Aussie optimist
Member
I actually work for an insurance builder and can honestly say that it is generally the other way round. Insurance companies generally screw the builders more than the other way round.
Really? It seems that when the builders have small job, they turn it into a bigger job to make it more profitable, maybe just my misconception.
I just had a claim, 1st one for a house, and the builders seem to want to fix things that are not broken. Anyway, I don't work in that industry, and you do, so I would think you would know!
I just had a claim, 1st one for a house, and the builders seem to want to fix things that are not broken. Anyway, I don't work in that industry, and you do, so I would think you would know!
Aussie optimist
Member
Obviously can’t speak for all builders everywhere or have details of actual claim, I can say that from experience most insurance companies don’t enjoy paying more than absolutely necessary. Back 20 years ago, it was open cheque book now… definitely not.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
It's the relationship between the claims adjuster, the builder and the client. As long as they aren't too greedy, some inflated stuff will happen. Has to be less than the cost of additional oversight by the insurance company.
Meanwhile some changes are coming for TS level clearances not just in the ADF but government and industry wide :
Foreign spies are aggressively seeking ‘disloyal’ insiders with access to Australia’s secrets, Asio warns
This has been given extra priority given the huge effort in getting AUKUS off the ground. I envisage even bigger buckets of money going towards counter cyber operations as well.
Foreign spies are aggressively seeking ‘disloyal’ insiders with access to Australia’s secrets, Asio warns
This has been given extra priority given the huge effort in getting AUKUS off the ground. I envisage even bigger buckets of money going towards counter cyber operations as well.
Ok folks, back on topic please. This does not suggest the discussion is not one that should be had but probably belongs in teh "off topic" tread if it is to continue.
alexsa
An article in the war zone today arguing Australia’s FA18s should go to the Ukraine. The same argument could probably be made for the 59 M1A1s.
That are scheduled to be replaced….assuming that’s go’s ahead…
www.thedrive.com
That are scheduled to be replaced….assuming that’s go’s ahead…
Australia's Mothballed F/A-18 Hornets Should Be Given To Ukraine
Dozens of upgraded F/A-18s in storage in Australia after years waiting to be sent to the U.S. should be donated immediately to Ukraine.
www.thedrive.com
AndyinOz
Member
I don't know if this contract is still in the works to be finalised but I was under the impression the Legacy Hornets were spoken for. No idea with regards to tanks. The TLDR summary basically 46 Legacy Hornets were to be acquired by RAVN Aerospace based on an agreement in 2020 with delivery in 3-4 subsequent, to be supposedly used for adversary training for the US Department of Defense.An article in the war zone today arguing Australia’s FA18s should go to the Ukraine. The same argument could probably be made for the 59 M1A1s.
That are scheduled to be replaced….assuming that’s go’s ahead…
Australia's Mothballed F/A-18 Hornets Should Be Given To Ukraine
Dozens of upgraded F/A-18s in storage in Australia after years waiting to be sent to the U.S. should be donated immediately to Ukraine.
Sale still on the table for Australia’s legacy Hornets
The Australian Department of Defence has confirmed the sale is still valid for 46 former Royal Australian Air Force Hornets to the former Air USA, now RAVN Aerospace company. The Australian Government
I don’t know how practical or logical it would be, but perhaps there might be some merit in holding onto them??
it’s not like just making Wirraways or Sabres anymore.
Replenishing attrition stocks might be impossible, especially in scenario where the US has also suffered losses.
In a degraded post-initial conflict scenario we just might appreciate some capable airframes in the shed out the back?
it’s not like just making Wirraways or Sabres anymore.
Replenishing attrition stocks might be impossible, especially in scenario where the US has also suffered losses.
In a degraded post-initial conflict scenario we just might appreciate some capable airframes in the shed out the back?
There’s a reason why stuff gets replaced, it’s not just things like fatigue etc. Theres only so much capability you can get out of a 1980’s platform. Classic hornets are not competitive with the threat any more.
Besides, there’s no one trained to both fly and maintain them, or logistics organisation to sustain them.
The Russians don’t follow this logic when it comes to armour… not sure how it’s working out but what would they be doing in the Ukraine now if they had sent all their pre 1990 kit to the graveyard. If they didn’t have that old equipment reserve would things be different in theatre?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Quantity has a quality of its own, and the current Russian Army at 2 million is capable of manning a lot of armoured vehicles and irrespective of how obsolete, you throw an armoured division or 2 consisting of several hundred 50-year-old T-62s and BMPs at Ukraine, they are going to take some stopping and use up a lot of resources doing so. Most Armies don't have the manpower available to man old equipment in numbers, Russia does.
