British warships head for the Middle East.

[Blackleaf]

British ships heading for the Middle East

HMS Bulwark


Two British ships are being dispatched to the Middle East amid planning for a possible evacuation of British nationals from Lebanon.

The Ministry of Defence said that aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious and assault ship HMS Bulwark were to be sent to the region.

An estimated 10,000 British citizens in Lebanon have been warned to prepare for a quick departure if the situation escalates.

A Ministry of Defence Spokeswoman stressed that the two ships had been given "no specific tasking''.

She said: `"As you would expect we are monitoring the situation closely and are engaging in prudent contingency planning.

"As part of this HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark will shortly head towards the region.

"They have been given no specific tasking.''

HMS Illustrious is currently in Gibraltar and HMS Bulwark is close to Barcelona in Spain.

The decision whether to proceed with an evacuation plan has not yet been taken and no orders have been given.

The Foreign Office has urged British citizens to keep a low profile and warned against travelling there.

Meetings on the evacuation plan are taking place at the Ministry of Defence.

aol.co.uk

 

[Kreskin]

Hope they send the rescue bill to the Israelis.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: British warships head for the Middle East.

Hope they send the rescue bill to the Israelis.

The Israelis didn't start it.

Hezbollah and Hamas, at the urging of their lunatic, murdering masters in Iran and Syria started it.

Mind you, Israel has every intention of finishing it........

 

[Kreskin]

Re: RE: British warships head for the Middle East.

Hope they send the rescue bill to the Israelis.

The Israelis didn't start it.

Hezbollah and Hamas, at the urging of their lunatic, murdering masters in Iran and Syria started it.

Mind you, Israel has every intention of finishing it........

Finishing it? What a laugh, they're creating more terrorists. Their problems have barely started.

 

[SaintLucifer]

Re: RE: British warships head for the Middle East.

Hope they send the rescue bill to the Israelis.

Actually they would need to send the rescue bill to Hezbollah. They started this entire mess remember?

 

[Freethinker]

Re: RE: British warships head for the Middle East.

Finishing it? What a laugh, they're creating more terrorists. Their problems have barely started.

History doesn't bear that out. Israel has only achieved any peace with its neighbors after unleashing a serious can of whoop ass.

Egypt eventually realized that attacking Israel got them nowhere and cost them enormously. Jordan eventually got tired of destruction and kicked out the PLO. Syria after the last ass kicking from Yom Kipur decided to not give Isreal an excuse to invade again and instead keeps the fighting and destruction in Lebanon, it's puppet state.

Israel is not concerned about terroists in Lebanon, the are concerned about destroy military capability in Lebanon and possibly hoping for another Jorden where Lebanon tires of the destruction and rids itself of Hezbollah.

 

[I think not]

An estimated 10,000 British citizens in Lebanon

:?

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: British warships head

there are a heck of a lot of christians in Lebanon ITN....their constitution states that their president should be christian...so I expect it's a mix of christian and muslim extremists from britain...we've got plenty of both...

 

[Vicious]

An estimated 10,000 British citizens in Lebanon

:?

I read this today and had the same reaction:

About 10,000 Canadians are registered as being in the country, according to the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa.

I haven't heard anything about how we will get them out.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...079&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

 

[thecdn]

I haven't heard anything about how we will get them out.

Well, either we'll be renting those big Russian planes again and some ships or we'll be begging the Americans for some lift. It sucks to have no large lift capabilities integral to your armed forces.

 

[fuflans]

I haven't heard anything about how we will get them out.

Well, either we'll be renting those big Russian planes again and some ships or we'll be begging the Americans for some lift. It sucks to have no large lift capabilities integral to your armed forces.

The government is hiring ships to evacuate any Canadians who wish to flee the country:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/16/lebanon-canadians.html

The article says that it is a combined land sea and air rescue operation but doesn't mention what the air and land bits entail. Maybe they will fly citizens home who have evacuated on ships to Cyprus or by land to Syria?

Also interesting is that while the article says that there are 16000 registered Canadians in the country, there may be at least twice as many there.

 

[Mogz]

I haven't heard anything about how we will get them out.

Well, either we'll be renting those big Russian planes again and some ships or we'll be begging the Americans for some lift. It sucks to have no large lift capabilities integral to your armed forces.

The government is hiring ships to evacuate any Canadians who wish to flee the country:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/16/lebanon-canadians.html

The article says that it is a combined land sea and air rescue operation but doesn't mention what the air and land bits entail. Maybe they will fly citizens home who have evacuated on ships to Cyprus or by land to Syria?

Also interesting is that while the article says that there are 16000 registered Canadians in the country, there may be at least twice as many there.

