Combat aircraft

Right top: Most

day-to-day

operations see

the F-35Bs  ying

conventional

approaches to

Yuma.

Right: The F-35B

has an in- ight

refueling probe

for drogue

refueling.

those a little bit di erently in certain areas

— but for the vast majority of things we’re

going to operate the same way.’ He adds

that this kind of joint approach requires

minimal brie ng and is ‘very standardized’.

It’s the same premise that has helped to

allow joint testing across the three services

and with international partners.

Early criticism of the operational

capabilities of the Lightning II are

being addressed through software

modi cations. The general word at F-35

squadrons is that things have come a

long way over the past  ve years. ‘A big

part of that journey was us learning how

to get the most from the Block 2B and

3i software,’ says Vaughn. ‘A lot is talked

about the F-35’s war ghting capabilities.

Sure, we still have bugs to work out, but

we’ve made huge strides to understand

this airplane a lot more. The bottom line

is we can deploy right now, and if we

had to go to combat tomorrow we’d be

very lethal.

‘I’ve been very fortunate to  y a number

of di erent aircraft,’ Vaughn continues.

‘I was an F/A-18 pilot, I  ew the Super

Hornet as an instructor at TOPGUN; I also

 ew the F-16 up at Fallon. The capabilities

of the F-35 right now are built around the

most lethal combination of sensors in the

world — even with the current software.

It’s only going to get better. Right now we

have a mix of 2B and 3i jets here, and we

really turned a corner when we truly got to

grips with the capabilities and understood

the limitations of the aircraft, while

growing as a community and assuming

our own identity. We have to embrace

what we learned in our old communities,

but taking on our own F-35 status has

been really important.’

It’s interesting to contrast the Marine

Corps’ F-35 community and approach with

that of the USAF F-22 Raptor. The Raptor’s

introduction to service was pretty much

a 180-degree opposite of the F-35 when

it came to initial employment. The F-22,

for example, had a relatively full operating

envelope from an early stage, but its

mission systems were immature. It drove

squadrons with a keen focus on all aspects

of the air-to-air regime — as you’d expect

for the F-22 — but also with granular

knowledge of the close-in  ght. The F-35,

conversely, has been handcu ed by

g limitations, which are only now

beginning to open up.

A joint approach

‘In July we participated in ‘Red Flag 17-3’

alongside 58th Fighter Squadron F-35As

from Eglin,’ says Vaughn. He adds that this

exercise underscored a core tenet of the

Lightning II project. ‘As we are all  ying the

same basic aircraft in all three services, we

pushed right from the very beginning of

this program to have a common tactics

manual, and this exercise was really a

validation of that. If we’re integrated with

Air Force F-35As, for example, they know

what we’re doing and we know what

they’re doing. That’s because we’re all

baselined on the same tactical execution.

There are some things that are unique

to the way the Marine Corps or the Navy

does things and some mission sets that

are unique to the Air Force — and we’ll do

VMFA211 | UNIT REPORT

43

January 2018 http://www.combataircraft.net

40-51 VMFA-211 C.indd 43 23/11/2017 11:52