Chinese Engine Development

taxiya said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

latenlazy said:

Before we go off into a thousand directions, why didn’t you wait for a proper translation before jumping the gun...

Click to expand...

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.

ZeEa5KPul said:

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Bltizo said:

(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)

Click to expand...

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 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





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.

ZeEa5KPul said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Even if she's 100% right about the MLRS, she's too tainted as a source draw any conclusions from. She's like the boy who cried wolf - the boy was eventually right about the wolf, but he had damaged his credibility with the villagers too much to be trusted again. We the villagers will have to use other methods to verify or refute the presence of the wolf; the boy is an unusable source, even if he happens to be right.

That's not to say anyone who makes a mistaken prediction should be summarily branded and ignored. We all make mistakes, but with her it's a consistent pattern over many long years which she fails to own up to and correct.

On to much more important things. I think we can tentatively conclude that the rows you highlighted aren't talking about the company's share or output of WS-15/19. What is the blue row referring to? 234, 351, 585 whats?

ZeEa5KPul said:

Even if she's 100% right about the MLRS, she's too tainted as a source draw any conclusions from. She's like the boy who cried wolf - the boy was eventually right about the wolf, but he had damaged his credibility with the villagers too much to be trusted again. We the villagers will have to use other methods to verify or refute the presence of the wolf; the boy is an unusable source, even if he happens to be right.

That's not to say anyone who makes a mistaken prediction should be summarily branded and ignored. We all make mistakes, but with her it's a consistent pattern over many long years which she fails to own up to and correct.

Click to expand...

I personally never post her content. If I could make a rule, I would personally think a blanket softban of all of her content would probably help the forum rather than hinder it.

But if other people post her content and make a viable argument for why certain aspects of a particular article might be logical, if the argument is good enough then I think it's worth considering.
However if the information is too far beyond the pale then sure, dismiss it.

In terms of the users here, if someone here decides to consider an aspect of one of her articles, then I try not to judge their credibility based on what argument they make and how they interpret her articles rather than the fact that they choose to even discuss her article in the first place.

On to much more important things. I think we can tentatively conclude that the rows you highlighted aren't talking about the company's share or output of WS-15/19. What is the blue row referring to? 234, 351, 585 whats?

Click to expand...

To be honest I'm not sure what to make heads or tails of this table or most of the others anymore.

Because the part in writing before the table does say that in each year in the foreseeable future will see 5 engines produced per year as well, which is consistent with the WS-15 and WS-19 rows, but which is not consistent with the changing percentages and changing numbers in the last row.

Always good to know WS-10 is doing well