Who would win in a 1980s air war: NATO or the Warsaw Pact?
- Thread starter John Dusk
- Start date
Depends on which part of the 80's you mean. In the early-80's, I'd say it would go for the Soviets... mainly because the Russians will have T-80s and T-72s parked on NATO runways. The mid-80's is much more iffy and the late-80s probably grossly leans toward NATO.
On the whole though, the ground war would probably be decided before the air war.
On the whole though, the ground war would probably be decided before the air war.
The decline in Soviet capabilities, particularly in training and maintenance standards, and the rise in NATO capabilities with new weapons and doctrine.
As ObssesedNuker says it depends how fast the WarPac can get its tanks over the border and liquidate NATO airbases.
IMHO I don't think that would happen.
1st) NATO war planes and pilots where and still are trained to have a higher tempo of missions, ie multiple sorties per day, especially that they have the ground support staff that would make this happen. The RED Air Force on the other hand didn't have that support capability (they had and still have poor levels of flight hours) and as such have an inability to conduct the high tempo of operations needed for this for any length of time ref: Georgia in 2009.
2nd) NATO had a advantage in that they not only had a sizeable AWAC's fleet but that fleet was top spec unlike the WarPacs elderly MOSS platforms ( there wasn't even that many in service) which were really no better than the Shackleton. Unless they remove the AWAC systems, NATO aircraft will always have the drop on them when they attack.
3rd) Early 80's NATO aircraft far surpassed their Soviet rivals in quality and performance. Late 80's if the Soviets can get enough Fulcrums & Flankers to the WarPac airbases then it might get a bit 50/50.
Regards filers
IMHO I don't think that would happen.
1st) NATO war planes and pilots where and still are trained to have a higher tempo of missions, ie multiple sorties per day, especially that they have the ground support staff that would make this happen. The RED Air Force on the other hand didn't have that support capability (they had and still have poor levels of flight hours) and as such have an inability to conduct the high tempo of operations needed for this for any length of time ref: Georgia in 2009.
2nd) NATO had a advantage in that they not only had a sizeable AWAC's fleet but that fleet was top spec unlike the WarPacs elderly MOSS platforms ( there wasn't even that many in service) which were really no better than the Shackleton. Unless they remove the AWAC systems, NATO aircraft will always have the drop on them when they attack.
3rd) Early 80's NATO aircraft far surpassed their Soviet rivals in quality and performance. Late 80's if the Soviets can get enough Fulcrums & Flankers to the WarPac airbases then it might get a bit 50/50.
Regards filers
Your source for the capabilities of the Soviet Air Force in the 1980s is to look at the Russian Air Force circa 2008? That's like trying to use the Napoleonic Wars to predict French performance in the Crimean War...
Quality vs Quantity the question being did the Soviets have enough numbers to overcome Nato's superior aircraft and command and control networks? If they strike out of the blue probably. If Nato gets even minimal warning then it's probably going to be a stalemate with the issue ultimately decided on the ground. Given a week or mores warning and Nato air forces will probably have the edge due to reinforcements from North America, and having strikes at Soviet Airfields planned to go as soon as hostilities appear inevitable.
Riain
Banned
I think the airfield thing is a bit overblown, today in England alone there are about 65 airfeilds with paved surfaces over 5400' long, about 30 are military and 35 civil. Looking at the smallest of these it has a contol tower, hangars, refuelling for turboprop aircraft and good road and rail access.
If similar situation is true throughout western Europe then NATO airforces have plenty of options to withdraw to as the tanks advance.
If similar situation is true throughout western Europe then NATO airforces have plenty of options to withdraw to as the tanks advance.
Not to mention plenty of motorways to fly from. You may be able to smash up a 5000 foot runway, but a 100mile long one?
Last edited:
NATO wins the air war hands down from 1978 on - once the Eagles and Falcons started showing up at the front. What you are referring to is the old Soviet joke about a pair of Soviet generals drinking coffee in a Paris cafe and one of them asks who won the war in the air.
I was using Georgia as a reference in regards to what happened to lots of Russian equipment in the theater, lots of poor serviceability, breakdowns etc.
As for the RED Air Force, Salamanders "Modern Soviet Air Force" gives lots of information regarding the capabilities (or lack of them) in relation to the answer I posted.
