: That's a horrible cop-out. If the SPNKr had design flaws, it would have been
: replaced years ago. That's just how military procurement works. Good
: weapons stay in service until they are made obsolete by new technology or
: new tactics. Bad weapons are replaced by new designs before they can lose
: that new-gun smell.

I wish that were true.

: Unfortunately, the M14 was a bad weapon for the intended role. Logistics no
: longer demanded that America's service rifle fire the common 7.62x51mm
: round, and that round was overkill at the ranges most gun battles were
: actually fought at. Worse, it was way too powerful to be controlled in
: full auto fire. Finally, the weight of the cartridge meant that soldiers
: could only carry enough for one firefight.

: Therefore, the M14 was replaced by the M16 a mere five years into its service
: life. And for all it's faults, the M16 was a better weapon. The 5.56 is
: powerful enough at ranges of up to 300 yards, it is controllable in full
: automatic fire, and soldiers can carry more 5.56 ammunition than 7.62,
: weight for weight.

A better weapon in the intended service rifle role, perhaps. But fortunately it was adopted not long after as a designated marksman rifle and has continued service in that role for decades. To this day the military continues to use updated models and even adopt newer ones.

: Once the M16's reliability issues were solved, the rifle was a great weapon.
: Other weapons may offer marginally better performance, but not nearly
: enough to justify replacement. Armorers are intimately familiar with it.
: America's logistics system is built to deliver the M16's ammo and
: magazines and spare parts. Any new weapon will have flaws in design and
: production that will take decades to solve; thus, the M16 won't be
: replaced until some radical shift in technology allows a much better gun.
: Same with the Kalashnikov, A-10 Thunderbolt, B-52, etc.

Yeah, about the Warthog. The USAF is fighting to scrap them while Congress forces it on them and for good reason too. The Air Force wants to replace it with their new Lightning II's by the 2020s. In the close support role F-35A is unlikely to ever supplant the A-10's superiority in that arena. Their loss would be missed all throughout the Army and Marine Corps's frontline ranks. But...

: In short, if the SPNKr has lasted through twenty five years of war and an
: additional eight years of peacetime, Then it's not going to be replaced
: by a design that offers the same damn performance.

Sometimes, even if the technology is immature and the role its intended for makes it inferior to an older, proven design, progress needs to be made. The F/A-18F Super Hornet replaced the F-14D Tomcat. In the aerial combat role it's seen as inferior, but at the time of its adoption, the likelihood of dogfighting was almost non-existent. Instead, it strives as a strike fighter where the Tomcat only barely made its mark. I won't even mention the M9 compared to the M1911. :P

Quite frankly, none of us know the capability, function, or role of this new rocket launcher. Appearance aside, it might be more effective than its predecessor, comparatively defective, or maybe totally equal. In any case, however, it's a new design and that's more money and more jobs for defense contractors.