He quite literally said, “The last time an aircraft carrier has been used in battle was in World War II.” Launching aircraft to be employed in battle is a use, correct? I’m taking issue with his definition of the phrase “used in battle.”

Who knows, it could be a novelty plate, or a plate from another car just slapped onto this one in order to drive it. Or, as another poster mentioned, it’s possible there’s a rule ref: low production collector cars that allow smog exemption outside of a 35 year window... which would be rad.

Hey now, I didn’t even know that was a thing! Very cool if that’s the case.

I understand he was (likely?) trying to convey “ship-to-ship” battle, or one in which another surface (or sub-surface) combatant “shot back” at the carrier or its group.

Thanks for the link! Another (albeit foreign-registered) domain I frequent ref: carriers is here:

I agree ref: too expensive, but I disagree on the concept of isolationism. Having said that, I respect your opinion.

I agree ref: “needing” 12 carriers. Especially when a crap ton are (seemingly perpetually) in refit...

Politics? I suppose my opining over this author’s narrative is political. That wasn’t the purpose of my post though. It was more to address that this author excluded the carrier’s contributions to various battles over the past 70+ years.

I didn’t even want to go into the humanitarian missions they, apparently, didn’t contribute anything to since WWII ended... as are part of a Carrier Group’s stated task and purpose. Hey, speaking of task and purpose... this is basically a cut/paste from a taskandpurpose.com article from last week.

Your definition of “used in battle” is fairly exclusionary of the last 70+ years of carrier history, and their air-wing’s contributions to the Korean, Vietnam, Cold, and Gulf wars... not to mention GWOT. But don’t let that get in the way of your narrative.

Its possible they smogged and tagged it prior-to the swap... but those are CA tags with a CA 2017 registration sticker.

No mention of CARB or BAR smog ref approval on what looks like a well-executed swap. Any ideas on whether or not this kept all of its factory emissions equipment? Being a ‘76, CA will require a smog visual and sniffer. While it’ll probably pass the latter, the former will be impossible without a BAR sticker…

What are you doing about those head studs (yes I read your tweets, watched the videos, etc and perhaps didn’t go back far enough)?

I don’t think the MZR family of engines fit into the CX-5 platform.

Man, good luck with that. The skyactiv engines have something like a 13:1 - 14:1 compression ratio already. I’ve seen some dyno videos of people chucking turbos on their 2.0l skyactiv Miatas but nothing mainstream. In fact, there’s even a “why we’re not building a turbo kit” Q&A blog post over at CorkSport, who will…

When I offloaded my last Subaru, a 2005 Legacy GT Wagon in ~2011, it had already been through an engine (clogged turbo oil feed inline banjo filter starved the turbo of oil and sent metal shards into the rod and cam bearings) and needed another (ring lands, low compression). It was already on its 2nd 5-spd manual but…

We paid $19,100 out the door for our brand new 2015 CX-5. This was a rental spec version with the manual transmission. It was AMAZING to drive, I still miss it. Sadly, even a 6 spd couldn’t make 155hp in a ~3300lb vehicle any semblance of quick. 2000lbs of towing was optimistic, especially with more than one person…

Having owned 3 in the past 10 years... I don’t prefer them, but for some unholy reason I keep going back to them. You’d think after 2 engine replacements and at least a half dozen head gaskets I’d have learned my lesson. But counterpoint, that new XV looks kind of nice...

Or a Targa/Cabrio from the early 80's.