We shouldn't have to hire ships. The resources should already be at the hands of the Canadian Navy.

 

[Amik]

I haven't heard anything about how we will get them out.

Well, either we'll be renting those big Russian planes again and some ships or we'll be begging the Americans for some lift. It sucks to have no large lift capabilities integral to your armed forces.

The government is hiring ships to evacuate any Canadians who wish to flee the country:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/16/lebanon-canadians.html

The article says that it is a combined land sea and air rescue operation but doesn't mention what the air and land bits entail. Maybe they will fly citizens home who have evacuated on ships to Cyprus or by land to Syria?

Also interesting is that while the article says that there are 16000 registered Canadians in the country, there may be at least twice as many there.

We shouldn't have to hire ships. The resources should already be at the hands of the Canadian Navy.

Why do we need warships to evacuate Canadian nationals from a country being threatened by our "ally"? For pomp? Or might we want to counter attack the Israelis?

 

[Mogz]

Why do we need warships to evacuate Canadian nationals from a country being threatened by our "ally"? For pomp? Or might we want to counter attack the Israelis?

Ever heard of the Joint Support Ship Project? It was floated ages ago under the Liberals and never took off. On the 26th of June, 2006, the Conservatives ok'd the design and construction of three of these ships. Their roles; at sea replenishment of Naval taskgroups, helicopter sealift capability; troop lift capability. These ships are intended to be able to carry 1,000 troops (2,000 in surge mode) and to have a top cruising speed of 28+ knots. What would you rather have sailing in to a warzone to extract Canadian citizens? RENTED cruise ships with slow speed, limited payload, and NO defensive capability. Or Canadian Navy tactical sealift ships with huge payloads, high speeds, and onboard defensive capability? It's a no brainer.

 

[Amik]

Funny, the US is using cruise ships to evacuate Americans from Lebanon.

 

[Mogz]

Re: RE: British warships head for the Middle East.

Funny, the US is using cruise ships to evacuate Americans from Lebanon.

It's funny, I was going to say something about this, but I thought i'd just see how long it took for someone to bring it up. Yes, the U.S. is using ONE ship, due to the fact that it's Navy is at its highest oeprational tempo since the Gulf War in 1990-91. You are aware that the United States is at War in Iraq and Afghanistan right? Furthermore they are heavily committed to Japan, a committment that entails a large portion of the U.S. Navy surface fleet right?

According to the United States Navy's website (feel free to check on this for yourself), the deployable battle force is 281 war vessels (surface and submarine), of which:

234 surface vessels are tasked out
34 submarines are tasked out

That is a total of 268 United States Naval Vessels currently on tasking; either on deployment or conducting another unnamed task. That leaves 13, 13 United States Naval vessels currently available for taskings. Now lets have a look at what major warships and/or task groups are tasked (not deployed on Operation):

Carriers:
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Pacific Ocean
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Pusan, R.O.K.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Pacific Ocean
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Atlantic Ocean
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean

Hospital Ships
USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) - Nias Island, Indonesia

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - South China Sea
USS Ogden (LPD 5) - port visit, Phuket, Thailand
USS Germantown (LSD 42) - South China Sea

Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Red Sea
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Red Sea
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Red Sea

Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Cleveland (LPD 7) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dubuque (LPD 8) - Pacific Ocean
USS Denver (LPD 9) - Pacific Ocean
USS Trenton (LPD 14) - Red Sea
USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Pacific Ocean
USS Tortuga (LSD 46) - Sunda Sea
USS Rushmore (LSD 47) - Pacific Ocean
USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) - Yokosuka, Japan
USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) - Atlantic Ocean

Note where most of the vessels not on deployment are located? In or around Japan/China/North Korea.

Do I really need to go on? The United States Navy is stretched thin. They do not have at their disposal the type of vessels needed to mass-evac it's citizens, therefore it has been FORCED to rent ships. The fact remains they have the capability, however currently they're in the business of fighting two wars and preparing for a third.

 

[unclepercy]

Re: RE: British warships head for the Middle East.

Funny, the US is using cruise ships to evacuate Americans from Lebanon.

It's funny, I was going to say something about this, but I thought i'd just see how long it took for someone to bring it up. Yes, the U.S. is using ONE ship, due to the fact that it's Navy is at its highest oeprational tempo since the Gulf War in 1990-91. You are aware that the United States is at War in Iraq and Afghanistan right? Furthermore they are heavily committed to Japan, a committment that entails a large portion of the U.S. Navy surface fleet right?

