Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: November 5460
Next month in: 00:40:05
Server time: 11:19:54, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 1.1

Details

Submitted by[?]: Aster Federation Party

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: November 3251

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 which has been answered and we hope keep in such manner.

Original Tonnage- 2,041,000 tons

Desired Tonnage- 1,020,500 tons

Removed items- 2 Rilmos Super-Battleships(To be scrapped),3 Stalingrad-IVs(Two to be sold, one to be scrapped),10 Stalingrad-Vs,16 Slava Cruisers (10 to be scrapped, 2 to be sunk by SINEX and 4 placed in reserve) and 2 Typhoon Submarines (to be recycled and dismantled).

Removed Tonnage- 972,000

Retained Tonnage- 1,059,000

Retained Items- 4 Nimitz Carriers, 6 Charles De Gaulle Carriers, 1 Stalingrad-IV (retained solely for training purposes and as home fleet flagship),24 Udaloy-II Destroyers,40 Admiral Gorshov Frigates,52 Steguschimy Corvettes, 8 Akula Submarines and 22 Kilo Submarines

Replacements (items replaced in brackets)- 12 Guided Missile Cruisers of a displacement not greater than 12,000 tons and no less than 9,000 tons. Cruisers are to be a Jelbanian indigenous design (replacing 16 Slava Cruisers), 9 Admiral Gorshov Frigates, 23 Steguschimy Corvettes, 3 new SSBN's that are between the tonnage of 7,500 and 12,500 tons(surfaced). These Submarines are to be a Jelbanian indigenous design (replacing 2 Typhoon SSBNs) and 2 Kilo Submarines. Also in 10 years the first of the Udaloy-II Class Destroyers will be obsolete, necessitating a new class of 20-25 new destroyers in the 9000-7000 ton range. These Destroyers are to be a Jelbanian indigenous design (replacing 24 Udaloy-II Destroyers). Also to free up large combatants from patrol, a suggested 30-45 patrol vessels that span the 400-1900 ton gap. These patrol vessels are to be a Jelbanian indigenous design.

Estimated Replacement tonnage-337,700 absolute minimum to a maximum of 578,600 tons

Whilst the replacement tonnage is just in excess of half of the removed tonnage, pause for a moment to consider that the removed obsolete battleships and battle-cruisers together made up 80% of the tonnage. That's 776,000 tons replaced by useful and advanced warships that are new, cheaper, less exhaustive and most importantly Jelbanian

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date01:00:11, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThis Bill will proceed to vote at the start of January 3250

Date12:03:22, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWe are building 6 big battleships which is basically an arsenal ship with two 15 inchers recycled from the Stalingrad-Vs.

Date12:03:52, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWell,7 of them as 3 of them will be retained.

Date12:09:18, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe Rest of the Guns will be used to upgade the Stalingrad-IVs(a 20 year old design) to last another 5 years.

Date12:39:07, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThis bill will be passed after the next elections which are coming either early or on March 3251 and nothing can stop the fact that this bill will eventually pass. The Jelbanian Liberal Front could be quite possibly accused of wanton spending at everyone's expense!

Date12:42:06, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageAnd, Pray tell, how much will these arsenal ships cost?

Date12:50:21, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageAre the Guns getting used on Land based Defenses?

Date12:52:15, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe Arsenal Ship costs 500,000,000 US Dollars in RL.

Date12:54:55, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageIn most likely aspect the guns will be melted down.

Date12:59:28, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWe will elongate the Arsenal Ship hull by 100 feet to accodomate three 15 inchers in a triple turret.

Date13:00:23, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageOur Defense Minister, Alexander Hadley has mentioned that such arsenal ships would cost more over a lifespan than a Nimtiz Carrier, He stated a starting figure of 7.5 Billion Universal Standard Dollars and a cost of 250 milllion USD per year. Thats not to mention overhauls, refueling and decommisionning which may run over ten Billion USD.

Date13:02:00, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe Arsenal Ships are nuclear powered and they are easy to maintain for a country that has 97,000,000,000 Majatran Telars in the Defense budjet.

