Alternatively, authorized vessels could be required 

 to mount a coded (e.g., pulsed) optical beacon that radiated signals 

 upwards that could be received by relatively simple airborne optical 

 receiver/decoders. Such beacons, which might employ laser optical sources, 

 would require ship-supplied power (of the order of 100-500 W) and would 

 cost $1,000 to $5,000 per unit (if produced in quantity). The airborne 

 receiver would be equivalent, in terms of size, weight, power, support 

 requirements, and cost, to a radio-navigational avionics package such 

 as a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) or LORAN receiver/decoder. 



No conclusions can be made within the scope of the 

 present study on the acceptability of such devices or their vulnerability 

 to counterfeit. 



c. ■ Cost Analysis 



Three kinds of costs are involved in the use of optical 

 and electrooptical sensors. First is the cost of the sensor, systems 

 themselves. These costs are estimated to range from a few hundred dollars 

 for simple, hand-held cameras to several hundred thousand dollars for 

 more complex devices such as FLIR systems. The significant thing about 

 these costs is that they are much less than the cost of the platforms 

 employed (aircraft or satellites). 



The second kind of costs includes the costs of pifocuring 

 and operating the sensor platforms. For satelliteborne systems these 

 costs are huge, but as noted earlier the only satellite systems con- 

 sidered are those deployed and operated by NASA or the military for 

 other purposes so that the only costs properly chargeable to fishing 

 zone enforcement are those associated with acquiring the sensor outputs, 

 which should be quite modest. For airborne sensors the cost per flight 

 hour should be in the same range as those previously identified for 

 microwave radar. However, it should be noted that, because of their 



77 



