Trawlers to be fitted with spy radars to spy on other boats in Goverenment move.

Run_to_da_hills

Trawlers to be fitted with spy radars.

Fishing vessels operating off the Dublin coastline could soon be fitted with tracking devices to spy on other boat users.

It is envisaged that fishermen will take on an active role as gatekeepers by taking on the role as the Irish Navy and coastguard.

Trawlers will be asked to report any unusual activity or vessels spotted while out at sea.

It is the job of the Navy and coast guard to watch out for drug smugglers and NOT the job of fishermen. Their job is to catch fish.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/trawlers-to-net-drug-smugglers-with-spy-radar-1691147.html

The_Minister

So, to summarise.

(1) People are stealing our fish, and that is bad.
(2) People are also importing drugs, and that is worse.
(3) Honest fishermen don't like that.
(4) We don't have enough boats/equipment/men to guard our waters, since we are:
(a) an island; and
(b) broke.
(5) We are asking the fishermen to carry equipment that will allow us to spot thieves / drug dealers easier, vastly improving our ability to detect illegal activity in our waters at a fraction of the cost.

I'll go get my placards.

irishgrover

whilst I genuinely thank you for making me smile with your emphasis on what each jobs is , I believe that the reality is that the coast guard / customs / gardai have always been very dependent on fishermen, merchant seamen, dock workers, people who liveoff the sea etc who have traditionally always played a vital roll in communicating "unusual activities" in the past and in the present....

Run_to_da_hills

The_Minister wrote: »

So, to summarise.

(1) People are stealing our fish, and that is bad.
(2) People are also importing drugs, and that is worse.
(3) Honest fishermen don't like that.
(4) We don't have enough boats/equipment/men to guard our waters, since we are:
(a) an island; and
(b) broke.
(5) We are asking the fishermen to carry equipment that will allow us to spot thieves / drug dealers easier, vastly improving our ability to detect illegal activity in our waters at a fraction of the cost.

I'll go get my placards.

Will fishermen get paid extra for this?

Unpossible

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Trawlers to be fitted with spy radars.

Fishing vessels operating off the Dublin coastline could soon be fitted with tracking devices to spy on other boat users.

It is envisaged that fishermen will take on an active role as gatekeepers by taking on the role as the Irish Navy and coastguard.

Trawlers will be asked to report any unusual activity or vessels spotted while out at sea.

It is the job of the Navy and coast guard to watch out for drug smugglers and NOT the job of fishermen. Their job is to catch fish.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/trawlers-to-net-drug-smugglers-with-spy-radar-1691147.html

As an alternative would you prefer if we drastically increased our military spending? We would need to buy more ships and more people will be needed to join the navy might even help with our unemployment problem

The Saint

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Will fishermen get paid extra for this?

Will they be doing any more work by having this surveilence equipment on board? Should community watch groups be paid?

spadder

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Will fishermen get paid extra for this?

No, but to make this sustainable there will be a quota system, they will have to throw back any drug smugglers under €5 million. The dept of fisheries will be checking!

the_syco

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Will fishermen get paid extra for this?

In a way, yes. As the radar will spot others illegally fishing in our seas, the coastguard can curtail that illegal fishing, to ensure our fishermen catch the fish in our seas.

Run_to_da_hills

the_syco wrote: »

In a way, yes. As the radar will spot others illegally fishing in our seas, the coastguard can curtail that illegal fishing, to ensure our fishermen catch the fish in our seas.

I could possibly see this system turning on the fishermen themselves. New ridiculous EU quota's come into force, cash strapped fishermen go out to make a few bob, next thing they have the navy on top of them like a ton of bricks.

The Saint

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I could possibly see this system turning on the fishermen themselves. New ridiculous EU quota's come into force, cash strapped fishermen go out to make a few bob, next thing they have the navy on top of them like a ton of bricks.

