Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
yep, you can kiss goodbye to getting access to some of the other 4I's gear we want
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 :)
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
HMAS Bundaburg

The recent fire which supposedly caused the collapse of Aluminium Boatbuilders Australia (ABA) is a disaster and a sad loss for those workers who have lost their jobs.
You have to wonder though about the due diligence conducted by DMS before awarding the refit contract to them. ABA should have been insured, DMS would have been insured and if this was the case why did the company fold? The enclosed glossy brochure was less than 6 months old at the time of the fire.

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/defence-industries/media-releases/armidale-aba.pdf

I suspect that the ongoing solvency of the company depended on this one contract and if that was the case, why risk the refit when options were available in Queensland and elsewhere.

I wouldn't want to be the DMS operative who granted this contract.

Not much to comment about here but maybe Volk knows more?
 

Oberon

Member
The recent fire which supposedly caused the collapse of Aluminium Boatbuilders Australia (ABA) is a disaster and a sad loss for those workers who have lost their jobs.
You have to wonder though about the due diligence conducted by DMS before awarding the refit contract to them. ABA should have been insured, DMS would have been insured and if this was the case why did the company fold? The enclosed glossy brochure was less than 6 months old at the time of the fire.

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/defence-industries/media-releases/armidale-aba.pdf

I suspect that the ongoing solvency of the company depended on this one contract and if that was the case, why risk the refit when options were available in Queensland and elsewhere.

I wouldn't want to be the DMS operative who granted this contract.

Not much to comment about here but maybe Volk knows more?
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.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.

Ship Repairers Liability Insurance
 

t68

Well-Known Member
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.

Ship Repairers Liability Insurance

Yes you would think so, some time ago I left my car with the local mechanic to get some work done and they had trouble getting parts the car was left up on the hoist for the weekend and a fire gutted the building everything for the bisness was a total loss, I got a new car out if it claiming on the business insurance, whilst he lost work whilst rebuilding he got over the hurdle and is now thriving.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The recent fire which supposedly caused the collapse of Aluminium Boatbuilders Australia (ABA) is a disaster and a sad loss for those workers who have lost their jobs.
You have to wonder though about the due diligence conducted by DMS before awarding the refit contract to them. ABA should have been insured, DMS would have been insured and if this was the case why did the company fold? The enclosed glossy brochure was less than 6 months old at the time of the fire.

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/defence-industries/media-releases/armidale-aba.pdf

I suspect that the ongoing solvency of the company depended on this one contract and if that was the case, why risk the refit when options were available in Queensland and elsewhere.

I wouldn't want to be the DMS operative who granted this contract.

Not much to comment about here but maybe Volk knows more?
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.
 

Oberon

Member
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.
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.

When I was working in defence purchasing in the 80's it was common to deduct the insurance component from bids. As I said, policy changed somewhat when the uninsured FFG was almost destroyed by fire during construction (was it the Sydney or Adelaide?) I can't remember now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

swerve

Super Moderator
Over a certain size of organisation, it's cheaper to self-insure. For example, the number of vehicle losses & damages is predictable, given a large enough fleet size, & can be budgeted for. Just set aside the money, & don't pay anything towards the profits & costs of an insurance company.

I was stunned recently to find that a county council here has insurance for minor risks such as that. It used to be the norm that they self-insured.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Over a certain size of organisation, it's cheaper to self-insure. For example, the number of vehicle losses & damages is predictable, given a large enough fleet size, & can be budgeted for. Just set aside the money, & don't pay anything towards the profits & costs of an insurance company.

I was stunned recently to find that a county council here has insurance for minor risks such as that. It used to be the norm that they self-insured.
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
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
i suspect that there is a bit more to this than what is coming out

its a core component of any procurement selection to ensure that the financial stability of the organisation is healthy and clear and that it also is self covered under all relevant Federal and State obligations

that's why companies undergo a financial assessment as they have to pass it to move forward.

The FIC is there to deal will financial risks.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
i suspect that there is a bit more to this than what is coming out

its a core component of any procurement selection to ensure that the financial stability of the organisation is healthy and clear and that it also is self covered under all relevant Federal and State obligations

that's why companies undergo a financial assessment as they have to pass it to move forward.

The FIC is there to deal will financial risks.
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
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
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.
True, but again, the need for that depends on the size of the organisation. Well, except when 3rd party insurance is obligatory, when you either have to buy it or set up an internal insurance operation, which has costs which can affect the decision.
 

mickm

New Member
ANZAC Replacement

Gents
I found an article which appears to be a serious contender for the follow on for the new USN Frigate after the 32 LCS ships are completed.

It is the Lockheed Martin Small Surface Combat Ship (SSCS). It looks pretty impressive.
Length 118M
Beam 17.6M
3600 Ton
40 Knot speed
Range 4000 miles.
All purpose small combatant.

I am not allowed to post links but it can be found on the Lockheed Martin Web Site

As an amateur navy enthusiast I would be interested in your expert opinions on how this would go for a replacement for our ANZAC Frigates. Assuming the US will build at least 18 of them it may be worthwhile for the RAN to have a serious look at this. It might be a bit short on range for our operating requirements though.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Gents
I found an article which appears to be a serious contender for the follow on for the new USN Frigate after the 32 LCS ships are completed.

It is the Lockheed Martin Small Surface Combat Ship (SSCS). It looks pretty impressive.
Length 118M
Beam 17.6M
3600 Ton
40 Knot speed
Range 4000 miles.
All purpose small combatant.

I am not allowed to post links but it can be found on the Lockheed Martin Web Site

As an amateur navy enthusiast I would be interested in your expert opinions on how this would go for a replacement for our ANZAC Frigates. Assuming the US will build at least 18 of them it may be worthwhile for the RAN to have a serious look at this. It might be a bit short on range for our operating requirements though.
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.

Also, if this is the ship you are talking about, i'm fairly sure that is simply an export variant of the LSC, I believe they tried to sell it to Israel a few years ago.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
Russian Warships headed to Australia

Russian warships ‘heading to Australia’

While this is nothing more than a show of force by Putin and not out of the ordinary for a major event of this kind or any real threat,it does highlight the need for well equipped and potent Naval fleet to prevent nations attempting to limit our of freedom of action in policy,economics and international affairs.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Russian warships ‘heading to Australia’

While this is nothing more than a show of force by Putin and not out of the ordinary for a major event of this kind or any real threat,it does highlight the need for well equipped and potent Naval fleet to prevent nations attempting to limit our of freedom of action in policy,economics and international affairs.
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)

.... there's confidence for you....

basically who cares what the russians do south of the equator. its just posturing.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
They haven't deployed without a tug. Four ships, one an oiler, one a tug.

oldsig127
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top