Date13:02:30, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageTwo of the Stalingrad-Vs will be sold to Gaduridos.

Date13:15:04, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThese "Arsenal Ships" will be a drain on our navy which receives about 16 Billion Majatran Telars. The future for the Jelbanian Navy is small compact units that pack advanced technology, not brutes that burn taxpayer money like bunker oil

Date13:15:51, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThey are High Tech if Powerful brutes and they have been cut down to two.

Date13:20:19, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWe are not emplacing arsenal ships upon the bill, recognizing the fact that the concept of arsenal ships is genuinely flawed, as 10 or more smaller ships can do the same job over a larger area.

Date13:21:56, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageCan we build them as testbeds for new technology.

Date13:26:56, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
Message7.5 Billion for a experiment? I doubt it will be beneficial except as an example of how not to spent taxpayer money. A study perhaps? After all time and paper is relatively cheap.

Date13:28:06, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageOk.

Date13:30:29, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe Marine Corps of the Jelbanian Armed Forces is requesting to keep two of the Stalingrad-Vs for Fire Support.

Date13:31:33, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageIs that an unofficial vote in favor?

Date13:32:13, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageNo,we are RPing the Demands of the Marine Corps.

Date13:33:30, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe Rilmos's will be scrapped,the steel used to make more tanks,and the Guns put in coastal defense platfoms.

Date13:36:27, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageI believed we discussed the fate of the guns

Date13:37:21, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageDo you accept the fate of the steel?

Date13:53:48, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWe are accepting the fact that most of the steel will go to tank manufacturing

Date13:54:15, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWhy?

Date13:56:05, January 26, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageAs it seems more useful and logical to see military high grade steel being used in such applications

Date14:07:10, January 26, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWhy is it more useful and logical?

Date06:54:21, January 27, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe Gaduris and Jelbanians have a secret battleship program and the Marine corps wants 5 of the 10 Stalingrad-Vs to be retained for fire support.

Date08:13:29, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe Gaduris also have a 80% greater defense spending than Jelbania, if they wish to waste their ample funds on experiments with extinct warships so be it but not us as well. The Marines Corps intentions have been heard and we hope to supplement a 5" gun of our future destroyers and possibly the same mount or a compact 8" single on the 12 cruisers that we specify in our plan.

Date08:14:38, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWe can have a modernized Des Moines CA or two.

Date08:33:21, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThey want five of the Stalingrad-Vs to be retained as fire support ships,can't you get it and can we RP the exercise where the Targets are filled with 20 jars of nitroglycinine,10 pounds of Sinxex,20 tons of dynamite,and 4 tons of Smokeless Powder.

Date08:42:26, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWe can safely say that 8" guns are more superior to 12" guns in forms of economics and tactical value.

Date08:47:07, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe 15 incher is the best in the Jelbanian arsenal as it can penetrate bunkers and fire support is critical in amphibious landings near fortresses and the Propellent is LEC and can't we RP the Sinxex?

Date09:36:17, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
Message(I cannot RP due to the forum not working for me)

Date09:39:49, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWhy?

Date09:50:26, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
Message(Just will not, not that I intend on going on it) And when will be the day the Marine Corp need fire support? Its hardly likely they will be storming the gates of hell, We've been told that a 8" gun has double the lining lifetime expectancy and better results for a smaller package. Why overcompensate with the larger gun?

Date09:55:19, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWhen the ATR fights the IML and to enable every fortress to fall to the marine corps and bigger is better.

Date10:19:36, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageA Fortress could fall under the much more effect earthquake bomb effect but we doubt there are any fortresses that we should be able not the deal with.

Date10:23:18, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageIt is for dealing with concrete Bunkers.

Date11:07:06, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageA 8" shell will penetrate any modern bunker made of re-enforced concrete

Date11:10:46, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageI am referring to Bunkers that are designed to store ammo and the dead Iraqi's killed in Iraq's bunkers because of USS Missouri and Wisconsins shells may disagree with you.

