we are missing something, or at least one of the rows in that table is inaccurate... or both.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Even if the market share only has to do with where CSRI thinks it will be in terms of competing with other suppliers, that doesn't really make sense, because in 2020 if producing 5 WS-15s is meant to represent "20%" of market share relative to competitors and if producing 5 WS-15s (the same number) in 2026 is meant to represent "50%" of overall market share relative to competitors.... then that means in 2020 overall it means they are projecting there would be 25 WS-15s produced in 2020 and only 10 produced in 2026.


The table as it is just doesn't make sense, because if production of engines is fixed every year between 2020 and 2026, yet CISRI's "market share" increases from 20% to 50%, then the only way that would make sense is if the overall market size has shrunk! I consider that to be rather unlikely.
It’s not producing 20% of WS-15, but 20% of supply for specific parts used on the WS-15. The supply of the part is not the same thing as the production output of the engine. Those don’t always scale linearly. Furthermore, as I said earlier, the marketshare figure may have nothing to do with the total production output for the engine. Perhaps the output is fixed, and the share refers to how much of specific parts procured for the 5 engines the supplier anticipates they will cover.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
This part is what I'm struggling to reconcile.

Each year the number of actual WS-15s and WS-19s is constant between 2020 and 2026. That is to say, the product that the value is supplying between each of these years are not suggested to be changing in any way.
However, the market share of this company is increasing from 20% to 50%, despite not changing in any way.
(Keeping in mind the "market" here is AVIC/PLA's demand for WS-15 and WS-19 engines)

If we assume the numbers in the table are accurate, then it has to mean that the overall market size of engines is reducing -- i.e.: that AVIC/PLA is requiring less WS-15 and WS-19 engines. Now, it is possible that perhaps the AVIC/PLA are choosing to be conservative with WS-15 and WS-19 engines for some reason, or perhaps AVIC/PLA foresee some kind of massive spending crunch in the future.... however I find that to be very unlikely.

Either we are missing something, or at least one of the rows in that table is inaccurate... or both.
The reducing is the XWS-15 and XWS-19, not serial production of WS-15 and WS-19. I use X to designate the test-production variant. These engines from 2020 to 2026 are NOT production articles, every batch of them are slightly different with later batches being closer to the final articles for mass productions. It is natural to expect that the divination being reduced, so the number of test articles being reduced in total. At the end of the phase, only the last batch (say 5 in 2026) would be identical to the version in mass production. Most early makes of these engines are not going to be used by J-20.

Let me illustrate in total numbers. In 2020 the total is 15, if 5 as a batch, there will be 3 batches. I will make 3 batches in sequence. The first batch results to deviation that only 2 is up to spec, I will improve my process and make 2nd batch which results 3 good, so by the 3rd batch I may get 4 good. That means out of 15 in 2020, I have improved my process to make a batch (5) of quality 80%. That is not good enough, so I start another batch of 5 in 2021. Do I still need 15? Probably not because now I have a much higher baseline. If everything goes smoothly, I may only need 2 batches to reach 5/5 where I can settle my process.

This is to illustrate how pre-production development are planned. How they spread out these numbers (size of batches and number of batches) are dependent on their R&D methodology, but the overall trend is gradual reduction of total articles until the last batch.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
It’s not producing 20% of WS-15, but 20% of supply for specific parts used on the WS-15. The supply of the part is not the same thing as the production output of the engine. Those don’t always scale linearly. Furthermore, as I said earlier, the marketshare figure may have nothing to do with the total production output for the engine. Perhaps the output is fixed, and the share refers to how much of specific parts procured for the 5 engines the supplier anticipates they will cover.
Yes, that is correct. The (serial) production output (after the 2020-2026 phase) is estimated being 300 per year according to the same report.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The reducing is the XWS-15 and XWS-19, not serial production of WS-15 and WS-19. I use X to designate the test-production variant. These engines from 2020 to 2026 are NOT production articles, every batch of them are slightly different with later batches being closer to the final articles for mass productions. It is natural to expect that the divination being reduced, so the number of test articles being reduced in total. At the end of the phase, only the last batch (say 5 in 2026) would be identical to the version in mass production. Most early makes of these engines are not going to be used by J-20.

Let me illustrate in total numbers. In 2020 the total is 15, if 5 as a batch, there will be 3 batches. I will make 3 batches in sequence. The first batch results to deviation that only 2 is up to spec, I will improve my process and make 2nd batch which results 3 good, so by the 3rd batch I may get 4 good. That means out of 15 in 2020, I have improved my process to make a batch (5) of quality 80%. That is not good enough, so I start another batch of 5 in 2021. Do I still need 15? Probably not because now I have a much higher baseline. If everything goes smoothly, I may only need 2 batches to reach 5/5 where I can settle my process.

This is to illustrate how pre-production development are planned. How they spread out these numbers (size of batches and number of batches) are dependent on their R&D methodology, but the overall trend is gradual reduction of total articles until the last batch.

Assuming that the engines described here are not "production" and that they are "test production" -- I still do not believe it would be reasonable to expect the total number of test-production articles to reduce year by year.

You would expect the number of test articles per year to either increase, or at least to stay static, as development and testing of the type continues and as it approaches production.


Unless there is some kind of factor we are missing, like the "XWS-15s" being produced by this company each year are all slightly different test articles (e.g.: different variants), and that another company is actually spooling up an increasing batch of production WS-15s.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It’s not producing 20% of WS-15, but 20% of supply for specific parts used on the WS-15. The supply of the part is not the same thing as the production output of the engine. Those don’t always scale linearly. Furthermore, as I said earlier, the marketshare figure may have nothing to do with the total production output for the engine. Perhaps the output is fixed, and the share refers to how much of specific parts procured for the 5 engines the supplier anticipates they will cover.

Right, so you're saying that the "market share" may instead mean "share of value of each product". That is plausible, if we take it to mean that this company projects it is able to capture more of the value/work for each engine produced as time goes on.

However the kicker in all this still comes back to the projected yearly engine production rate. Considering where we know WS-15 is at in its development, it is very strange if not suspicious for the type to see no change in yearly production rate for six whole years. Even during testing and development, it would be normal if not expected for the production of test articles per year to increase as it progresses through its development phase and edges towards production.


The possible explanation of course is that WS-15 development and projected production is just that much more difficult than previously projected, but seeing it fixed for six whole years still doesn't quite jive.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Unless there is some kind of factor we are missing, like the "XWS-15s" being produced by this company each year are all slightly different test articles (e.g.: different variants), and that another company is actually spooling up an increasing batch of production WS-15s.
I believe every single article to be slightly different, not that they want to (so not different variants by design), but because they have not figured out every detail of mass producing. Every batch is a incremental improvement closer to the final.

If that "another company" is the other 50%, that would still indicate an overall decrease.

I don't believe the "other company" is producing something outside these test-production. There is no reason to produce in big number while the production specification is being ironed out, it is just waste.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Senior Member
Registered Member
The possible explanation of course is that WS-15 development and projected production is just that much more difficult than previously projected, but seeing it fixed for six whole years still doesn't quite jive.
I think a principle of this PLA watching thing of ours is that no news is good news. If the WS-15 were in that kind of trouble then that information should have percolated through the grapevine to reach us.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I think a principle of this PLA watching thing of ours is that no news is good news. If the WS-15 were in that kind of trouble then that information should have percolated through the grapevine to reach us.

This is assuming of course, that to the insiders the idea of "5 engines per year for six years" would've been considered as bad news to begin with lol. It's very possible that this was within their projected estimates.
 

Top