Zim,
I see the first test of the cannon in-flight was completed in May. This article says it fires 55 "chili-dog-sized" rounds/sec and carries 220 rounds, which is 4 seconds of firing time. But it beats its competitors.
F-35 cannon finally gets a test in flight at 3,300 rounds per minute (VIDEO)
http://www.guns.com/2017/05/22/the-f-35-finally-gets-to-test-its-cannon-in-flight-at-3300-shots-per-minute-video/
When some intel people said we should scrap the F-35 and upgrade our current fleet, it struck me as a bad idea, as we need to be forward-looking and ahead of the curve. But the more I've seen of the F-35, the more concerned I am, as just about anything in the air can out-maneuver it. The cannon's a nit, it just seemed crazy. I'm concerned with dogfights and maintenance. What if we wanted to bomb Iran? In the F-35 scenario, would we have something capable of protecting the bombers from incoming fighters? Or do we think we'll shoot them down from 50 miles away?
The maintenance issue gets a little personal, as the F-14 was retired because it was getting too long in the tooth. Even though its electronics were upgraded, it was taking too many maintenance hours per hour of flight.
"The F-14 is currently the most expensive aircraft to operate in the Navy inventory, requiring 40 to 60 maintenance manhours per flight hour. For comparison, the F-18 Hornet requires only 20 hours of maintenance and the latest F-18E/F Super Hornet requires just 10 to 15 hours. These high maintenance costs played a large role in the Navy's decision to move the retirement of the F-14 up from 2010 to 2006." http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0119.shtml
So, the F-14 was averaging 50 hours of maintenance; the F-18, 20 hours and the F-18, 10-15 hours. The F-14 was retired because it needed 50 hours of maintenance per hour of flight. Guess how many hours of maintenance the F-35 requires. You guessed it, 50 hours.
Note they wanted to kill the A-10, an irreplaceable necessity in the fleet. Like the F-14, it would have been retired without replacement functionality. Thankfully that battle was won, because it was suicidal for our soldiers to go into battle without close air support and not all of our Congress-critters are spaced out.
There's something's wrong with this picture. There are many options, as can be seen googling "F-35 replacement." Whatever we do, it should include the features necessary for air superiority and it should cover the bases that will allow us from known enemy threats and situations we could find ourselves in. And also, have the muscle behind the boast. That could be fix the F-35, build a new plane, or extend the life of our existing fleet.
If the F-35 doesn't do the job or will take more time to develop, we should upgrade our current fleet of planes in the interim, imo. Almost half were sidelined for maintenance, last I heard. What if we have ME and Asian theaters like NK? We need to act, not talk about it endlessly!
We need to hold our suppliers feet to the fire. What looks like sabotage is normal development? Fifty hours of maintenance for an hour of flight? Planes can only fly a couple of times a week, a couple of hours per week? Build bigger carriers to house the mechanics? Ridiculous. The suppliers are mis-managed.
I’m no expert. This is my perception and may not be reality. I’m just the ripped-off taxpayer.
| 