According to the United States Navy's website (feel free to check on this for yourself), the deployable battle force is 281 war vessels (surface and submarine), of which:

234 surface vessels are tasked out
34 submarines are tasked out

That is a total of 268 United States Naval Vessels currently on tasking; either on deployment or conducting another unnamed task. That leaves 13, 13 United States Naval vessels currently available for taskings. Now lets have a look at what major warships and/or task groups are tasked (not deployed on Operation):

Carriers:
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Pacific Ocean
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Pusan, R.O.K.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Pacific Ocean
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Atlantic Ocean
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean

Hospital Ships
USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) - Nias Island, Indonesia

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - South China Sea
USS Ogden (LPD 5) - port visit, Phuket, Thailand
USS Germantown (LSD 42) - South China Sea

Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Red Sea
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Red Sea
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Red Sea

Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Cleveland (LPD 7) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dubuque (LPD 8) - Pacific Ocean
USS Denver (LPD 9) - Pacific Ocean
USS Trenton (LPD 14) - Red Sea
USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Pacific Ocean
USS Tortuga (LSD 46) - Sunda Sea
USS Rushmore (LSD 47) - Pacific Ocean
USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) - Yokosuka, Japan
USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) - Atlantic Ocean

Note where most of the vessels not on deployment are located? In or around Japan/China/North Korea.

Do I really need to go on? The United States Navy is stretched thin. They do not have at their disposal the type of vessels needed to mass-evac it's citizens, therefore it has been FORCED to rent ships. The fact remains they have the capability, however currently they're in the business of fighting two wars and preparing for a third.

Are you sure about that? Absolutely, positively 100% correct? Remember, the US bought several cruise ships for evacuees of Katrina. If we are stretched thin, it's because of insufficient support from other nations. Ahem, like Canada...2 ships? TWO?
That's downright embarrassing.

The US is evacuating its citizens from Lebanon, but it is going to bill them for the transport home. How about them apples?

Uncle

 

[Hotshot]

[quote="Mogz
We shouldn't have to hire ships. The resources should already be at the hands of the Canadian Navy.[/quote]

What navy?? A few leaky boats?? LOL

The government is sitting around with their thumbs up their butt while Canadians are dying over there. A very poor response. I have to agree with the criticizm from the families of the dead in Montreal. (Hmmmm, Quebec. I wonder if there is something in that?)

 

[Mogz]

Re: RE: British warships head for the Middle East.

Funny, the US is using cruise ships to evacuate Americans from Lebanon.

It's funny, I was going to say something about this, but I thought i'd just see how long it took for someone to bring it up. Yes, the U.S. is using ONE ship, due to the fact that it's Navy is at its highest oeprational tempo since the Gulf War in 1990-91. You are aware that the United States is at War in Iraq and Afghanistan right? Furthermore they are heavily committed to Japan, a committment that entails a large portion of the U.S. Navy surface fleet right?

According to the United States Navy's website (feel free to check on this for yourself), the deployable battle force is 281 war vessels (surface and submarine), of which:

234 surface vessels are tasked out
34 submarines are tasked out

That is a total of 268 United States Naval Vessels currently on tasking; either on deployment or conducting another unnamed task. That leaves 13, 13 United States Naval vessels currently available for taskings. Now lets have a look at what major warships and/or task groups are tasked (not deployed on Operation):

Carriers:
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Pacific Ocean
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Pusan, R.O.K.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Pacific Ocean
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Atlantic Ocean
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean

Hospital Ships
USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) - Nias Island, Indonesia

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - South China Sea
USS Ogden (LPD 5) - port visit, Phuket, Thailand
USS Germantown (LSD 42) - South China Sea

Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Red Sea
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Red Sea
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Red Sea

Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Cleveland (LPD 7) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dubuque (LPD 8) - Pacific Ocean
USS Denver (LPD 9) - Pacific Ocean
USS Trenton (LPD 14) - Red Sea
USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Pacific Ocean
USS Tortuga (LSD 46) - Sunda Sea
USS Rushmore (LSD 47) - Pacific Ocean
USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) - Yokosuka, Japan
USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) - Atlantic Ocean

Note where most of the vessels not on deployment are located? In or around Japan/China/North Korea.

Do I really need to go on? The United States Navy is stretched thin. They do not have at their disposal the type of vessels needed to mass-evac it's citizens, therefore it has been FORCED to rent ships. The fact remains they have the capability, however currently they're in the business of fighting two wars and preparing for a third.

Are you sure about that? Absolutely, positively 100% correct? Remember, the US bought several cruise ships for evacuees of Katrina. If we are stretched thin, it's because of insufficient support from other nations. Ahem, like Canada...2 ships? TWO?
That's downright embarrassing.

The US is evacuating its citizens from Lebanon, but it is going to bill them for the transport home. How about them apples?