So fishermen breaking the law might be caught?:eek: Well there's nothing in the article to suggest this might happen and if it is a voluntary sceme then the fishermen could remove the transponders.

jmayo

the_syco wrote: »

In a way, yes. As the radar will spot others illegally fishing in our seas, the coastguard can curtail that illegal fishing, to ensure our fishermen catch the fish in our seas.

Oh and will the navy race out to handcuff the bad foriegn fishermen and their large trawler ?
Will they hell and by the time they get out there the Spanish boat will be back in La Coruna.

The Saint wrote: »

So fishermen breaking the law might be caught?:eek: Well there's nothing in the article to suggest this might happen and if it is a voluntary sceme then the fishermen could remove the transponders.

Hang on a transponder is for locating purposes, i.e. tracking the vehicle, aircraft or boat that has the transponder on board.
Are they putting transponders on Irish boats or are they putting radar on board and won't a lot of bigger boats already have this ?

I can just see drug dealers queing up to get a transponder so they can be tracked :rolleyes:

Nodin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I could possibly see this system turning on the fishermen themselves. New ridiculous EU quota's come into force,

The seas are overfished. Certain stocks are at dangerously low levels. Why would quotas therefore be "ridiculous"?

jmayo

Nodin wrote: »

The seas are overfished. Certain stocks are at dangerously low levels. Why would quotas therefore be "ridiculous"?

The whole way that quotas are enforced is a bit daft in one sense.
AFAIK if you have gone above your quota (e.g for cod), you have to throw any extra fish back even if the fish are dead in the nets.
It is not like the guys are out there with fishing rods.
So you are throwing dead fish back because if you are caught with it you are fined.
Now that fish could be eaten by someone rather than by other fishie.
I know it is hard to police but still weird concept to me.

Manic Moran

As long as Ireland refuses to have a respectable Navy and Coast Guard, this sounds like a very good idea, which I think most of the fishermen and boat owners would go with as in their favour.

NTM

Nodin

jmayo wrote: »

The whole way that quotas are enforced is a bit daft in one sense.
AFAIK if you have gone above your quota (e.g for cod), you have to throw any extra fish back even if the fish are dead in the nets.
It is not like the guys are out there with fishing rods.
So you are throwing dead fish back because if you are caught with it you are fined.
Now that fish could be eaten by someone rather than by other fishie.
I know it is hard to police but still weird concept to me.

O that kind of thing is indeed crapology. I think its Norway where you can trade excess to other boats quotas and the like....certainly its more flexible in other countries. I was just saying that limiting fishing of certain stocks is unfortunately nessecary. It does probably seem deeply unfair when you've a small boat in a small harbour trying to make a few bob.

ejmaztec

Manic Moran wrote: »

As long as Ireland refuses to have a respectable Navy and Coast Guard, this sounds like a very good idea, which I think most of the fishermen and boat owners would go with as in their favour.

NTM

"Refuses" on the grounds that it can barely support the "tubs" it already has.

The fishermen would have to have some decent weapons to defend themselves, which could also come in handy should they decide that they can do a better job than the Somali pirates at raising revenue for the homebase.

Morpheus

whens the last time we had irish pirates?

ejmaztec

Morphéus wrote: »

whens the last time we had irish pirates?

They're all wearing Armani suits and have sworn their parrots to secrecy.

Morpheus

On the naval vessels, lets not forget that the fleet consists of only 8 ships.

3 of which were built in the 70s, 2 of which were purchased from the Royal navy in the 80s and 1 of which is listed as a heli patrol vessel, is the fleet flagship AND has not operated a heli in almost 10 years.

that 8 patrol vessels have to cover an EEZ (economic Exclusion Zone) the area of which is an impressive 890,000 Sq Kilometres.

That makes it one of (if not the) the largest in europe (source: http://www.iwdg.ie/precast/?id=94 and the govt now wants to extend that area up to 300nm offshore.

when you consider 8 naval vessels, each in or around 60 - 80 metres in length with a range of about 4000 nm patrolling an area that size, its said to be the equivelant of the Gardai patrolling the entire country with 1 car.

