The thing is, the last A-10 rolled off the production line 32 years ago. Airframes have finite lifespans.
Start up the production again, I would rather them scrap the F35 program, which is vaporware at this point, than the A10
That said, the decision to declare Initial Operating Capacity with a software load that only has 89% of the aircraft's functionality is some politicized bullshit by the USAF.
A look into a similar process with NASA: http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/TuesdayLandmarkADougHa... for some more information.
If you're using the gun you tell the computer "I want to shoot that guy", at which point you try to get him onto the pip on your display, which is going to move around depending on your relative velocity and distance. The computer actually fires the gun when it decides the round will hit. If you had to do it manually you'd most likely run out of ammo before you hit anything.
The air-to-ground system is similar.
So the software isn't just firing the gun. It's integrating data from all its sensors to figure out when to fire based on what you're trying to hit. I assume they have cut-outs friendlies as well, so you don't accidentally shoot your wingman.
Even when the gun is working, the A version is only going to have 120 rounds. Which is three seconds worth of ammo.
Yea USAF....
the F35 is terrible plane...
It's not just about cost of the platform, but also the capabilities provided by it. So even if the F35 is "finished" it won't necessarily fill the void left by the A-10, so more A-10s might be a better investment.
From what I understand, the F35 did not gain effectiveness in proportion to its cost.
(Also, I think that a bunch of the A-10s in service were recently overhauled, which according to the article added "many decades of service life". I don't know if that's literally true, but it does seem like a thorough rebuild of a military airframe might be more economical than doing the same for, say, a mass-produced civilian car.)
One hiccup to that idea is that apparently the original A-10 blueprints were "lost" over the course of several defense-contractor mergers. I don't think that should be a huge hurdle to overcome though, since they've been able to modernize the planes and design and build major replacement components for them (like new wings). However, the Air Force brass would probably make a big deal out of the missing plans in their smokescreen.
I think they should just transfer the close air support role (along with the planes, personnel, and all associated budget) to the Army.
Ultimately it's wing fatigue that takes them down.
Aluminium has specific concerns in that when it fails it has a strong tendency to do so catastrophically and with no warning, unless you've been very closely examinging for developing stress fractures. I've had personal experience with this, and there's a rather well-known video sequence of a fire-suppression air tanker undergoing an unscheduled dewinging above California a few years back.
Cumulative entropic stress throughout the airframe does ultimately raise concerns over predictability of structural integrity. The more dynamic your flight patterns, the greater those stresses are, and more unpredictable.