I understand that the $s discussed in the article are peanuts in the DOD budget and not even major for an aircraft upgrade.
But what I don’t understand is why they can’t just retool and produce more of the same thing. If it works it works.
715 were produced from ‘75-’84, we could surely produce 25-50/year as ongoing replacements and retire some of the older craft.
There was a 2 seater designed with some ECM abilities that was never really put to use that could be advantageous as well...but why mess with a good thing.
Because technology gets better. Both the technology aimed at it and the technology available to it. To keep it great you’ve got to keep it advancing.
Interchangeability of parts, air frames made with new tooling have no guarantee that parts for one series of aircraft built with the old tooling will fit to air frames built with the new tooling and vice versa.
Think cheap aftermarket Chinese replacement fenders for your bent-up car. They don't quite fit right. Bad enough for your soccer mom mobile, potentially fatal under the high stresses of combat.
The A-10 was designed with the intent of being able to take undamaged parts from unflyable birds and 'Frankenstein' them together in the field and get them back in combat. Keeping track of which salvaged wig can fit which series would be a logistical nightmare.
So why can't we re use the old tooling?
It was ordered destroyed at the end of the first run of the contract.
Top Airforce Brass really hates the A-10...
Two seater was a prototype of an A-10 for night missions.
Sadly, to re-build and start a production line is REALLY expensive. Being essentially a single mission jet, the powers that be are thinking a multi-mission jet and are for some reason favoring a less capable jet for the air-to-ground role (JSF).
Multiple reasons -
1. The original tooling was destroyed long ago - by order of Congress. IIRC, Dick Cheney had more than a little to do with that.
2. Even if the original tooling still existed, modern manufacturing has *seriously* moved on since the 1970s when this plane was being developed. The old way would cost way more and be way slower than modern methods.
3. The original manufacturer and most of the suppliers are long gone.
4. It would likely cost more to make tooling to reproduce the original plane in its entirety using the old techniques than it would to design a new one using new technology.
What we should be doing (and should have been doing since 2000) is designing a brand new, tougher, more heavily armed and armored replacement for the A-10. You can only slap upgrades and rebuilds on an old platform for so long before it becomes a case of diminishing returns.
...”But what I don’t understand is why they can’t just retool and produce more of the same thing. If it works it works.”
Well, I worked for many years on Block 30 F-16Cs and Ds...
they were great airplanes but were overtaken by later Block F-16s that the U.S. Air Force would not buy (someting about
not wanting “legacy aircraft...or something”) The F-16 is still in production ... up to Block 50 or 70 or whatever...still as potent as ever but,no, we can’t have
old-fashioned legacy aircraft for the USAF ....