China Coast Guard and Patrol vessels

Delbert said:

No, you don't send warships.. You will be escalating the tension.

At least in such a way your CG vessels will be equipped to some extend where'as if your opponent chooses to escalate the tension, you can have your CG vessel fully withdrawn intact (one piece) isn't it?

Click to expand...

Do you understand sarcasm?

Adding CIW and torpedo would just add to the cost of these CG vessels and escalate tension to a different level, since they will look like real warships, but they won't have speed of a military grade nor will they will be built to the same military grade specs. You get the worst of both world. The Chinese warships are not that far away from the CG vessels. Any country around China knows that. These ships are already intimidating neighbouring countries a lot.

ChinaGuy said:

Here's an example of China CG big guns at work. They are extremely effective and blows the foreign water cannon and CIWS out of the water. No response from the opponent is possible, not even a squeak. Can people see now why China needn't compete with the size of water and other cannons on ships ? This western my xxx is bigger than your xxx strategy is flawed when dealing with China. China will say: your xxx is bigger than our xxx is it ? Let us kick you in the yyy, then let's see how is your xxx doing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Seriously now, how old are you? We do expect some level of maturity on this forum and not have conversation devolve into a penis contest.

tphuang said:

Do you understand sarcasm?

Adding CIW and torpedo would just add to the cost of these CG vessels and escalate tension to a different level, since they will look like real warships, but they won't have speed of a military grade nor will they will be built to the same military grade specs. You get the worst of both world. The Chinese warships are not that far away from the CG vessels. Any country around China knows that. These ships are already intimidating neighbouring countries a lot.

Click to expand...

Yes, I don't understand why some believe the CG should be PLAN part 2. The standoff at Scarborough demonstrated the effectiveness in not bringing in any offensive platforms but yet be able to show the flag. They could have easily brought in their fleet of six Jianghu class frigates that were purpose built for SCS yet that move would have backfired. Even the current Diaoyu dispute would backfire on China if PLAN vessels were to be sent in to sail right off the islands. Lurking in the distance is one thing. It is like chess, you still have a need and purpose for pawns.

ChinaGuy said:

Here's an example of China CG big guns at work. They are extremely effective and blows the foreign water cannon and CIWS out of the water. No response from the opponent is possible, not even a squeak. Can people see now why China needn't compete with the size of water and other cannons on ships ? This western my xxx is bigger than your xxx strategy is flawed when dealing with China. China will say: your xxx is bigger than our xxx is it ? Let us kick you in the yyy, then let's see how is your xxx doing.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

More foreign investors are benefiting greatly from all of this. I suspect, not only will they not get scared and run away, they will actually egg China on to do a bit more kicking.

Click to expand...

It is one of many methods used together to make progress. If you notice, the boycotts are strictly consumer based, not the confiscation of company assets which would bring in headaches of WTO, etc. And it still does not prevent Japan from water logging Chinese fishermen if they sail to those islands. That's where a balanced CG will help. Which picture did you like? The one showing two Japan CG vessels pinching the Chinese vessel or the picture of Taiwanese CG returning the favor by water logging the Japanese CG vessels in kind? With no bullets fired, the Taiwanese side could not be branded as aggressive.

joshuatree said:

It is one of many methods used together to make progress. If you notice, the boycotts are strictly consumer based, not the confiscation of company assets which would bring in headaches of WTO, etc. And it still does not prevent Japan from water logging Chinese fishermen if they sail to those islands. That's where a balanced CG will help. Which picture did you like? The one showing two Japan CG vessels pinching the Chinese vessel or the picture of Taiwanese CG returning the favor by water logging the Japanese CG vessels in kind? With no bullets fired, the Taiwanese side could not be branded as aggressive.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe you don't understand accounting with Chinese characteristics. Lost sales and profits is same as lost company assets. Those assets were confiscated and given to the Germans and other investors who are likely to increase their China investments due to greater opportunities now exist. People need to be less literal when tangling with China. China's only interest is in the net effects. Everything else is just fluff for the simple minded.

When ships accidentally collide and both sides suffer damage, that is acceptable to China because there is a sense of fairness to it, besides it was an accident. In fact, the Chinese got a better deal out of it because they suffered a 1 ship damaged while their antagonist suffered 2 damaged ships. On the other hand, if the Chinese ship were attacked with a water cannon, the damage would be one-sided and clearly not accidental. This would not be tolerable to China. Should that occur, the confiscation of assets would be significantly greater than what has taken place so far. Before proceeding further, foreign ships would be prudent to cover up their water cannons to avoid misunderstanding and ratcheting up the tensions further, risking even greater lost of company assets.

tphuang said:

Seriously now, how old are you?