The navy do what they can but the govt could do a lot worse than putting some much needed funding into the navy and buying some decent ships (in decent numbers) with longer ranges, more sensitive radars and a greater range of roles, plus updating most of the existing ones, especially if they intend to extend the EEZ and a Naval Air Wing and increase in the Maritime Patrol Craft numbers would certainly be a necessity.

Otherwise this kind of plan may be all that we have to protect our stocks and coastline.

Manic Moran

"Refuses" on the grounds that it can barely support the "tubs" it already has

You mean refuses to put the money forward to support the tubs it already has. How does a country like Sweden end up with a Coast Guard of some 37 seagoing vessels and three airplanes, not counting the extremely respectable Navy and Air Force when its national GDP is barely 30% more than that of Ireland?

whens the last time we had irish pirates?

They could return to being Privateers. Is there legislation for the issuance of Letters of Marque?

NTM

ejmaztec

Manic Moran wrote: »

You mean refuses to put the money forward to support the tubs it already has. How does a country like Sweden end up with a Coast Guard of some 37 seagoing vessels and three airplanes, not counting the extremely respectable Navy and Air Force when its national GDP is barely 30% more than that of Ireland?

The Swedes have infinitely more resources than Ireland at their disposal, and have had centuries to get their act together. Ireland's had 90 years. The GDP comparison was probably a temporary "blip".

Had Ireland been an independent state for the same length of time as Sweden, no doubt it would have built up a tradition of having a large number of naval vessels at its disposal, given its island nature. Like Sweden, it may have even built an industry around ships, aircraft and vehicles, but unlike Sweden, most of the materials would have to have been imported.

Before the Soviet Union collapsed, Sweden had no choice other than to build up its military capabilities - just in case. I don’t think that the Irish ever expected its old sparring-partner to come back, and up until the Celtic Tiger period, I don’t think Ireland had the funds to do anything about it anyway. I also think that now it’s back to having no funds again.

ArphaRima

I think the story is incomplete.
Is it transponders or radars they are being asked to fit?

I have a feeling its a transponder. In which case It is a very easy, cheap and fair way of filtering legitimate Irish vessels from dodgy illlegal ones.

If it is radar, which I doubt, because that's expensive imho, especially to network like we're talking about here, then the fishermen will need money with which to purchase this equipment.

To those who dont know, A transponder will give each ship a unique code to identify it on radar. Anything not "squawking" this code will be interrogated in detail by radar, and possibly intercepted if suspicious.

Manic Moran

ejmaztec wrote: »

Had Ireland been an independent state for the same length of time as Sweden, no doubt it would have built up a tradition of having a large number of naval vessels at its disposal, given its island nature. Like Sweden, it may have even built an industry around ships, aircraft and vehicles, but unlike Sweden, most of the materials would have to have been imported.[/COLOR]

Ninety years is not a particularly short amount of time. Certainly not too short to come up with a Coast Guard capable of actually guarding the coast.

Ireland used to have the capability to build ships.

Built in Cork.


But, no. Someone decided not to spend any money to buy the ships Ireland's Navy really needed (Given the lack of a Coast Guard at the time), and the dockyard fell out of business. At a stroke, Ireland's ability to secure itself from criminal enterprise was neglected, and a bunch of people left out of work.

NTM

galwayrush

I hope they work better than the e-voting machines, and bought at face value, not through some cronie of the government at some vastly inflated price.:rolleyes:

ArphaRima

Ireland used to have the capability to build ships.

I dont think we would buy Irish made ships even if we still did make them. We'd buy surplus ex-naval ships from other countries. Cheaper.

I do agree with the capability to patrol, intercept and generally police our waters. To what extent the Irish people are willing to pay tax to that effect is pretty clear. We arent.

A low cost solution needs to be brought to bear if we do anything. This could involve more extensive coastal radar, better airborne identification and then limited ship to ship interception when required. We are clearly not going to undergo any substantial investment in a dedicated fighting navy.

