Where did HMS Gloucester appear from?

I have been following this situation fairly closely over the last few days, and I was under the impression that HMS Illustrious, and HMS Bulwark, were the two ships Britain are sending to the region. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the media haven't made a single mention of HMS Gloucester all week; so how is Gloucester now docked at a port in Lebanon as we speak, evacuating people? Has anyone heard any mention of the Gloucester being sent? I have checked Google News and all I could find mentioning HMS Gloucester was this Article, from The Guardian, UK. This maybe a total no issue, but I just thought I'd ask.

The first party of around 100 was expected to leave by sea on HMS Gloucester - one of two Type 42 destroyers stationed off the Lebanese coast.

Four more Royal Navy ships were on their way to the area, including the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious and the commando assault ship HMS Bulwark.

6 Ships?



[edit on 18-7-2006 by Communication_Burger]

Probably the routine Mediterranean patrol which I think is usually a Destroyer or possibly two.

Didn't get much of a mention as carriers are so much sexier. The 6 is presumably made up with auxilliaries for stores/fuel support etc.

Originally posted by timeless test
Didn't get much of a mention as carriers are so much sexier.

They didn't get any mention at all, until this afternoon.

Originally posted by timeless test
The 6 is presumably made up with auxilliaries for stores/fuel support etc.

One is:

BBC

RFA FORT VICTORIA



Fleet-replenishment ship, providing stores and tanker facilities for Royal Navy vessels.

Also on that page, it sais the evacuation capacity of HMS Gloucester is 500-750. Why then has Gloucester left Lebanon with only 180 evacuees on board?

I think it was yesterday that a European ship left with almost no one aboard because the Israelis could not guarantee her safety overnight.

You may read into that whatever you please.

Originally posted by timeless test
I think it was yesterday that a European ship left with almost no one aboard because the Israelis could not guarantee her safety overnight.

The British commander said he was fully armed and prepared to deal with any threat, even Israel. They had already cleared passage with the Israeli's, anyway. Why didn't they take any more passengers? I thought this was supposed to be the biggest evacuation since Dunkirk? They're not going to get very far if they only evacuate at a fraction of their capacity, are they?

Originally posted by timeless test
You may read into that whatever you please.

What do you mean by this?

I think you will see over thenext couple of days alot more British nationals and other nationals being evacuated, I really do not think it is in Israels interest right now to cause an incident with a British Warship....

Or with any ship trying to evacuate Forieghn Nationals.

There is another warship about, might dock by tommorrow,

Iit is funny how the Frecnh can get in an outin not time, Us british have to ask for permission wth is going on hahaha...

Originally posted by Communication_Burger
Why didn't they take any more passengers?

Why do you think that there were more passengers ready to be taken?

Where was the Glouchester stationed or on patrol before all of this?

Originally posted by Communication_Burger
The British commander said he was fully armed and prepared to deal with any threat, even Israel.

Well he's hardly likely to say "we'll turn round and run like hell if it gets a bit naughty" is he?

Originally posted by Communication_Burger

Originally posted by timeless test
You may read into that whatever you please.

What do you mean by this?

You tell me. Bear in mind that any ships that enter Beiruit harbour will have to both pass an Israeli naval blockade and face the risk of Hezbollah attack. As the Israeli in command would not be giving assurances about Hezbollah's activities at any time you may be forgiven for assuming that he thought it likely that Israeli forces would be bombing the city/docks again that night and not be too concerned about the presence of an evacuation ship.

I can't find the news link at the moment but I saw it this morning.

In addition, I don't think we should underestimate the logistic difficulties of assembling and boarding a large number of civilians from across a wide area, potentially under fire - particularly if the daft beggar who was on TV the other morning complaining about having nuclear missiles fired at her all night is amongst them

Originally posted by Nygdan

Where was the Glouchester stationed or on patrol before all of this?

I can't tell you that, because the first I heard of Gloucester was when it arrived at port to evacuate people. Like Timeless Test said, it was probably in the Mediterranian somewhere. I was just suprised, that's all, because HMS Gloucester was not one of the ships they said they had sent out there.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why do you think that there were more passengers ready to be taken?

Well there damn well should have been, considering there are anywhere up to about 40,000 people connected to the UK who may need to be evacuated. I heard reports ealier in the week, that these people had been told to get ready to evacuate (unless they wished to remain) at the drop of hat, and that there were several thousand anxious to leave as soon as possible. Surely they could have put double the amount that they did onboard, with no problem at all?

Why do you think that there were more passengers ready to be taken?

There still is alot of British nationals, and other Foreign nationals waiting to be taken from that port at beruit btw, alot of them are at the British Embassy and a few are just waiting to just get the word, once the Aircraft carrier arrives things should speed up to get all of them out, While they have taken their time is a lil disgusted by that.

Yes this is strange. Originally it was just Invincible and Bulwark (who was in gibraltar). It would be hard to dock an aircraft carrier in any Beirut ports, so maybe they realise that airvac via helicopters wasn't enough.

