In terms of life-extension vs. replacement of JWST, it's helpful to think through what opportunities might exist.

There are a set of telescope plans which are presently in consideration, including WIRST, the wide-angle infrared telescope; HabEx, the Habitable Exoplanet Imaging Mission; Lynx, a next-generation X-ray telescope; and the Origins Space Telescope, an infra-red telescope even larger than Webb.

https://www.universetoday.com/139461/what-comes-after-james-...

This links as well to a good YouTube video describing each of the proposals.

For telescopes, among factors I'm aware of are:

- The total number of devices. More 'scopes means more points of the sky which can be imaged at any one time. This permits detecting either rare or transient events. There are also possibilities afforded by multiple devices operating in concert, providing both greater positioning sensitivity (angular resolution) and increased surface area, though more the former than the latter.

- Wavelength specificity. Infra-red, radio, visible light, UV, and X-Ray sensitivity all permit detection of different phenomena. Devices suited to one wavelength may not be suitable for others. Specific research goals may favour specific observational methods.

- Other sensing modes. Spectroscopy (which provides information on chemistry of remote objects).
Gravity, gamma ray, and particle sensors (e.g., neutrino sensors, cosmic-ray detectors) may afford other options. There are proposals for space-based gravity-wave detectors, for example.

- Compound devices. The HabEx system in particular has two components, the telescope itself, and a sunshield used to block the light of an observed star, which would operate at a separation of 100s of thousands of km.

- Collector size. Larger mirrors permit gathering of more light. This permits shorter collection periods for brighter events, and imaging of previously undetectable phenomena. The Hubble Deep Field views are an example of the latter, and pushed the boundaries of known and and observable phenomena tremendously.

- Storage, processing, and communications capabilities. I don't know how much this contributes to observation capabilities, though I suspect it has an impact.

- Developments in phsyics, materials, and sensing, generally. Looking through lists of physics and chemistry Nobel awards since the 1970s, a surprisingly large number have concerned capabilities rather than fundamental characteristics or properties of matter or the universe. Many of these afford new capabilities in sensing and detection.

- Probes. Rather than a single instrument which views distant objects, probes get close to a specific object, or set of objects, and make close or direct observations of these. Various landers, impactors, flyby, orbiter, and similar missions, to date all to objects within the Solar System, would be examples of these. These compete with other missions (manned, long-distance sensing).

- Earth observation. Probably the largest class and most productive set of space-based observation platforms has been looking at our own planet.

It's also worth thinking through what has made JWST possible, including launch platforms, experience with complex deployments, manufacturing, sensing, and control capabilities. These will have impacts on future missions, and further development might also extend their capabilities.

In situ fabrication or assmbly might offer the greatest opportunity The possibilities of constructing telescopes either in low-Earth orbit and transporting them to an observation orbit, or on remote bodies (the Moon, perhaps an asteroid) also exist. I'm thinking through scenarios in which larger launch craft (Starship, SLS), space-based assembly, and possibly even temporary construction structures --- effectively an inflated balloon in which engineers and technicians could work in shirtsleeve or close-to-it conditions --- might be used to assemble very large structures without relying on the complex deployment ballet used by JWST, or being constrained to the dimensional constraints of the Ariane V launch vehicle and fairing. An asteroid, de-spun, could provide both a shield against solar and Earth-based radiation and emissions, and structure and materials for at least some assembly. This presumes that the asteroid's own orbit would be sufficient for observations and that instruments would be sufficiently aimable from that point.

Finally: most technological improvement tends to follow a sigmoidal curve: an early period of slow development, a period of rapid attainment, then a slower period of approaching theoretical maximum efficacy. New developments or combinations of technologies may restart that curve, but often 15 years doesn't deliver transformational development. Rather older technologies are refined, reliability improved, costs reduced, or flexibility increased. I suspect we'll see a mix of these factors --- some diminishing returns as existing modalities and mechanisms are perfected, and some new avenues as novel combinations do become possible.