Date11:17:15, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
Message(RL cross overs shouldn't be used) No modern army or armed force would use bunkers that intensive if they could loose them in intrusive actions

Date11:28:01, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe Marine Corps wants 3 Stalingrad-Vs to be retained to be the core of a reduced fire support fleet.

Date11:29:13, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe demand is constantly reduced but the the Stalingrads will not be included in the bill.

Date11:33:07, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageSeriously,scrapping 10-15 year old designs that are still trustworthy
-Andrew Meyerson
Head of Jelbanian Marine Corps

Date11:36:14, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe debate for the Stalingrads fate is over (the Bill will remain as is). if any other party would like to raise a point, please go ahead and do not hesitate

Date11:37:34, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe Jelbanians have a all-new fire support ship.

Date11:39:10, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageAnd Can you,as a special favor,register at the forum?

Date11:41:22, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageI cannot after 12 attempts and probably will not be able to for a while

Date11:42:00, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageRegarding the fire-support ship, what exactly does it entail?

Date11:56:06, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageIt is 42,000 tons and uses the Stalingrad-V hull but elongates it by 20 feet and returns to gas turbines,and uses 16 inch guns.

Date11:59:56, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageCan you PM the Grand Nationalist Party to RP the News in an unbiased way from all angles.

Date12:00:09, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWe are assuming it is ye to be built?

Date12:00:58, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageYe?

Date12:01:26, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
Messageyet*

Date12:03:30, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThree of them have been built and they are 10,8,and 5 Percent Complete.

Date12:07:53, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageFor the sake of the people, the taxpayers and the navy, we believe it would be best to halt work on these vessels until this bill is defeated or passed

Date12:11:16, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThe work will continue anyway.

Date12:11:24, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageFor the sake of the people, the taxpayers and the navy, we believe it would be best to halt work on these vessels until this bill is defeated or passed

Date12:18:28, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageI don't care about your opinion!

Date12:26:37, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThis show of childish behavior is hardly acceptable

Date12:29:21, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageSorry.

Date12:31:44, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageThankyou, now is the Jelbanian military willing to postpone naval construction until November 3251?

Date12:35:21, January 29, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageYes.

Date12:40:32, January 29, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWell then on March 3251 this bill shall proceed to vote

Date12:50:41, January 30, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageBattleships will destroy all bunkers,and Luthorian Carriers are sitting ducks for their shells if the battle is an ambush at night.

Date14:24:21, January 30, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWhy bother with costly Battleships when you can have cheaper cruisers which will still do the job? Carriers have radar, which would pick up a target like a battleship at a long distance, enough time (about 3-4 hours) to scramble aircraft.

Date11:38:09, January 31, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageTo show of the Jelbanian navy's "power" and the NUC's days are numbered.

Date11:39:44, January 31, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageDo you remember about the Rigged election that brought the NUC to power.

Date11:45:35, January 31, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageToday in this modern age a nations ideal of naval strength is a carrier not a outdated battleship. The debate for the Battleships, Battlesruisers and Arsenal Ships is over (the Bill will remain as is). If any other party would like to raise a point, please go ahead and do not hesitate

Date12:00:15, January 31, 2012 CET
FromAster Federation Party
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageMay the Jelbanian Liberty Front please present a structured and actually relevant reason that holds water to why they have voted to deny the Jelbanian People their taxpayer funds?

Date11:52:26, February 01, 2012 CET
FromJelbanian Liberty Front
ToDebating the Naval Efficiency Bill 1.1
MessageWe want a battlefleet to enable Jelbania to destroy every fortress.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 101

no
 

Total Seats: 262

abstain
    

Total Seats: 337


Random fact: In cases where players have failed to clearly and accurately reference their nation's RP laws in the "Bills under debate" section, Moderation will rule them invalid if a challenge is made to their validity.

Random quote: "We here thank those in Deltaria who put [Zardic spy Mona Rivet] to justice in the most humane way possible. With bullets." - Sergio Rodriguez, former Egelian journalist

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 115