Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Dr_V |
Posted: November 19, 2003 11:10 pm
|
Caporal Group: Members Posts: 146 Member No.: 71 Joined: August 05, 2003 |
If we started talking about the present day Romanian military, there is one thing that bothers me from a few years: The dousins of Turkish fishing craft that are illegaly fishing in our territorial waters with no fear of our coast-guard patrolls.
I'll not argue the policy that forbids out sailors to shoot them if they try to flee, thaugh Ukraine solved the illegal fishing problems when their coast-guard sunk a Turkish trawler that tried to run away. The problem is that the ships used by our coast-guard patrolls are too slow to catch the modern and powerfull trawlers. The flat-fish (Rom.=calcan) they catch is very expansive in the west, so they have the best and the fastest trawlers they can get. I've heared some are even equipped with advanced RADAR systems. Our coast-guard has no chance to arrest them in their old and slow patroll boats. And as the law forbids them to open fire directly (they can only shoot warning salvos and respond if they are fired upon), the "pirates" have all chances to run and return the next day. Now, I know that military ships are expansive, but the coast-guard boats are small and simple ships. Is that such a problem to aquie a few new ones? Or build them here? The don't need to be electronically sophisticated ships, just fast and maneuvrable ones. I know that Romanian shipyards have some experience in building small ships. And the armament of such a boat consists in a heavy MG or a small auto-canon, something that I'm sure that Cugir factory produces. So, why is this problem still not solved? Is nobody interestyed that we loose a valuable natural resource? Exployted like that, the flat-fish will dissappear, as it reproduces slowly. Not mentioning the dousins of dolphins that drowned in abbandoned nets. It's a real pitty. :evil: |
dead-cat |
Posted: November 20, 2003 09:57 am
|
||
Locotenent Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 |
that's intresting. i mean how slow can patrol boats be and how fast can trawlers be? i spoke once with a guy who was employed as tehnician on a ship in the romanian merchant navy; he told me that ships transporting sensible cargo travell at about 24 knots. that's maybe fast for regular cargo ships but even around 1900 steam powered torpedo boats could go as fast as 40 knots. |
||
Dr_V |
Posted: November 20, 2003 08:59 pm
|
Caporal Group: Members Posts: 146 Member No.: 71 Joined: August 05, 2003 |
The coast-guard boats are not MTBs, but smaller craft. They look more like a WW2 HDML. I do not know their exact max speed, but it's under 30 kts. at sea. At TV it was stated as 25 kts., but it does seamn a bit too low to be true. It was an interview with the captain of such a patroll-craft, maybe he exagerated to draw more attention to their problems. I'm not talking about the Navy's war vessels, I'm talking about the coast-guard.
The Turkish trawlers are very different from the regular fishing craft. They're not large boats and can make close to 40 kts. as max speed. Probably the cruising speed is indeed around 25 kts., at echonomical fuel consumption. They usually come in our waters only for one or two nights, fill their tanks and then go home. Istambul harbour is not so far away and the flat-fish sells better if it's fresh. What your friend told you about fast commercial shipping is correct. But this refears to cargo ships, at least over 1000 tons gross. A fast fishing craft that displaces less or around 500 tons and is equipped for speed makes easely more than that. I used the word "trawlers" because this is their usage, but these are not casual trawlers that usually make some 20 kts. in a good day. Are purpose-built ships. Where there are a lot of money involved, theives always use the best tools to do thir "job". Not only Romania had such problems with them, but Ukraine and Bulgaria applied a more agressive policy and got rid of them. Ukranian coast-guard has permission to open fire immediately if a foreign fishing craft does not stop to be inspected and tries to run away. Plus that Ukraine used some of its Navy warships for a period to help the coast-guard solve the matter. |
mabadesc |
Posted: November 20, 2003 10:31 pm
|
Locotenent colonel Group: Members Posts: 803 Member No.: 40 Joined: July 11, 2003 |
That really is an outrage. The law needs to be enforced for those Turkish fishing vessels.
Would there be a way to disable those vessels by opening fire and not sinking them (aiming for the engine)? That would be less radical than the Ukrainan solution and maybe the romanian government would grant permission for that. |
Dr_V |
Posted: November 21, 2003 12:16 am
|
Caporal Group: Members Posts: 146 Member No.: 71 Joined: August 05, 2003 |
The best way would be to capture and confiscate the ships. Such a thing was succedded by our coast-guard once, with a lot of luck. The Turks did not want to abandon their nets (full with fish) and tried to get away a bit too late. 2 trawlers were arrested at Constanta, but in the end were not confiscated (as the law states is those cases), only the owners had to pay a penalty. It was a fishy job, the Turks had some enterprising lawyers. The penalty was around 2000$ per ship, merely the profit they make from one night of fishing.
