China Coast Guard and Patrol vessels

joshuatree said:

Bulbous bows are most efficient when a vessel is traveling mostly in higher range of speed.

Click to expand...

Bulbous bows are most efficient in saving the energy. At the higher speeds the drag is growing exponentially to the hull's speed and it takes more energy to make it happen. Bulbous bow was implemented as a way to bring it to the minimum. I think that those are made for intimidation. Not against Japanese or Soth Korean CG's as they won't be afraid to reply but more for South China Sea. And the fishing boats out there.

I'm more surprised that no one here noticed that.

A 'cannon fodder' isn't a compliment in the Navy...

Janiz said:

I'm far more concerned about the absence of bulbous bow in those ships. Made for ramming?

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you would say that considering we can't see if they have bulbous bows or not given we can't even see what's below the water line.

Janiz said:

Bulbous bows are most efficient in saving the energy. At the higher speeds the drag is growing exponentially to the hull's speed and it takes more energy to make it happen. Bulbous bow was implemented as a way to bring it to the minimum. I think that those are made for intimidation. Not against Japanese or Soth Korean CG's as they won't be afraid to reply but more for South China Sea. And the fishing boats out there.

I'm more surprised that no one here noticed that.

Click to expand...

Or maybe, just maybe, the presence or lack of presence of a bulbous bow is not the only single design feature on a ship that is mean to judge the role of a ship?

oh look, the Legend class cutter, the USCG's premiere large cutter. It lacks a bulbous bow.

So Janiz, I suppose you would agree the USCG is using these vessels for intimidation, because of their bulbous bow?
Please reply to this, I want to see how you dig yourself out of this one.

Last time I remember that US CG had to ram any boat was? And the last time Chinese CG went into contact with foriegn CG cutters or fishing boats? From the depth of my memory: the second one happened recently...

For the real reason behind Legend class lack of bulbous bow: they're used so far up north that they need some kind of weapon against ice. Bulbous bow would get killed in the action against that. I'm still waiting for a snow in South China Sea... A real Arctic conditions that US CG had to think about when they planned them. Unlike Chinese.

I'm 99,9% sure that none of you had thought about that...

Janiz said:

Last time I remember that US CG had to ram any boat was? And the last time Chinese CG went into contact with foriegn CG cutters or fishing boats? From the depth of my memory: the second one happened recently...

For the real reason behind Legend class lack of bulbous bow: they're used so far up north that they need some kind of weapon against ice. Bulbous bow would get killed in the action against that. I'm still waiting for a snow in South China Sea... A real Arctic conditions that US CG had to think about when they planned them. Unlike Chinese.

I'm 99,9% sure that none of you had thought about that...

Click to expand...

Indeed?

Or maybe, just maybe, the presence of a bulbous bow or lack of presence of a bulbous bow isn't a single determinant of whether a ship is for "intimidation" or meant to "ram"?
Maybe, just maybe your claim is a bit illogical and if your way of thinking were imposed then the role of all ships could be judged based on whether they had a bulbous bow or not?


If you want to do some moral grandstanding or virtue signalling you can do so without having to resort to silly games of logic.

Janiz said:

I'm still waiting for a snow in South China Sea...

Click to expand...

Bohai Bay.

Don't feed the troll. I am surprised Janiz is not banned yet, his contribution is in the negatives.

Bltizo said:

If you want to do some moral grandstanding or virtue signalling you can do so without having to resort to silly games of logic.

Click to expand...

I can sense your lack of arguments against a logical one from thousands of miles from you. If you can't see the real aim it's up to you, not me.

t2contra said:

Bohai Bay.

Click to expand...

US CG cutters had to have this capability of ice breaking. Russian CG also. Some of the Japanese CG cutters are able to break the ice 2 metrs thick. But the reason for that is:

RESCUE OPERATIONS

All of them are capable of that. And none place in Bohai Sea can't be reached from the coastline (Korean or Chinese, whatever) to bring the rescue teams to the ship trapped in thick ice.

Think about a better argument. Russian, Canadian, Japanese and US coast guard cutters are designed to bring the help to ships in distress in the thick ice thousands of miles away from the shores. There's no logical reason for that aboard Chinese CG cutters. Unless they will claim new land in the Arctic Sea.

Try again.

PiSigma said:

Don't feed the troll. I am surprised Janiz is not banned yet, his contribution is in the negatives.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reasonable input to the dicussion. Full of arguments... I'm surprised.

Nope, 76mm gun doesn't help to break ice if you had thought about that opportunity to reply.

Janiz said:

I can sense your lack of arguments against a logical one from thousands of miles from you. If you can't see the real aim it's up to you, not me.

Click to expand...

you're the one saying lack of bulbous bow = intimidation+ramming

In reality any cutter with or without a bulbous bow can still be used for intimidation and ramming, and ships with a bulbous bow can be used for a host of other unrelated missions.


I'm surprised why you're not just saying the entire Chinese Coast Guard's cutter fleet exists for intimidation and ramming instead -- that would be more logical than trying to say ships without bulbous bows means they are meant for that mission, which is not only absurdly illogical but also implies that ships without bulbous bows cannot do that.

Bltizo said:

I'm surprised why you're not just saying the entire Chinese Coast Guard's cutter fleet exists for intimidation and ramming instead

Click to expand...

Probably because even the largest ship in Chinese CG fleet had bulbous bow to save some money up to this point. Now I see big guns (used mainly aboard warships) and lack of of bulbous bow (which says something, at least for me as no one had pointed that out earlier) in those projects. There's no logical reason for doing that. And remember that Chinese CG cutters had a history of clashing with almost every CG of it's naval neighbours. I can't remember reading about US CG in the same manner...