Navy's hardest-punching but aging warship has no replacement in sight

I think the first question to be asked when we consider replacing any major weapons systems is: Why are we replacing it? In the civilian sector any business does a great deal of research and due diligence prior to any major capital expenditure. I cannot say that I believe the mindset is similar in the military. I have a York lathe that is over 80 years old. I have yet to find a new lathe that can match it, and I can do the maintenance all by myself. Why would I spend thousands to replace it with a new comparable model when there would not be any significant difference in my final product.

I will use the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol as a military example. Fair notice, I am not a side arm guy. As far as I know the side arm has never been a significant game changer in modern warfare since WWI. Granted the one I was issued was worn out, sloppy, and not worth the effort to rehab it. It was 17 tears older than I was. What real benefit did the US military gain by changing the sidearm to the 9mm? At what cost? (Acquisition, Supply Train, Logistics Support, Materiel Support, Maintenance training, etc. etc. etc.) Can anyone say that all that fuss created a difference on the battlefield? on any battlefield? a difference that would not have been realized by just buying new M1911A1's. I don't have a dog in this hunt, I am not a fan of side arms. The first thing I would have done in theater is change to the service rifle or a shotgun.

We are buying a new XXX because this XXX is old and ineffective because the frame is cracked, or it cannot function as intended because it is worn outside of tolerance is an acceptable answer. But that does not mean we need a completely different XXX. Perhaps we just need a new XXX of the same model.

Replacing a system with a new and different system because what we have is old is not an adequate answer. Has the battlefield equation changed because of advancements in equipment, or changes in tactics, operations, or strategy of our potential enemy rendered the existing system inadequate. I do not pretend to know the answer in this debate on any weapon system that is under consideration for replacement. But I have not heard that the of justification for complete replacement of the system.

Example: The A-10 Warthog (which I thought was an USAF Bird). The A-10's days have been numbered for decades, but I've never heard anyone who operated one or needed one, bad mouth the system. So why aren't we just buying new A-10's? What have our potential adversaries developed that makes our weapon system, be it a rifle, or a aircraft carrier, or an attack aircraft inadequate? What advantage is to be gained from the new weapon system? What risk is to assumed that there will be an unforeseen flaw in the new weapons system? And is the expense worth the cost?

You hit the nail on the head. The M1911A1s were worn out, but they did their job well. New replacements would have performed the issue. In large part the US went to 9mm since that was the common NATO round for pistols and submachine guns. The US had coerced NATO countries to adopt the 5.56 as the standard rifle round, so adopting the 9mm was our concession to that.
And yes, why replace the A10, perfect for it's mission.

Thanks for sharing LTC (Join to see)