We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Naval Efficiency Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Aster Federation Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 3248
Description[?]:
| In order to save the Jelibanian People many billions of taxpayer funds, this bill has been put forward for proposal,eliminating costly, ineffective, and obsolete units from Jelbania's Navy. The core aim is to scrap the two battleships named Rilmos and Stephen Kennedy IV and instead focus on giving Jelbania a strong fleet of Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV's) and a carrier which actually will float. The current carrier design, submitted by Pittwater Cove Industries, has been proven to be unstable and not conventional by most means. Therefore we ask that a conglomerate of nationally owned defense contractors share the industry with the private firms |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: Defence industries are privately owned and not subsidised.
Current: Defence industries are privately owned but subsidised by the state.
Proposed: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:46:41, January 24, 2012 CET |
From |  Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | We remind the JLF that the days of big-gun navies are over, a fighter can deliver the punch over a greater distance-500-1000km, not the 20-40km that the largest of battleships can manage |
| Date | 09:32:37, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | The Stallingrads are Stalingrad-Vs who are 10-15 years old and they are 7,000 tons bigger,and with 15 instead of 12 inch guns and the Aft turret replaced with 4 P-700 missle launchers. |
| Date | 09:37:59, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | We are seeking to reducing the navy to a single half of it's current tonnage, "cutting the fat" as some would call it, retaining only the most advanced ships and those ships which are man and cost low. By doing this we will replace the other half with new ships under the 10,000 ton range which will stimulate the local industries and provide jobs for Jelbanians |
| Date | 09:42:21, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | We assure the JLF that Pontesi has no ships of a surface combatant nature that exceeds a light cruiser, not six 35,000 Battlecruisers. We will be scraping all but one which may be keep as a museum ship if a suitable operator and location can be found. |
| Date | 09:55:44, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | (this is not Real Life is it? The Worchesters had Hull that could have been heavy cruisers with ease, they were only designated as light cruisers because they had 6" guns) The Pontesi Ships we are talking about have only two 6" guns and displace 9500 tons, roughly a quarter of the redundant Stalingrads |
| Date | 09:57:48, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | My Stalingrads are very Computerized for the second time and they have the Same Nuclear Reactor as a Kirov Battlecruiser and the Aft Turret is replaced by a helicopter pad and 4 P-700 Missle launchers. |
| Date | 10:03:17, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | Regardless, the Bill is to remove warships deemed to be a drain on naval funds. The Stalingrads will be replaced with smaller more capable, non-nuclear warships. We will further state that the Stalingrads, regardless of argument shall be scrapped if the bill is passed and we also ask that a list of the Jelbanian Fleet's strength is provided to our minister of Defense, Alex Hadley so he and his office may make the decision's of which ships will be included in the bill |
| Date | 10:12:16, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | The Jelbanian Navy has 4 Nimitz Carriers,2 Rilmos Super-Battleships,6 Charles De Gaulle Carriers,4 Stalingrad-IVs(Last Gas Turbine powered Battlecruisers),10 Stalingrad-Vs,16 Slava Cruisers,24 Udaloy-II Destroyers,40 Admiral Gorshov Frigates,52 Steguschimy Corvettes,2 Typhoon Submarines,8 Akula Submarines,and 22 Kilo Submarines,and anyway,2 of the Stalingrad-IVs will be sold to the Patriot's in Pontesi's navys in to the First fleet. |
| Date | 10:40:15, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | Original Tonnage- 2,041,000 tons
Desired Tonnage- 1,020,500 tons
Removed items- 2 Rilmos Super-Battleships4 Stalingrad-IVs(Last Gas Turbine powered Battlecruisers),10 Stalingrad-Vs,16 Slava Cruisers and 2 Typhoon Submarines.