Riain
Banned
Yes, although I think it would be for emergency only, after all the paved runways in the area were deemed unsuitable. The problem is getting the plane turned around again on the road, not just fuel tankers but hardstands and parking and the rest.
As I understand it one plan was to use motorway service stations as bases of operations.
Ak-84
Banned
I doubt NATO airforces would have lasted long. Soviet doctrine (and Russian doctrine now) was to used Air power to establish corridors of dominance over axis of advance, and use ground based air defences to protect everything else. This is in contrast with NATO policy of trying to suppress enemy air throughout the theater.
In actual war there would be an overwhelming assault by the VVS across the main assualt formation area. Everything would be employed. The NATO ground ponders would be screaming for help and NATO AF would be trying to defend them.
In actual war there would be an overwhelming assault by the VVS across the main assualt formation area. Everything would be employed. The NATO ground ponders would be screaming for help and NATO AF would be trying to defend them.
Riain
Banned
I don't buy that the air war wouldn't have an impact on the Soviet advance. Governments have to be convinced of the merits of various proposals from the services to deter the Soviets in order to get their budgets and projects approved and if the Air forces couldn't justify their strategies with reference to real world results they wouldn't get their budget. This also applies to convincing the Army that the Air Forces are going to add value to the actions of ground forces, so the Army doesn't hamstring the Air Force budgets and projects.
We have solid real world examples (the most famous of which is Kursk, which represents not only the largest tank battle in history, but also the largest air battle) of what happens when two sides start a battle with vast, competent air forces and extensive air defense networks as would have happened in a WW3 scenario. The result is the two air forces largely cancel each other out and neither side's air power plays much of a part in the decisive ground battles. That isn't to say they have no impact... they'd certainly have an impact, possibly even a helpful impact. What they probably wouldn't have is enough of a impact to be decisive.
The conventional war would have been decided on the ground. The air war would be a distant third place behind the ground war and the sealift effort.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
Would the 2 air forces cancel each other out? Raw numbers are only the roughest guide; numbers of sorties is the 'product' of airpower and Western airforces have consistently shown availability of ~90% in wartime conditions whereas Soviet/Russian availability was around ~50-60% and India was able to achieve ~70% with Soviet/Russian aircraft.
Quality is another key factor in air power and the Soviet fighter pilots in the 80s tended to fly only about 70 hours per year compared to 180 hours of a 'C' rated NATO air force for 250 hours for the better ones such as the RAF and ADLA.
I can't help but think that after a while these factors would come to bear and the NATO airforces would be able to bring their power to bear on the land battle with considerable influence.
Yes, most likely. Airpower needs breathing space to be really effective. In a WWIII scenario, there would have been no long campaign before the land war in which the air forces could slowly soften up the defenses and whittle away the threat... it would have been an immediate dive into a colossal air battle. By the time NATO had managed to win this, if it won this, the ground war might well be over.
The whole joke about a Soviet general in Soviet-occupied Paris asking another who won the air war was well known even during the Cold War for a reason...
Even assuming such numbers are true, and when I look into them they often aren't with the sortie rates the Soviets managed in Afghanistan are pretty comparable with that of Western air forces, that still brings the WarPac roughly about level with NATO.
But as I noted, your numbers don't seem to be true. In the Iraq War, American Carrier Air Wings managed an average sustained sortie rate of just over one sortie per aircraft per day. Similarly, in Afghanistan in 1982 the VVS managed a average sustained sortie rate of just under one sortie per aircraft per day. The difference is marginal.
Eh? Most Soviet pilot training in the early-80s was in the 200 hour range... give-or-take 50 hours, depending on the regiment.
Last edited:
Archibald
Banned
I made some research for my Red Storm Rising vignette. I was surprised by the fact that Mig-29 and Su-27 would be available in only small numbers by 1986. Mainstay of the Soviet Air Force remained with Mig-23 and Mig-25 in their improved variants (PD and ML and the like). As Iran - Iraq war + Bekaa showed, Tomcats and Eagles would have eaten them for lunch.
I wouldn't put too much stock in either the Iran-Iraq War or Bekaa being demonstrative of a Soviet vs NATO fight, as both of which are examples of competent vs incompetents. Arab pilots are really bad...