The Ukranians sink the ships, this doesn't mean they kill the crew. They shoot at water-line and then arrest and imprisson the pirates. This problem was recently abbandoned by the media and I wonder why. I know for certain that the piracy continues (I have relatives in Constanta, one of my uncles is a sailor and a distant cousin is a border-policeman [vames]). Maybe someone was payed to close an eye... it won't be any novelty in Romania. |
dead-cat |
Posted: November 21, 2003 07:56 am
|
||
Locotenent Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 |
unless at point-blank range i don't think so. |
||
88mm |
Posted: March 16, 2004 03:16 pm
|
Fruntas Group: Members Posts: 54 Member No.: 18 Joined: June 23, 2003 |
Sory for posting so late. Before this "acient" vessels the coast guard had some hovercrafts for their daily patrol. The problem whith this hovercrafts was exactly the oposite, they were to fast. Romania only has 20km of shore national water. They were reaching this limit to fast. The other problem was the fuel consumption. The costs were to high and you can not float a howercraft with it's engines cut off. The alternative was to recomision this old vessels.
|
Dr_V |
Posted: March 16, 2004 09:02 pm
|
||
Caporal Group: Members Posts: 146 Member No.: 71 Joined: August 05, 2003 |
Thank you for the answer! This info shows once again how strange is the thinking of our authoritys. The operating costs of efficient coastguard ships is too high (for the budget I guess), but nobody considers the huge amount of losses caused by overfishing a species that reproduces slowly and will become extinct if the situation remains like that. The flat-fish is a Romanian natural wealth and, regardless of the echological matters, we loose a lot of money thisway, probably a lot more than the amount necessary to stop the Turkish poachers. If Romania doesn't have money to operate a modern coastguard fleet, than why not copy the Ukrainian solution and sink a few trawlers. Let's see if the poachers will risk being shot at for the profit anymore! :twisted: |
||
88mm |
Posted: March 17, 2004 06:05 am
|
Fruntas Group: Members Posts: 54 Member No.: 18 Joined: June 23, 2003 |
I don't know the routine all along our shore line, but I've seen the coast guard stationed at Sulina. I truely wonder if their canons realy work.
|
petru |
Posted: March 17, 2004 05:55 pm
|
||
Caporal Group: Members Posts: 117 Member No.: 149 Joined: November 27, 2003 |
You sound exactly like communists. Everything is the property of the state. It is true that it is hard to imagine private property on sea (and in this particular case national interests are at stake), but the mentality that everything is state owned, and everything belongs to everybody still exists. That’s a major difference between the UE (or USA) and Romania. |
||
cnflyboy2000 |
Posted: March 17, 2004 06:17 pm
|
||||
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 371 Member No.: 221 Joined: February 18, 2004 |
__________________________________________________ Be that as it may, I believe most countries have pretty strict regulations regarding their territorial waters and the resources in and under them. I can tell you for sure, if a Russian trawler, e.g., started fishing in U.S. waters, it would not last long. The high seas are another matter, of course. :| But, I do hear u on the other thing: I was amazed when I was in Russia to learn how people thought, at least the older generation. |
||||
petru |
Posted: March 18, 2004 03:22 am
|
||
Caporal Group: Members Posts: 117 Member No.: 149 Joined: November 27, 2003 |
I was not referring to the territorial waters. I can give you an example which in my opinion shows we are still communists: the government is the only one who has mineral rights. |
||
Dr_V |
Posted: March 18, 2004 02:39 pm
|
||
Caporal Group: Members Posts: 146 Member No.: 71 Joined: August 05, 2003 |
You've completely missunderstood my point here. The flat-fish in the Romanian waters is NOT the property of the Romanian state, is the property of the Romanian people. No county allows foreign trawlers fishing in their teritorial waters, at least not without a permit. In that particular 20 Km. sea strip that Romania has, only Romanian trawlers should operate (state or private, but Romanian). Or maybe even foreign ones, but with propper fishing permits and paying taxes. Why let the Turks take the flat-fish in a criminal extensive and uncontrolled manner? If our state would manage this resource propperly, Roumania could wisely crop some flat-fish and export it. I mean, the small private Romanian fishing companys could pay the propper fishing taxes to the state (as in ANY country, in Romania there are some taxes for industrial fishing and here they're quite small for Romanian companys) and make a business out of it. Thisway we'll all have a profit in 2 ways: the export will bring dollars in Romania, raising the echonomy, and the flat-fish will be propperly exployted as a natural source, under the supervision of the fishery administrations authority, not wiped-out by overfishing. |
||