That's always something to consider...you don't always want to show your best tactics...even in warfare. In Gulf War 1, standing orders for the US fighter jocks was to NOT play it smart, but to just rely on their superior technology and BVR to win the day. Hence the complete lack of dogfighting. If you show off your tactics just to win a pissing contest, you let the other guys learn from their mistakes.

"If you show off your tactics just to win a pissing contest, you let the other guys learn from their mistakes." Well seems to me we are assuming that the IAF is just dumb with no tactics of it's own! Well strategists are present on both sides, what decides whether you truly displayed your intended skills is the 'hidden' intent. Whether the intent was to gun for F-22s/ or to boost the morale of your force etc whatever - but certainly to assume & live with the belief that a force is weaker, or for that matter superior is being blind to certain things. Just my 0.02 cents

>>Well seems to me we are assuming that the IAF is just dumb with no tactics of it's own! << Not necessarily. For the USAF, the political benefit to be derived from the exercise was to "prove" how badly we need F-22. For the Indians, the political benefit to be derived from the exercise was to "prove" they have a world class air force that can hang with the USAF. I use quotes in both cases because I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either premise, just saying that such was the benefit to be derived beyond a little joint training and getting to look at the other guy's kit. So it would be in India's interest to pull out all the stops (or almost all) and put on the best show they could. They're not going to be fighting the US, but a strong showing in training with the US probably did not make Pakistan, or China for that matter, feel warm and fuzzy.

Strategy is totally different from tactics. With any given type of aircraft there are certain moves that will always be the best for a certain type of situation. What these excercises do however is let the pilots and their coordinators figure out and interesting tactics to try, or try different combinations of scenarios without going into a shooting condition. Basically everyone wins in these as no one really throws out all stops, theres always some stuff neither participating side talks about (whether it be tech, tactics, ideas, strategies etc.), yet both sides get to find out a little bit more about the other in terms of technology and capabilities as well. Doesn't hurt us, doesnt hurt india.

India won, but no BVR's were used, plus India had a 2 to 1 edge...

I don't know the exact details of the training exercise, only what I read on the internet. About the USAF playing "dumb", consider this line of logic: The USA is the worlds largest arms exporting nation. They are fighting tooth and nail with Russia, the EU, and France etc. for new customers. You don't sell products by showing that they perform sub-par against your competitors (in this case the Russian SU-30). India on the other hand does not sell any fighter aircraft. If anyone has the motive to play "dumb" and hide their best capabilities it would be the IAF. India's arch nemesis, Pakistan, uses the US's top export fighter, the F-16. Any information the US gets about Indian fighters would be passed on to Pakistani pilots (They gave them full details of the Mig-23, that India uses, when they got a copy via Egypt). Since India and US will never fight a war the US can afford to use their full capability, to look good in front of the arms buying market, whereas the Indians know that whatever they show will be passed on to their neighbor (Pakistan). Anyone care to comment? Thanks, LoWang

Well the US DOES have a reason to make its F-15s look bad. For one thing, the F-15 isn't a major export fighter and is slated to be retired fairly soon anyway. For another, making the F-15 look bad makes the F-22's case that much stronger.

This is the oddest report yet- Here is what would really happen if this report was exact- SU30's would fire AA10 first-wow- but hey!! they would miss - haha- Russian missiles-oops- It really happened a few years ago IAF Mig 21s shot at an intruding Pakistani P3-C Orion- bigger than the biggest cow right - and guess what - it missed!!! they then used a French Matra magic to shoot it down. So in theory the AA-10s reach further out, the SU30s would get the first shot but would still be shot down- I bet my life on this - use an AA-10 on my plane a Cessna and I bet it would miss haha.

Exactly...the AA-10 has an awful track record for hitting fast, maneuvering targets, and the P-3 story makes its stock go down even further. I found it interesting that they said the IAF jets were winning LONG-RANGE engagements. That's what seems a little fishy to me. USAF tactics are not to sit around popping missiles off all day. It's shoot, close in, dodge the return salvo, close in WVR, kill. I'm also pretty sure those F-15s had HMCS with AIM-9Xs. In other words, the whole thing stinks to me.

Uh, isn't the AA10 a medium range missile? India is using the AA12 as it's long range missile for it's Mig-29 and Su-30's. In actual combat the Su-30 would fire a AA12 first. Also India never has shot down a Pakistani P3-C Orion. The plane that was shot down was a French built "Atlantique". Also according to "official" reports a single Matra R-60 was fired which found it's mark. At any rate it would be highly unusual for an Indian Mig-21bis squadron to be configured with both AA10 and Matra missiles. I would have to say to "Herc the Merc", that with so many factual errors, your source of information is probably unreliable.