Weapons that have stoood the test of time

nuac

Sorry to hear that the Lee Enfield 303 is going out of service.

We had them in the FCA in the fifties. Great rifle. The lot we had ( in Mellows Barracks ) were date stamped KG 1917

goldie fish

nuac wrote: »

Sorry to hear that the Lee Enfield 303 is going out of service.

We had them in the FCA in the fifties. Great rifle. The lot we had ( in Mellows Barracks ) were date stamped KG 1917

Welcome to the 2010s. The Lee enfield was withdrawn from service in 1992. The Version that was withdrawn from use then(Number 4) would not have appeared on the scene until the latter half of WW2, and didn't arrive in Ireland till well after that. You may have used the SMLE, an earlier version.

Capt'n Midnight

RMD wrote: »

Some might not classify directly as a weapon but the B52 was introduced in 1955 and is planned to be kept in use till 2045, an amazing lifespan for a military plane. Brought death to many by this point.

Tu-95 is also going strong.

As are C130 gunships

RPG-7

Harrier Jump Jet ( yes it's very changed, but still instantly recognisable )

And any number of artillery pieces

Aircraft carriers have very long lives. A few WWII ones still out there IIRC.



TBH
I'm surprised that the US is willing to spend $220 million on an F35 but won't re-engine the B52 with more fuel efficient ones.

Merch

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

TBH
I'm surprised that the US is willing to spend $220 million on an F35 but won't re-engine the B52 with more fuel efficient ones.

They must have a whole infrastructure built around the engine,
a proven major component of an aging aircraft, to develop or modify an existing engine as a replacement for the current type in use will take time and money, in the middle of a number of major deployments? for that to then be certified and proven in use.
It seems the existing engine must have the confidence of the airforce/powers that be to not upgrade or the cost doesnt add up already. I'd put my money on them spending that money on its replacement, at them moment anyway.

The infrastructure alone around the existing engine must fairly large and would take a lot of money to either dismantle or adapt and then rebuild around a new type (storage, special tools and equipment, training, maybe even existing contracts with private companies plus personnel experience and familiarity) not to mention other components that could have to be added or removed to complement a new engine, not sure what the certification process would be. Unless this is just a moderate improvement of the existing engine which could/would be accommodated by modifications of the engine as occur anyway.

While its not something that is easy, it seems it could be easier still to develop a new aircraft which at this stage im sure they are, while still having full use (the airforce) of the existing fleet of aircraft. new aircraft and new major sytems always have teething problems, cost and development overuns. Im more inclined to think they will allow it to phase out over time cannibalising the existing spares/aircraft to have fewer of the type available and then phase something else or a few types of completely different aircraft in.

If they wont replace the M16 or the 5.56, seems less likely they'd do the same for the engine.

I'll add M16, FN Mag,

Victor

I generally agree on the engine logic, but 100 aircraft x 8 engine x 2(?) is perhaps 1,600, so it is a lot of engines that could have fuel savings. That said, about 1,000 B-52s of all models were built, so it is possible there are a lot of spares knocking about, although not all would be compatible.

Merch wrote: »

If they wont replace the M16

Something like 10 million made, including licence manufacture. However, it has evolved, with the M-4 a lot more conspicuous than the M-16 these days.

or the 5.56

Why bother? It's a perfectly good bullet for most uses and probably has another 50 years in it given the number of weapons that use it.

It's main challenge is body armour.

Capt'n Midnight

Merch wrote: »

They must have a whole infrastructure built around the engine

Engines are consumables.

For a modern airliner plan on spending as much on replacement engines over the life of the aircraft as you did on the original airframe.

The proposed replacement has been in service for yonks.

The engines are in pods so not as if there are going to be huge differences in aerodynamics.

B52's have been used as test beds for many engines in the past.

Capt'n Midnight

R7 ICBM

First flight 1957, still in use

Merch

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Engines are consumables.

For a modern airliner plan on spending as much on replacement engines over the life of the aircraft as you did on the original airframe.

The proposed replacement has been in service for yonks.

The engines are in pods so not as if there are going to be huge differences in aerodynamics.

B52's have been used as test beds for many engines in the past.

I dont think engines are considered consumables, they are taken out of service overhauled and used repeatedly and technically could be broken down and used for spares, components are replaced all the time, but saying they are consumable sounds like comparing them to brake linings,

I dont think where the engines are located, would be what makes it a problem, its not one of accessibility or how it is connected to the aircraft, certification/testing take time (not sure what the US airforce process is but Im sure there'd be one )even a replacement engine isn't likely to be so significantly different as fan engines have been replacing low bypass engines for a long time, so there must be some advantage/s to the current powerplant. Maybe its all cost, training technical personnel, existing spare parts, they must have considered this already.