Click to expand...

Suffice to say I am older than you given our different level of appreciation for China's history, and China's strategies - where both are in fact interlinked. I don't think you understood what I was saying. I was saying penis contests are futile against China because their approach is really full spectrum dominance where strengths and weaknesses in any particular area has no critical impact on the whole. If they appear weak in one area, it is usually because they needn't be strong in that area since their coup de grâce lies elsewhere and hidden from view until the struck is made.

ChinaGuy said:

Well, maybe you don't understand accounting with Chinese characteristics. Lost sales and profits is same as lost company assets. Those assets were confiscated and given to the Germans and other investors who are likely to increase their China investments due to greater opportunities now exist.

When ships accidentally collide and both sides suffer damage, that is acceptable to China because there is a sense of fairness to it, besides it was an accident. In fact, the Chinese got a better deal out of it because they suffered a 1 ship damaged while their antagonist suffered 2 damaged ships. On the other hand, if the Chinese ship were attacked with a water cannon, the damage would be one-sided and clearly not accidental. This would not be tolerable to China. Should that occur, the confiscation of assets would be significantly greater than what has taken place so far. Before proceeding further, foreign ships would be prudent to cover up their water cannons to avoid misunderstanding and ratcheting up the tensions further, risking even greater lost of company assets.

Click to expand...

No, there is no Chinese characteristics, that's just your interpretation. Sales and profits are not the same as assets. Nothing was given to the Germans. Consumers decided what else to buy aside from Japanese products on their own accord. Korean companies also saw increase in sales.

You still haven't answered the question posed, which picture did you like better, one with Chinese ship being squeezed, or one with Taiwanese vessel using water cannon to return the favor?

joshuatree said:

No, there is no Chinese characteristics, that's just your interpretation. Sales and profits are not the same as assets. Nothing was given to the Germans. Consumers decided what else to buy aside from Japanese products on their own accord. Korean companies also saw increase in sales.

You still haven't answered the question posed, which picture did you like better, one with Chinese ship being squeezed, or one with Taiwanese vessel using water cannon to return the favor?

Click to expand...

"Accounting with Chinese characteristics"? That's a pretty clear indication that this guy is a troll. Just put him on the ignore list.

ChinaGuy said:

Well, maybe you don't understand accounting with Chinese characteristics. Lost sales and profits is same as lost company assets. Those assets were confiscated and given to the Germans and other investors who are likely to increase their China investments due to greater opportunities now exist. People need to be less literal when tangling with China. China's only interest is in the net effects. Everything else is just fluff for the simple minded.

When ships accidentally collide and both sides suffer damage, that is acceptable to China because there is a sense of fairness to it, besides it was an accident. In fact, the Chinese got a better deal out of it because they suffered a 1 ship damaged while their antagonist suffered 2 damaged ships. On the other hand, if the Chinese ship were attacked with a water cannon, the damage would be one-sided and clearly not accidental. This would not be tolerable to China. Should that occur, the confiscation of assets would be significantly greater than what has taken place so far. Before proceeding further, foreign ships would be prudent to cover up their water cannons to avoid misunderstanding and ratcheting up the tensions further, risking even greater lost of company assets.

Suffice to say I am older than you given our different level of appreciation for China's history, and China's strategies - where both are in fact interlinked. I don't think you understood what I was saying. I was saying penis contests are futile against China because their approach is really full spectrum dominance where strengths and weaknesses in any particular area has no critical impact on the whole. If they appear weak in one area, it is usually because they needn't be strong in that area since their coup de grâce lies elsewhere and hidden from view until the struck is made.

Click to expand...

You are making Chinese people look bad by this constant "Chinese characteristics" nonsense. China and Chinese people do not need to be judged by a different standard (Chinese characteristics as you call it) to be a strong nation. It already is by its strong economy, large foreign reserves and increasingly strong military. The problem is not that China is weak, but rather it's been increasingly seen as a bully in its back yard by neighboring countries. There is already a lot of anger in China against Japan. The last thing this world needs is having these two countries escalating this issue even more.

And similarly to your usage of "Chinese characteristics" in other threads. Why does Chinese military equipment or training need to be judged by that? They are not good enough to be judged by the normal method that we judge every system out there? What's wrong with China being behind in certain areas and try to learn to catch up. It's demeaning to China to be given the excuse of "Chinese characteristics" in order to be comparable to America.

tphuang said:

You are making Chinese people look bad by this constant "Chinese characteristics" nonsense. China and Chinese people do not need to be judged by a different standard (Chinese characteristics as you call it) to be a strong nation. It already is by its strong economy, large foreign reserves and increasingly strong military. The problem is not that China is weak, but rather it's been increasingly seen as a bully in its back yard by neighboring countries. There is already a lot of anger in China against Japan. The last thing this world needs is having these two countries escalating this issue even more.

