Which response? 
When I tried to submit my last post, the site locked up. I don’t know if it was SDMB, or my computer. I ended up going over to my work window, which is connected to the Seattle office via VPN and RDC, to make the post.
Post #34, with the pics of the various outriggers.
It’s all down to budget. Simplifying a *wee *bit:
They tried with B-70; too expensive to build in quantity and cancelled before any were built past the prototype stage. So they reluctantly kept all the B-52s.
They tried with B-1A; too expensive to build in quantity and cancelled before any were built past the prototype stage. So they reluctantly kept all the B-52s.
They tried with B-1B; too expensive to build in quantity and cancelled after only a relative few were built. So they reluctantly kept most of the B-52s.
They tried with B-2; too expensive to build in quantity and cancelled after only a relative handful were built. So they reluctantly kept most of the ever fewer still-flyable B-52s.
They tried with NTB; too expensive to even talk about designing much less building in quantity and abandoned before it was more than a gleam in USAF’s eye. So they reluctantly kept the few still-flyable B-52s.
They’re trying right now with B-21; They hope to hide the fact it’s too expensive by keeping it and its budget top secret until its too late to cancel. That too will fail and so they’ll reluctantly keep the last couple of flyable B-52s. Until the wings fall off.
I recall hearing somewhere the oldest operational B-52 still in service was delivered in 1961. I could be remembering that wrong, but it’s probably pretty close to that anyway.
According to Wikipedia List of surviving Douglas C-47 Skytrains - Wikipedia the South African Air Force still operates some C-47’s. It wouldn’t suprise me if a few more DC-3 variants weren’t still in operation in someones Air Force.
The Swiss Guards of the Vatican City are the state’s de facto military force.
Given the nature of the threat the pole-arms they carry would constitute weapons intended for use, rather than just being ceremonial.
No, I’m pretty sure they’re just ceremonial, and any actual threats will be dealt with with their SIG rifles and pistols.
The Indians are still issuing Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk III* .303 calibre rifles (originally introduced in 1907, but an upgraded version of a design from 1888) to some police and paramilitary units.
The Canadian Rangers are still using the Lee-Enfield No. 4 .303 calibre rifle (an updated version of the SMLE), introduced in 1941, although they’re in the process of upgrading to a licence-built copy of a modern bolt-action hunting rifle.
Various militaries around the world (including Russia) still use the 1947 designed Antonov An-2:
It was still made until 2001, and it seems like China is going to keep making variants indefinitely. I have no idea how old the oldest one still in military use is, but given there’s so many countries using them it wouldn’t surprise me if one built in 1947 was still flying in some African airforce.
Maybe they should just start the B52 production line again.
The Russian empire build a massive system of coastal artillery in Finland, which they retained after declaring independence. Although they are no longer active now, the last of the 152/50 V (152 mm coastal gun with 50 caliber barrel, model Vickers) was retired in 2003.
The article author is the same in both cases, from public affairs dept of Anniston Depot. Maybe somebody there who should know better told her that, but it’s still not correct.
My specific source for saying serial 324 was produced in 1935 is the pre-WWII production listing in “The Browning Machine Gun-Vol IV” by Frank Iannamico and Dolf Goldsmith, p. 401. However IMO it qualifies as common knowledge that M2’s are not M1921’s but their descendants and so the apparent assumption of the article that a very low serial M2 must have been produced around 1921 is not correct: it’s well known the M2 model entered production in the 1930’s.
The Finnish 152mm coastal guns which made it to the 21st century operational had barrels newly produced in Finland by Tampella post WWII fitted to modified carriages of Russian made 152/45 C’s (French Canet design). Most which ended up in Finland had been produced by Obukhov, who delivered such guns beginning in 1896. The rebarreled version was known as 152/50 T. They were under new protective covers and parts of the carriages also had to be replaced, nor could they fire the same ammo as the 45 C’s. So they tended toward the category of old hammers with new heads and handles. Only two Russian 152/50 V’s were ever used operationally by the Finns and the last was a museum piece by 1956. Several British 6-inch Mk.VII Field Guns, turn of century naval guns of Vickers design put on field carriages in WWI, were purchased by Finland in 1940 and set up as coast defense guns as late as 1963 on new carriages made in Finland by Lokomo, known as 152/46 VLo, retired by 1987. Per “Suomen Rannikkotykit” (Coastal Guns in Finland) by Ove Enqvist.
Another case of pre-WWII coastal artillery operational till relatively recently is the Spanish Vickers 381mm’s, in service 1929, the last operational till 2008 in more or less original configuration.
While the B-52H fleet has been reskinned at least once, the original frames and other structures are still there.
Something I hadn’t considered about the BUFF re-engine efforts, that I just read tonight, is the lack of vertical stab area and rudder authority it has with respect to losing an outboard engine in a 4-engine configuration.
According to Wiki (the cite is from Robert F. Dorr, so I tend to trust it), the last production aircraft, B-52H AF Serial No. 61-0040, left the factory on 26 October 1962.
That would be just as impossible as restarting the A-10 production line - the production drawings and fabrication & assembly jigs & tooling are long gone. Not to mention Boeing doesn’t have the facilities available to do something of that scale.
Hah! The army of Grand Fenwick would never, ever carry one of those newfangled halberds. The longbow was good enough for Roger, and it’s good enough for them.
Wait a minute, it’s harder to restart production of an aircraft that already exists–even one whose original production run ended years ago–than to design and produce a new aircraft? Please elaborate.
Yeah, impractical sure, but impossible?
My question was a bit tongue in cheek, but at some point you’d have to ask yourself, if we can’t replace these aircraft in sufficient numbers at a reasonable price and the current ones are still adequately (presumably) performing the role, then maybe they should be replaced with more of the same?
Yeah, you may not have the tooling for an existing aircraft, but neither do you have the tooling for an aircraft that doesn’t exist yet. The price is what gets you. Take the Cessna Skyhawk. Cessna used to sell them for under twice the median wage. Now Textron sells them for more than seven times the median wage – and they never got rid of the tooling. At that price, they can’t sell enough of them to realise economy of scale. So it would be restarting production of a military plane. Tooling can be made, but it’s expensive. So do you invest in remaking the tooling to build an obsolete, but still incredibly useful aircraft that has an existing support structure and will be cheaper than a replacement? Or do you spend the money on a replacement that outperforms the obsolete aircraft, but will be more expensive and won’t be built in such numbers as the other plane?
The ancient fortifications of the Old World can impress. In Texas, Fort Sam Houston is worth mentioning. It’s home to numerous Army units–although it’s actually been administered by the USAF since 2010.
Maybe a permanent coastal gun battery?
There has to be some manned and operational some place.