Uncle

Yes I am sure, but thanks for checking in with me. When a Nation has 268 of its 281 warships tasked out (95%), that is stretched thin to me. You also have to keep in mind that an evacuation of this magnitude requires certain criteria in its ships. You cannot send a destroyer (lets say a United States Arleigh Burke class) which has a maximum compliment of 300 (that's filled to capacity) to evacuate people. Where would you put them? Furthermore take in the bulk of the United States surface fleet; Oliver Hazard Perry Class as well as Ticonderoga Class warships. They are small, compact, war vessels, with no ability to take on refugees. The task for mass-evac falls to the amphibious arm of the Navy. However, given the current state of the World, those resources are finite for the U.S. The chief amphibious vessel of the United States Navy is the WASP Class Amphibious Assault Ship (an assault carrier if you will), that can carry over 2,500 men in surge mode in addition to its crew. There are currently seven (7) of these vessels (with an eigth in production). Of those seven, as you can see from my previous post three (3) alone are currently tasked out; pacific ocean/red sea. A fourth, the USS Essex, is based in Sasebo Japan. That leaves three WASP Class unaccounted for. As the U.S. Navy does not post (wisely) the location of deployed Naval vessels, it is quite safe to assume that the remaining three are deployed in support of the War in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. The simple truth is that the U.S. Navy does not have available, currently, the means to facilite a mass evacuation of the scale required.

With regard to Canada, and our deployment post-hurricane. First off, we deployed four (4) vessels (get your facts straights):

Guided Missile Frigate = HMCS Toronto
Guided Missile Frigate = HMCS Ville de Quebec
Command and Control Destroyer = HMCS Athabaskan
Canadian Coast Guard Cruiser = CCGS Sir William Alexander

Link

With that in mind, i'd hope, given your somewhat off-the-cuff remark, you'd at least have a concept of the makeup of the present-day Canadian Navy. We currently have:

Guide Missile Frigates: 12
Command and Control Air Defence Destroyers: 4
Auxiliary Oil and Replenishment Ships: 2
Coastol Defence (mine sweeper) Ships: 12
Long Range Patrol Submarines: 4
TOTAL:34

If we break down even further, of that 34 vessels, what ships would have been of any use to the United States, we have to automatically rule out the four submarines as they were at the time, and still are, unfit for service. Our 12 Kingston Class Coastal Defence vessels would also have been useless. They have a max cruising speed of 15 knots and are not designed for open-sea travel. They are a coastal defence vessel with limited mine-warfare capability, crewed by 30 Naval Reservists, nothing more, nothing less. That leaves 18 vessels that would have made some impact on the Gulf Coast. Of those 18 vessels, 9 are based at Her Majestys Canadian Dockyard Esquimalt B.C., on the other side of the continent of the Gulf Coast. That now leaves 9 vessels on the Atlantic Coast. At the time of Katrina (Fall 2005), the disposition of the following Naval vessels (according to the Canadian Navys website Operations and Exercises section) was:

HMCS Charlottetown - High readiness to deploy
HMCS Montreal - In port
HMCS Fredriction - Arabian Sea (my friend was onboard at the time)
HMCS Toronto - On the way to the Gulf Coast
HMCS St. Johns - In port
HMCS Ville De Quebec - On the way to the Gulf Coast

HMCS Iroquouis - Arabian Sea
HMCS Athabaskan - On the way to the Gulf Coast

HMCS Preserver - Arabian Sea

As you can see, of our Navy is also stretched thin (due to our limited size). We had 9 vessels capable of rendering aid, of which 3 were in the Arabian Sea, 1 was on high readiness to deploy, and 5 were in port. The decision to send 3 Naval vessels (not to mention 1 coast guard) was a large decision for our limited Navy. In effect those 3 ships represented 3/5 of our available Atlantic Fleet. You're welcome.

 

[Lineman]

[quote="Mogz
We shouldn't have to hire ships. The resources should already be at the hands of the Canadian Navy.

What navy?? A few leaky boats?? LOL
The government is sitting around with their thumbs up their butt while Canadians are dying over there. A very poor response. I have to agree with the criticizm from the families of the dead in Montreal. (Hmmmm, Quebec. I wonder if there is something in that?)[/quote]


I'm impressed that you could foresee this crisis while the rest of the world could not!
" A very poor response"?
You obviously have an answer on how to evacuate 30,000 people on the other side of the planet on 3 days notice. PLEASE LET US IN ON YOUR BRILLIANT PLAN.
I empathize with the Family and their loss, everyone should. But I do not agree with them blaming our government for inaction. Canada could not have prevented these deaths. Though Israel likely fired the shell that killed these people they would not have done so if this series of events were not initiated by Hezbullah. This crisis was deliberatly and purposfully set in motion by Hezbullah.