And similarly to your usage of "Chinese characteristics" in other threads. Why does Chinese military equipment or training need to be judged by that? They are not good enough to be judged by the normal method that we judge every system out there? What's wrong with China being behind in certain areas and try to learn to catch up. It's demeaning to China to be given the excuse of "Chinese characteristics" in order to be comparable to America.

Click to expand...

Chinese characteristics mean that china will do things her own way and not become westernised or americanised.
China don't worship other countries like Japanese, Koreans and Indians that worship America.

China will stick to its own needs and preserve Chinese culture, tradition, values and history.

J-XX said:

Chinese characteristics mean that china will do things her own way and not become westernised or americanised.
China don't worship other countries like Japanese, Koreans and Indians that worship America.

China will stick to its own needs and preserve Chinese culture, tradition, values and history.

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. There are no such a thing as Chinese Characteristics in defence matter... there are no westernised or americanised characteristics in defence matter either. There might be different doctrine and each nation had their own doctrine, some might lean towards another nation like US or other Western nations. Some will link towards the old Soviet Union, others are unique to themselves, however those are not Chinese Characteristics or Indian Characteristics, or Japanese Characteristics or whatsnot.

And don't even goes into which country worship which nations, because there is NO such a thing and you will start a flame war when you go there, so lets just stop here.

And yes... China will stick to its own needs and preserve Chinese culture tradition, values and history in whatever ways the Chinese wanted. Nobody really have any problem with that. What we have a problem of is that one is not willing to share for whatever reasons, instead, just come barging in on every thread whereby some mentioning of certain area lacking in the Chinese system, and throw the word - it is Chinese Characteristic, then it is kind of a... well, you know, silly.

Afterall there are many thing that is very technical out there, like one plus one equal to two, and certain system is required or had influences to an overall system of... say a submarine or even a CG cutter, these cannot be discounted and say it is Chinese Characteristics.

rhino123 said:

There are no such a thing as Chinese Characteristics in defence matter...

Click to expand...

Sure there is. Has the american been beaten back by gongs by anyone else ? That's known as Chinese characteristics. Just because you don't understand what Chinese characteristics is doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Here's more Chinese characteristics at play where their cannon-less CG continue to push back the water cannon and CISW armed foreign adversary:

ChinaGuy said:

Sure there is. Has the american been beaten back by gongs by anyone else ? That's known as Chinese characteristics. Just because you don't understand what Chinese characteristics is doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Here's more Chinese characteristics at play where their cannon-less CG continue to push back the water cannon and CISW armed foreign adversary:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

This is highly OT. But I will entertain you just this once, then I will ignore you since you are impossible to talk to.

THERE ARE NO CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS and that is final. In the Korea War, whereby the Chinese achieved amazing feat, not because of some stupid Chinese characteristics, it was because the commanders are very very innovative and they make do with all they have even when they have very little and outdated equipment and hardware. These are not Chinese Characteristics. If the CHinese have the same equipment as the Americans, they will certainly not resort to using gongs or whatever prehistoric equipments. And these are certainly not Chinese Characteristics (whatever that is).

Second, so do you acknowledge that the Chinese are lacking behind in their equipments even up till now, that they resort in other method of handling things, like what you have shown in your link and those links before? Grow up will you? This is a military forum whereby people are discussing military equipments and stuff, why must you keep coming in with all your propaganda comments and covering it up with Chinese Characteristics. However when asked what the hell is a chinese characteristic, no one can answer.

Oh... and that is a clever answer (I must give it to you) hiding behind everything that you cannot defend or answer to 'chinese characteristics' and falling back on little red books or the art of war...

Oh... and just so to let you know, your supposedly Chinese Characteristic as in boycotting of other nation's products... this had been practiced by many nations, and using economy sanctions on nations, embargoment and whatsnot had all been used before... so I guess if you really believe that is the Chinese Characteristic, let me tell you, that is a game that lots of nations had been using for centuries.

And you are not doing the CHinese credit in which, whatever you have shown in those links that you claim as Chinese Characteristic only point to the CHinese disrupting everyone else with their moves and if that is the Chinese Characteristic, I am simply appall.

Finally... don't ever thing that you are the only Chinese in this forum or only person in this forum with knowledge on Chinese History. There are way too many people here who know and study CHinese history and culture and are native Chinese in China and Taiwan. So throwing Chinese Characteristic just doesn't fly.