And the thing is the company's putting forward these "options" very well know this, which is why they very deliberately politicise the debate to try and get the gold at the end of the rainbow, 20bn is 20bn, and they will try even though they stand no chance from a system POV, so they try to change political thinking to move away from the good gear
I recall when one of the FFGs burnt while under construction in the US it was uninsured. It was government purchasing practice at the time to save money. I don't know whether this was the case with Bundaberg.
Ship builders/repairers insurance is pretty standard stuff and surely ABA, a company with building experience and previous refit experience had a policy(see link) I'm not sure what the RAN's current policy re self insurance of government owned assets is but as the PB was owned by DMS/Austal I assume it was insured by the owners, so their loss would be covered.
Sorry, out of the loop on this one but ABA and a number of other yards including Austal themselves and a yard in Singapore have been used for availabilities, depending on capacity and price. I have my own views on how it should be done, ie. all work done at a single yard using proven contractors, but I was in the minority.
The commonwealth's policy is to self insure in most instances. The motor vehicle fleet is certainly self insured. If they lose a vehicle they just program a replacement into next year's budget bid. Other parties are covered by the "knock-for-knock" agreement which the commonwealth is a signature to.
I guess it's not the actual loss of the equipment but the damage the equipment can cause to a third party that you will be liable for. That's why in my younger days when I drove old heaps I'd always have a bomb policy just for that reason, couple have mates found out the hard way
Which is why I smelled a rat! One fire should not cause a solvent, insured company to fold and I wondered if DMS undertook the same due diligence as the CofA
There is actually a shortage of suitable facilities to do the required work. Due to issues relating to the design of the ACPBs there is always structural and corrosion rectification work required. With the fourteen (thirteen) hulls and the amount of work needed to keep them going, DMS could have built their own facility in Darwin and had it running flat step doing nothing but patrol boat maintenance.
It isn't big enough to replace the ANZAC class, it looks like an LSC on steroids actually. Anzac class are to be replaced by ships that are north of 7000t displacement, basically twice the size of these proposed ships.
Yeah. That's what it looks like.
I love the officer fighting the ship...in Full Dress Whites, apparently.
If they've deployed without an ocean going tug as escort then that's impressive for them - every other russian fleet has taken a tug along for insurance since 2004 - in fact I think their new fleet construct actually factors in a tug as part of the logistics support mix. (which is why they have a shipbuilding plan in place for additional ocean going tugs)
They haven't deployed without a tug. Four ships, one an oiler, one a tug.