I'll add axes to the list, more general purpose than a sword, in use thousands of years, made from many materials, stone, bronze, iron

It does appear the R7 was phased out of use as a military weapon after 6 years, its use as a non military (as in not an ICBM) launch rocket lasted longer.

Capt'n Midnight

Merch wrote: »

I dont think engines are considered consumables, they are taken out of service overhauled and used repeatedly and technically could be broken down and used for spares, components are replaced all the time, but saying they are consumable sounds like comparing them to brake linings,

Yes the reason is upfront cost , they reckon it probably wouldn't be worth it. Despite the number of times the B52 has been extended (things like B58 and XB70, B1 were to replace it ) , despite the probable increase in fuel

Report recommending it
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428790.pdf

From this thread - with photos
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16759.html

Testing a C5 engine
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061127-F-1234S-026.jpg

It does appear the R7 was phased out of use as a military weapon after 6 years, its use as a non military (as in not an ICBM) launch rocket lasted longer.

and of course none of those later launches were related to the military

Merch

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes the reason is upfront cost , they reckon it probably wouldn't be worth it. Despite the number of times the B52 has been extended (things like B58 and XB70, B1 were to replace it ) , despite the probable increase in fuel

Report recommending it
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA428790.pdf

From this thread - with photos
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16759.html

Testing a C5 engine
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061127-F-1234S-026.jpg


and of course none of those later launches were related to the military

Links look interesting, I'll have a read through them, first one in particular. I'll see if my assumptions are correct or a mile off .

I'm sure those satellites were spy not sky I just meant they weren't for launching ICBMs, just read up the wiki link provided and the ordeal to launch and the size (not suitable for a silo) looks like they were outclassed fairly soon, seems they were put to some use.

as for a weapon that has lasted, biological unfortunately
I'll go with the catapult launched rotting cow carcass.

Capt'n Midnight

Merch wrote: »

the ordeal to launch and the size.

IIRC each site was talking something like 10% of the defence budget.

white elephants indeed




Punji sticks

Morpheus

twinytwo wrote: »

The Tomahawk is still issued to some units in the us army.

[MOD: Ridiculously huge picture deleted]

Indeed it is, heres the one that I carry.

This is the M48 tactical Hawk....

Aside from the VERY american name, this is really a versatile tool to be honest. Why purchase one? well Im not a fan at all of knives and I used to carry an axe, but this combines both so I carry it either strapped to my daysack, or inside by bergan.

Its ideal for clearing branches and using to prep an area for bivvying in a patrol harbour.

Its also a savage weapon when required and balanced for throwing although id prefer not to take the risk of missing!

Ive been told that a certain model of the Tomahawk has been used by the ARW as a multipurpose tool/weapon but also as a secondary breaching tool for MOUT/FIBUA and I know that I've seen photos SOMEWHERE online of an ARW member carrying one. I was also on a survival course with the army last year and the instructor used one for practically everything from clearing a living area to making the lean-to, fire area, preping food (gutting, cleaning rabbits, birds, fish etc) which is what piqued my own interest.

Bessarion

Merch wrote: »

I dont think engines are considered consumables, they are taken out of service overhauled and used repeatedly and technically could be broken down and used for spares, components are replaced all the time, but saying they are consumable sounds like comparing them to brake linings.....

A few years back Pratt&Whitney were selling aircraft and engines to ANA. They allowed ANA an 'option' to increase the number of units. ANA maxed out the engines purchased. They sold the extra engines for spares and made a profit. Engines companies now stipulate that when buying an engine the contract states that you cannot break it up for spares.

Merch

Bessarion wrote: »

A few years back Pratt&Whitney were selling aircraft and engines to ANA. They allowed ANA an 'option' to increase the number of units. ANA maxed out the engines purchased. They sold the extra engines for spares and made a profit. Engines companies now stipulate that when buying an engine the contract states that you cannot break it up for spares.

Im saying technically it would be possible to break down engines,
I have no idea what contract that operator has with any private maintenance facilities, I assume they own and maintain them as,

who else operates that engine? no one I'd say, none private anyway I think.
As for private operators, I believe a like for like replacement is offered for overhaul, I suppose it depends on whether the operator owns or leases the aircraft,

sooo
the weapon that stood the test of time is? Mods!