>because the design is so tight you'd have to gut the plane.
I don't get why that is. The plane was designed in the 70s, when personal computers were the size of closets. Even if it was tight, I can't imagine new tech taking up more space than the old tech did, even if there's more of it.
The new electronic circuits are smaller, but they require more power than their predecessors, there are more of them, and the sensors have placement requirements which conflict with the aircraft's configuration. All of this adds up to having to re-wire the aircraft, do a new layout, and move around a large number of parts.
>The new electronic circuits are smaller, but they require more power than their predecessors
That makes no sense at all. It is a nonsensical statement.
>and the sensors have placement requirements which conflict with the aircraft's configuration. All of this adds up to having to re-wire the aircraft, do a new layout, and move around a large number of parts.
Unless what you're really trying to say is that the stuff designed to fit a different specific aircraft can't be directly bolted on to an A-10, then I simply don't find those remarks credible. And if you are trying to say that, then you aren't being reasonable.
I don't get why that is. The plane was designed in the 70s, when personal computers were the size of closets. Even if it was tight, I can't imagine new tech taking up more space than the old tech did, even if there's more of it.