However, there were then breaking news reports on SKY about a further 4 ships being sent. Which included Gloucster. They seem to get there very quickly (yes a destroyer will move at a much greter speed than an aircraft carrier) but theres no report on where they were originally. Strange.

This wasn't where I originally read the story and this article talks of "threats" which may be a bitt OTT

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...
But the danger of the rescue runs was shown yesterday when a passenger ship sent by the French Government was forced to leave in the middle of loading because of renewed Israeli threats, leaving several busloads of civilians behind.

Nygdan - I believe either Gloucester or York would have been the routine Mediterranean patrol, the other may have come from the Gulf ahead of Bulwark or also already been in the area.

Do you all really think Israel is gonna attack these ships if they do not leave when they are told to do so?, or even block them, I dont see it Israel would loose all credibility if it did maybe all the other countries including the UK are scared of the Israely Navy *Shrugs*, Would love to know How the Us warships commanders would react to such a threat from them.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by spencerjohnstone]

I have to say that I think some of the criticism of the UK evacuation response is unreasonable.

Taking warships through a blockade to a port which may not be accessible due to bombing is not an exercise to be taken lightly. It is not impossible that beach evacuations could be required if it gets really unpleasant out there.

The French may have almost come a cropper by sending in a chartered passenger ship too quickly and lets not forget that nations such as Greece & Italy are somewhat closer than us.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Do you all really think Israel is gonna attack these ships if they do not leave when they are told to do so?,

Extraordinarily unlikely but I understand the French ship intended to stay overnight and I guess the Israelis were suggesting that may not be terribly safe. Its all very well being a bit macho about the whole affair but if you have a couple of thousand civilians on board you can end up up looking a little foolish if you get in the way of a bomb.

Originally posted by timeless test
Well he's hardly likely to say "we'll turn round and run like hell if it gets a bit naughty" is he?

Look at the Hardware they have sent to the area, I think he is in a position to back up what he sais, somehow.

Originally posted by Communication_Burger

Bear in mind that any ships that enter Beiruit harbour will have to both pass an Israeli naval blockade and face the risk of Hezbollah attack. As the Israeli in command would not be giving assurances about Hezbollah's activities at any time you may be forgiven for assuming that he thought it likely that Israeli forces would be bombing the city/docks again that night and not be too concerned about the presence of an evacuation ship.

I already told you they had negotiated their operations in that area with the Israeli's, in full. Israel are not stupid enough to bomb us, unless they are going to try and frame Iran, or Syria. Hezbollah had a much better opportunity to hit one of our ships than they did with the Israeli's, and a great deal of time to do it. HMS Gloucester arrived, docked at a Lebanese port, stayed there for about 4 hours, and then sailed away, without any incident at all. It may even be possible that our Government has negotiated with Hezbollah to allow the safe passage of dual Citizens or anyone else who had to evacuate, but the Commander couldn't confirm nor deny that.

Originally posted by timeless test
In addition, I don't think we should underestimate the logistic difficulties of assembling and boarding a large number of civilians from across a wide area, potentially under fire -

Perhaps that is what I am doing, I'm really not sure, but I would have thought that Gloucester would not have set sail without more evacuees. Where has Gloucester gone? Greece? It will take a while for it to return, and the only other ship with a similar capacity is HMS York. I have no idea what role the Aircraft Carriers intend to play, apart from some airlifting.

Gloucester has gone to Cyprus, York is still on station but with Illustrious and Bulwark almost there I doubt they will want to let her go away and leave only a Frigate, St Albans, for cover.

I presume that they intend to take Bulwark into Beirut but I would be a little surprised if Illustrious would dock, certainly with a full compliment of Harriers on board.

Originally posted by timeless test
I presume that they intend to take Bulwark into Beirut but I would be a little surprised if Illustrious would dock, certainly with a full compliment of Harriers on board.

I heard the initial plan was to float Illustrious and Bulwark toward the Coast, and then airlift Evacuees off the Beach, because all the Ports were smashed. They must have either fixed a port, or underestimated the initial damage to one, or some of them.

I am still suprised at the appearance of HMS Gloucester, though, because we were not told anything about it being sent, nor were we informed of York, St Albans, or Fort Victoria. Gloucester was practically in Port before it was even announced it was heading to the area.



[edit on 18-7-2006 by Communication_Burger]

Ahhhh, it becomes clearer.

Illustrious would normally operate in a task group of three ships - currently these are herself, Victoria and Gloucester. These were in or around Gibralter when they were diverted and presumably Gloucester was able to depart immediately ahead of the other two.

So York will probably have been the Mediterranean patrol and St Albans will have either come from the Gulf or may have been in Gibralter and have come with the Illustrious group.
More here:
www.mod.uk...

The notice was given to the media two days before it arrived, that would allow it sail over a thousand miles at full speed.

It was in Gibraltar.