Removed Tonnage- 1,022,000
Retained Tonnage- 1,019,000
Retained Items- 4 Nimitz Carriers, 6 Charles De Gaulle Carriers,24 Udaloy-II Destroyers,40 Admiral Gorshov Frigates,52 Steguschimy Corvettes, 8 Akula Submarines and 22 Kilo Submarines
We are yet to determine the tonnage and distribution of the replacements but we expect around 750,000-1,000,000 tons |
| Date | 10:42:15, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | Allow me to retain the two gas turbine battlecruisers as they are non-nuclear and have 14 inch instead of 15 inch guns. |
| Date | 10:43:29, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | We must ask why the Jelbanian Liberation Front is callously choosing a descision which will cost the Jelbanian Taxpayers many millions and quite possibly billions of dollars, also putting our national security at risk with choosing outdated and obsolete ships to defend us?
|
| Date | 10:46:01, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | Retain the Stalingrad-IVs and Slava-IIIs as they are the pinnacle of the Gas Turbine Powered Battlecruiser and Cruiser and the IVs were built simoustatiosly with the Vs and the Vs are ultra-modern and the Navy is converting them to Kiev Turbine Engines. |
| Date | 10:54:41, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | "Just cool" is hardly a good excuse for a blatant vote nor, as my minister of defense tells me, are they good for fire support. We assure you the money saved by retiring these ships will be utilized by the navy |
| Date | 10:56:14, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | North Korea in real life has such a bad navy as most of the funds are diverted to funding a massive army and the Nimitz is REAAAAAAAAAAAALY Expensive. |
| Date | 11:33:28, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | (Please, no more RL examples). The Nimitz will cost 7.5 Billion Universal Standard Dollars to Build, overall and safely decommission not to mention to the extra 7.5 Billion dollars (150 million per year for 50 years) all this for one unit but the ship will provide 50 years of naval dominance of the aerial type. In theory we are paying 1.2 Billion USD a year to have dominance in our waters.
Maybe on or two Slava-II's could be used in SINKEX practices but in order to claim back funds at least 20 will have to be scrapped. |
| Date | 11:40:21, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | I will SINKEX the Slava-IIs with my new 14 inchers of doom as they can penetrate a thick fortress wall with Magazines and they will be filled with 200 pounds of High Explosives and 50 Pounds of Dynamite to test the Guns effect on Magazines. |
| Date | 11:45:04, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | So the Jelbanian Liberty Front cares more for toys for boys? No modern navy would field 14" guns and the Jelbanian Liberal Front clutches to them like a child or rather straws after it lost a good third of it's votes and chairs recently. The People can see that out all of the parties, that the JLF has the least regard to them with there vote of no. |
| Date | 11:49:27, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | The People are the happiest with the JLF because the other parties want to take away civil rights and that they are for the people and that the oppositon are right-wing. |
| Date | 11:55:29, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | That's a fairly outlandish claim to state that!
You also might wish to update your facts about shell fillings, Shellite or Lyddite would be more appropriate since Pyrodex and dynamite is too weak and Nitroglycerin would detonate inside the muzzle
|
| Date | 12:05:24, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | Our defense minister has told me that most likely the point of shelling a non armored cruiser with a caliber of gun that is soon to be removed from Jelbanian service is pointless and wasteful, he argues that the air force suggestion upon one of two is much more suitable |
| Date | 12:07:49, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | Our defense minister has told me that most likely the point of shelling a non armored cruiser with a caliber of gun that is soon to be removed from Jelbanian service is pointless and wasteful, he argues that the air force suggestion upon one of two is much more suitable |
| Date | 12:12:16, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | Our defense minister has told me that most likely the point of shelling a non armored cruiser with a caliber of gun that is soon to be removed from Jelbanian service is pointless and wasteful, he argues that the air force suggestion upon one of two is much more suitable |
| Date | 12:27:58, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | Regardless, all surface combatants over 10,000 tons has been removed from the bill as they are not cost-effective. No more argument about the battleships/battlecruisers/cruisers unless another party has a objection. |
| Date | 12:46:27, January 24, 2012 CET |
From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Naval Efficiency Bill | | Message | OOC: It is my bill however, you have to power to vote against it but currently your power is slipping out of your fingers and every other party is opposed to the JLF. By next election the JLF will have less than 50% of the seats at this rate |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 243 |
| no | Total Seats: 457 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: If your "Bills under debate" section is cluttered up with old bills created by inactive parties, report them for deletion on the Bill Clearouts Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "In politics, you have your word and your friends; go back on either and you're dead." - Morton C. Blackwell |