Situations I'm concerned with of course are drug trafficking, illegal fishing and future-proofing against malicious intent.

ejmaztec

Manic Moran wrote: »

ejmaztec wrote: »

Had Ireland been an independent state for the same length of time as Sweden, no doubt it would have built up a tradition of having a large number of naval vessels at its disposal, given its island nature. Like Sweden, it may have even built an industry around ships, aircraft and vehicles, but unlike Sweden, most of the materials would have to have been imported.[/color]

Ninety years is not a particularly short amount of time. Certainly not too short to come up with a Coast Guard capable of actually guarding the coast.
NTM

For most of that period, Ireland was hovering on the breadline. I've a sneaky feeling that Ireland was declared a neutral country simply because it could never afford to be anything but.

Perhaps they decided that it would be cheaper to do as little as possible, thereby relying on the British to carry out maritime reconnaisance, and a lot of air-sea rescue work.

ArphaRima

I've a sneaky feeling that Ireland was declared a neutral country simply because it could never afford to be anything but.

It had nothing to do with money nor the ability to arm itself.

We were neutral so as not to align ourselves with anyone who was a threat to our recent enemy and neighbour, the UK. If we were seen to do anything but that, we would have been invaded immediately. Also we wanted to emphasize our INDEPENDENCE. To declare that we could survive as a nation state, not an ideal that needed british support, or harboured british suspicion, was our aim.

Back to the OP's question. Are they transponders or radars that are being proposed?

edit: They are transponders. I read the article. That makes sense. Transponders are cheap and easily fitted.

Manic Moran

fluffer wrote: »

I dont think we would buy Irish made ships even if we still did make them. We'd buy surplus ex-naval ships from other countries. Cheaper.

In all fairness, I'll give this to the Defence Forces Procurement Agency. With the immediate exceptions of the Peacocks and Giraffes, they've almost always bought new. Not necessarily top of the line, but new-build with a good service life. Niamh and Roisin are hardly ex foreign surplus.

Probably because you can squeeze more life out of a new piece of equipment than one which has already been battered about a bit for a few years.

NTM

jmayo

fluffer wrote: »

Back to the OP's question. Are they transponders or radars that are being proposed?

edit: They are transponders. I read the article. That makes sense. Transponders are cheap and easily fitted.

Where the f*** did spy radars come out of transponders ?
Ahhhh. Run to da Hills go stand in the corner.

Bligh

Just to bring some normality back to the discussion, the story is mostly rubbish.
Fishermen, merchant vessels and leisure boaters have always been asked to report suspicious vessels. There are also drug watch signs at most public piers and harbours

The surveillance equipment is a transponder system known as Automatic Identification System (AIS) http://www.lloydsmiu.com/lmiu/ais/index.htm

AIS is only useful if all vessels have the system installed and switched on, recent regulations will make it compulsory for all fishing vessels more than 15 meters in length to install the equipment and will be additional to the Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) already carried. There is nothing the watch officer has to do which is additional to required watch procedures

The Irish Coast Guard have a comprehensive AIS in place that provides a picture of all vessels in Irish waters that have the system switched on, while the Irish Navy run the satellite based VMS which only relates to fishing vessels

Dug importers am sure won't subcribe to any of these systems for some strange reason they don't seem to want their position known

Hope this helps clarify some points before overactive minds have visions of fishing vessels in the Irish sea being fitted with high calibre weapons and opening up on day sailors just because they don’t have an AIS and the fishing is bad. But then maybe that’s not a bad way to relieve some stress. Feck it arm all the trawlers:D

ArphaRima

I thought so.
However, A transponder will merely identify a ship on radar. The identification will help personnel filter traffic. Instead of just looking at a blip on a screen, it will give for example, a blip, the registration, and type/purpose of vessel. Any traffic without (or with) a transponder doing anything suspicious will still be on the screen, but will be filtered greatly by those positively identified.

It is a small, cheap step in helping identify seaborne traffic.