This has just been posted on the ABC news site re Army projects and the DSR.
www.abc.net.au
Make of it what you like.
We'll no doubt get some confirmation this next week or the one after.
Cheers S
Army projects drastically cut as Australia fast-tracks massive build-up of land-based missiles
A multi-billion-dollar project to build high-tech army vehicles will be slashed by more than two-thirds as part of a dramatic realignment of Australia's military.
www.abc.net.au
Make of it what you like.
We'll no doubt get some confirmation this next week or the one after.
Cheers S
Aussie optimist
Member
I do wonder what stuff they are smoking…”procurement of Army landing craft to help bring personnel and equipment on shore.” What equipment… The way things are heading, the army will be armed with harsh language and mean scary faces in ford rangers.This has just been posted on the ABC news site re Army projects and the DSR.
Army projects drastically cut as Australia fast-tracks massive build-up of land-based missiles
A multi-billion-dollar project to build high-tech army vehicles will be slashed by more than two-thirds as part of a dramatic realignment of Australia's military.
Make of it what you like.
We'll no doubt get some confirmation this next week or the one after.
Cheers S
I interpret the goat entrails to imply a smaller initial investment, however these will be acquired in tranches, supplemented at later stages.
Key units equiped, & the wider army deferred.
However I just cannot see how the AS4 can be considered as anything but an inappropriate dinosaur, at a time of heightened strategic volatility, so the momentum for modernisation will always persist until rectified.
im guessing govt is/will attempt to bias it’s capability priorities whilst it can, and the optimal may need to stretch to the ‘best that can be achieved’, for the immediate term.
Key units equiped, & the wider army deferred.
However I just cannot see how the AS4 can be considered as anything but an inappropriate dinosaur, at a time of heightened strategic volatility, so the momentum for modernisation will always persist until rectified.
im guessing govt is/will attempt to bias it’s capability priorities whilst it can, and the optimal may need to stretch to the ‘best that can be achieved’, for the immediate term.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Says before Anzac Day, so must be Monday.This has just been posted on the ABC news site re Army projects and the DSR.
Army projects drastically cut as Australia fast-tracks massive build-up of land-based missiles
A multi-billion-dollar project to build high-tech army vehicles will be slashed by more than two-thirds as part of a dramatic realignment of Australia's military.
Make of it what you like.
We'll no doubt get some confirmation this next week or the one after.
Cheers S
Well my point was if that Russian equipment had been scrapped what would they be doing in the Ukraine instead? I don’t see issue with holding some older equipment in storage. An old something is in many ways better than a new nothing. Particularly items that are slow to source and that get depleted quickly in combat. Not the Mark IV filing cabinets but items like tanks. Moot point anyway as ADF doesn’t keep reserve stocks Of heavy equipment as far as I am aware.
Last edited:
Some of the initial reports around the DSR are saying that the LNP announced $42billion of unfunded defence projects since 2020 and cut $9 billion from the defence budget out to 2029. I can’t see how that is plausible but let’s see.. Going to be interesting to see the LNP a response to that but I hope this doesn’t just become another political football and the focus is on getting the DSR outcomes delivered and not constant whining about how the other side left us in such poor shape. Noting we may not actually get a winner on Land 400 Phase 3 this week if the bidders have to go back and rework the total contract value based on significantly lower numbers? I’d be pretty pissed off if I was (Hanwha) building a facility based on around 500+ vehicles and end ups getting a touch over 150. Rhinmetal maybe not as much as they have the Phase 1 Boxer contract even though the numbers there came in about 20% lower than originally planned.
A lot of questions without answers at this stage until the DSR is released.
A couple of points.
Whatever is released in the DSR may actually change with time!
Production runs can continue........... If their is actually a suggested build for 129 IFV's by the time the last one is in production that will be quite some years down the track and additional orders can / could be placed to add to the fleet.
I'm also guarded about building manufacturing facility's for a short production run.
Better off buy OS. That's not happening so some how I feel these minimal numbers suggested will evolve with time.
Amphibious stuff - Good, make it happen.
Lets see what's officially announced.
Interesting times
Cheers S
A couple of points.
Whatever is released in the DSR may actually change with time!
Production runs can continue........... If their is actually a suggested build for 129 IFV's by the time the last one is in production that will be quite some years down the track and additional orders can / could be placed to add to the fleet.
I'm also guarded about building manufacturing facility's for a short production run.
Better off buy OS. That's not happening so some how I feel these minimal numbers suggested will evolve with time.
Amphibious stuff - Good, make it happen.
Lets see what's officially announced.
Interesting times
Cheers S
