The only thing they will never, ever do, is to make more A-10s. Arguably they “can’t” because the tooling has been scrapped and turned into fidget spinners made in China.
I would think if anything they could ‘print’ the parts and or tooling fairly easily with all the detailed information the must have on the A-10.
It’s not that you can’t build more; however the tools are, in fact, gone. So is the expertise. You could recreate all of that which would cost the same as developing a new aircraft.
All that expense would produce an aircraft that is, unfortunately, obsolete due to advances in air defense systems.
When the A10 was built it was never intended to be used for close air support. It was intended to be cheap and fielded in numbers as a dedicated anti tank system. We were trying to find ways to blunt the Soviets’ 10 to 1 numerical advantage in armor. Though it was not meant for CAS it’s design feature lent itself well to that and that’s mostly how it’s being used.
At the time it was designed the main air defense threat it faced was low altitude AAA (ZSU-23 and similar) and man portable SAMs. It was armored to be protected from those threats. The armor worked, such systems were used against A10s in Desert Storm; most of us remember the news footage of A10s that looked like they’d been beaver chewed making it back to base. The larger, and more dangerous SAMs could easily swat an A10 out of the sky, but they fly so low that they could avoid those types of missiles.
That was 25 years ago. Things changed. The larger, more effective SAM systems are not myopic to low altitude aircraft like they once were. That leaves A10s in the same spot as B-52s. They are effective but cannot be used against a near peer enemy in a contested environment. If we, hypothetically, went to war with China sending in A10s without first obliterating *all* air defense would accomplish nothing but get a lot of American pilots killed. Modern air defense systems would drop them like flies and by the time the environment was permissive enough to use them, a near peer enemy would be likely crying uncle. Also, we wouldn’t have enough of them to go around against a more widespread enemy like China. There would be a shortage in available air frames.
Thus, the light attack aircraft the USAF is looking into. It also has to be used in a permissive environment which means bombing terrorists or near peer enemies after complete local suppression of air defense and air power. The difference is that there are cheap; cheaper than the A10. You can buy a small horde of them and have enough onhand to bring CAS to bear any time, anywhere.
As for its lack of anti tank weapons, other aircraft have long since already taken over that role from the A10. Right now it’s F-16s and will be F-35s in the future. Neither of those have the 30mm cannon but again...the A10 is a 40ish year old design. The 30mm was effective against Soviet tanks of the era, proven 25 years ago in Desert Storm. It is not effective against modern designs; also, the A10s primary anti tank system was always missiles. Missiles that the F-16 and F-35 can carry as well, and they can operate in environments that would be almost instantly lethal to the A10.
I think it’s a neat aircraft but it’s day has come and gone. A dedicated CAS aircraft can be bought and maintained for cheaper than keeping the aging A10 in the air, and the high intensity aerial conflict fought against near peer adversaries in the opening stages of a conflict is the realm of the F-16, F-15, F-35, and F-22.
The A-10 is pretty simple technology...it could be replicated in a heartbeat. Politicians however could not steal sufficient amounts!!!