As I recall the Enterprise was transiting the Med at the time that Libya was kicking off, so the US seems to have decided that a CVN was not required, after NATO started enforcing the UN resolution.
I am not sure what the Enterprise would have been tasked to do if the Libyan air defences had not been basically neutralised by the cruise missile assault and NATO air forces.

No… at the time Libya kicked off, “Big E” was in the North Arabian Sea (south of Iran). She was moved into the Red Sea as a precaution (in red below), in case she was needed to provide additional air cover if the “no fly zone” had been contested by Libya. When nothing happened, and the various NATO air forces (including CdG and her Rafales) were in place and operating, she was sent back to the North Arabian Sea.

current locations of all USN CVNs
back record of CVN-65 locations

13Jan2011, departed Norfolk to the 5th and 6th fleet areas of operations, in support of maritime security operations.
13Jan-19Jan2011, Lant
20Jan2011, entered the 6th Fleet Area of Responsibility (AOR)
20Jan-25Jan2011, Lant
26Jan-29Jan2011, Lisbon, Portugal
30Jan2011, Lant
31Jan2011, passed through the Strait of Gibraltar
01Feb-07Feb2011, Med
08Feb-10Feb2011, Marmaris, Turkey
11Feb-14Feb2011, Med
15Feb2011, transited the Suez Canal and entered the 5th Fleet AOR
15Feb-17Feb2011, Red Sea
18Feb2011, transited the Strait of Bab el Mandeb and entered the Gulf of Aden
19Feb-01Mar2011, North Arabian Sea
02Mar-22Mar2011, Red Sea
23Mar-06Jun2011, Arabian Sea
07Jun-20Jun2011, Gulf of Aden
21Jun2011, transited the Strait of Bab el Mandeb and entered the Red Sea
21Jun-23Jun2011, Red Sea
24Jun2011, transited the Suez Canal and entered the Med
25Jun2011, Souda Bay, Crete, Greece
26Jun-27Jun2011, Med
28Jun-01Jul2011, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
02Jul-03Jul2011, Med
04Jul-12Jul2011, Lant
13Jul2011, Mayport
14Jul2011, Lant
15Jul2011, returned to Norfolk

£500m jump jets may melt the decks of aircraft carriers: Latest MoD plan shambles

Not a chance…

The UK will be using SRVL which means that the exhaust will only be touching any one spot on the deck for only a microsecond as the landing speed is ~100kph.

The Mirror is repeating false crap that has been debunked for over a year.

F-35B does not use afterburner in landing… the trials aboard Wasp involved true vertical landings on a flight deck with normal non-skid coating, and no damage was done.

Then, when afterburner was used in rolling take-offs, no damage was done to the non-skid there, either.

But we know that many journos have no regard for the truth when they have an agenda to push… if they even bother to learn what the truth is to start with.

I’m puzzled too, as there is no such thing as ‘Arabian Gulf’… 😀

Gamal Abdel Nasser would disagree (if he weren’t dead).

As Egyptian President, Gamal Nasser repeatedly used “Arabian Gulf” instead of “Persian Gulf” in an apparent attempt to awaken “Pan-Arab” political feelings in the Middle East.

As recognized by the United States Board on Geographic names, the name of the body of water that lies between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council is the Persian Gulf. For political reasons, Arabs often refer to it as the Arab or Arabian Gulf.

In recent years, due to increased cooperation with Arab states of the Persian Gulf, various branches of the U.S. armed forces have issued directives to their members to use the “Arabian Gulf” when operating in the area (“Persian Gulf” is still used in official publications and websites), partially to follow local conventions, or simply to follow local laws that ban the use of “Persian Gulf”, e.g. in the United Arab Emirates.

“Arabian Gulf” also appears as the name of what we now call the “Red Sea”, in geographical works from ancient times to the 19th century.

‘Jet’ is a bit of a misnomer – although it is a turboprop.

Ken

The original term for an aircraft equipped with turboprops was “prop-jet”, since all a turboprop engine is is a turbojet with an extra-large accessory gearbox spinning a prop. :diablo:

I’m very wary of anything the western media/powers ( especially american) have to say about China and their interpretation of China’s policies and objectives, besides it says CIA on that map , so as far as i’m concerned it has no value.

Now is it possible to be pointed out to somewhere where there is a relatively neutral, balanced and well argumented view of this situation? Thanks.:)

Many of us (myself included) are basing our opinion on the actual statements the Chinese are making, not on anyone’s “interpretation” of Chinese statements.

Tigershark’s rather bellicose rant seems to mirror the position of the Chinese government (made clear by their actual statements) that anything that was ever under Chinese control, no matter how long ago, belongs under Chinese control now… and current national boundaries, international law, and the like are irrelevant.

Probably it will be useful for all sides ( or for those who actually want to find out what is the truth ) to have a fairly neutral stance on this situation.:)

No, I don’t agree that, when I see evil and oppression being done, that I must “have a fairly neutral stance on this situation”!

I fully expect someone to try to deflect my position by bringing up situations elsewhere in the world, but we are talking about China and I will not be diverted from that point… China is making outrageous claims that are in violation of international law, and that’s all there is to it!

Thanks for anyone who can answer this (well, the B-52 is a historic!)

At the top of what page?

There is no link, pic, or any other such thing in your post.

Also, I think that the question was about a straight fighter to fighter combat, excluding such parameters as range. Therefore, I think the quotes I posted seem to cover the question. I’m no expert, but the opinions of the likes of Eric Brown clinch it for me.

Regards;
Steve

Did he ever fly the F4U-4 (not the -1A/-1D)?