Who would win in a 1980s air war: NATO or the Warsaw Pact?

Who would win in a 1980s air war?

  • NATO

    Votes: 222 92.1%
  • Warsaw Pact

    Votes: 19 7.9%

  • Total voters
    241
You pretty much lost all credibility with that comment. The -31 was designed as a bomber interceptor. It's not a dog fighter. WVR, it's dead meat for pretty much any NATO fighter. Yeah, it's fast. That's all you can really say about it.

A MIG-31 WVR had done something terribly wrong. It is an interceptor, which means that it approaches at high speed, fires BVR, then retreats at high speed. Foxhound was broadly comparable to the F-14 in the 1980's. It had the best radar ever fielded by a Soviet fighter/interceptor. MIG-31 targets were cruise missiles, bombers, AWACS, ELINT, jammers, tankers, transports. Against something like an F-16 or F-15, the AA-9 would have a lower PK like the Phoenix due to sluggish maneuverability. Still, the MIG-25, also a pure interceptor, engaged F-15's in the Gulf War such as here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurra_Air_Battle
 
Last edited:
I know this isn't the point of the thread, but this really brings home how much the West expects to be unchallenged in combat: we're talking about attacking targets in the middle of a national air-defense network, and losing two aircraft while doing so is considered a poor result. Are we really so sure that the Soviets couldn't do better than that?

Iraq shot down about 50 Allied aircraft. The Soviets would have shot down thousands. But the West had something like 15,000 jets, so even this level of attrition doesn't spell a Soviet victory. They were outnumbered and the quality advantage was NATO's overall, even with the few systems I listed being superlative. I voted NATO wins, meaning, manages to dominate enough to use air power to help their ground game.
 

SsgtC

Banned
You specifically referenced the MiG-31 while talking about dogfighting and engaging WVR.

The battle you listed, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the Mig-25/31 family. They only survived because of issues with the AIM-7, with one aircraft's missiles not launching and the other having a dud.

A MIG-31 WVR had done something terribly wrong. It is an interceptor, which means that it approaches at high speed, fires BVR, then retreats at high speed. Foxhound was broadly comparable to the F-14 in the 1980's. It had the best radar ever fielded by a Soviet fighter/interceptor. MIG-31 targets were cruise missiles, bombers, AWACS, ELINT, jammers, tankers, transports. Against something like an F-16 or F-15, the AA-9 would have a lower PK like the Phoenix due to sluggish maneuverability. Still, the MIG-25, also a pure interceptor, engaged F-15's in the Gulf War such as here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurra_Air_Battle
 
You pretty much lost all credibility with that comment. The -31 was designed as a bomber interceptor. It's not a dog fighter. WVR, it's dead meat for pretty much any NATO fighter. Yeah, it's fast. That's all you can really say about it.

Maybe he's thinking of the Mig-31 from Clint Eastwood's "Firefox"?:evilsmile:

<snip>Immediately after the occupation there would be resistance, perhaps some of it on the "nothing to lose" basis. Once the war is over, and I am making the assumption that if the Russians/WP get this far the war will end, most of the population will decide better to keep their heads down and avoid the firing squad, GULAG, and disaster for their family.

Similar to a 60s era novel where it is the USA that is threatened with Soviet occupation, albeit with the Russians using very much science-fiction means: A Super-Laser that somehow uses giant reflector satellites to overcome the curvature of the Earth to enable them to destroy one target after another every 30 seconds (using the destruction of Israel's nuclear arsenal as an example). Their terms? Unconditional surrender.:eek:

Since this book came out in the late 60s the tone set for some of the American characters was so self-flagellatory that you had the US SecDef urging the POTUS to surrender. But the POTUS' National Security Advisor gave a pointed speech describing much more accurately what would happen if the US surrendered:

"Was Hitler any more merciful in victory? Or Stalin? Or Mao? If we surrender, the Russians will send occupation troops. The commissars will move in, the KGB will fan out, and we'll all be in for a reign of terror worse than the Nazis. Every nation has its collaborators, (1) and God knows we'll be no different. But as I see it, the danger won't be from the extreme left but the extreme right. The extreme left will welcome the occupiers with open arms, until they discover that the worker's paradise they were expecting was just the product of their fragile link with reality. They'll be just as destroyed as everyone else in the end. Its the extreme right who are the real danger. The ones who will run off to the hills and snipe at the occupiers. For us, freedom is inbred now. The extreme right will never forgive you. They'll see you as having given away their birthright. And when they fight, the Russians will squash them like mosquitoes. Every state will become a battleground, with the rest of the populace being dragged into the conflict. Even nuclear weapons could be used to destroy the rebellion. In the end, national annihilation will happen whether we surrender or not!"​

Good speech.

1) IMO the CPUSA is just too small to represent a credible force of collaborators. Most other countries have SOME number of communists. Or at least a sizable number of Socialists that could contain a sufficient number of "far left" (i.e., secret communists/communist sympathizers) people to form a credible group of collaborators. But AISI, in America, while there'd be some far leftists willing to embrace the Soviets, its far more likely that any group of American collaborators will instead be comprised of the sort who are failures in life, failures in doing anything but turning on their neighbors. The typical "Block Watch Commander" in communist systems tend to be talentless obnoxious busybodies good for nothing but reporting people to The Party. In America, these are your likely collaborators, along with third-rate ex-history teachers, failed radio hosts, ex-cops/night watchmen, and pretty much anyone else who has been a failure in life up to that point AND has no personal history that the Soviets would have no problem with.

<snip>it almost makes you want to invest in a fallout shelter, doesn't it?

Maybe the Russians were afraid of a Doomsday Bomb Gap? BTW? Fallout shelters aren't very useful. You need a BOMB shelter, which means a lot more $$$. Odds are if you build one, the neighbors are going to find out. And if you have enough warning to get into your bomb shelter, so will your neighbors. A classic Twilight Zone episode was done on this idea.

Not really in my view...

During the latter part of the Cold War the U.S. put a lot of emphasis on being able to absorb a bolt out of the blue first strike and be able to launch some form of counter strike. I recall reading a quote from one USAF General that basically said the looking glass air craft (mission) was the single most important task the USAF performed and every other program would be cut if needed to keep that mission going. Looking glass referred to air borne command posts that were in the air 7x24 and reportedly could order the launch of nuclear weapons.

Not for nothing was NORAD put under a mountain in Colorado, SAC HQ (and its land-based ICBMs) as deep into the Central United States as it was possible to get, and the US putting so much of its nuclear TRIAD into SLBMs while (at one point) only 22% into land-based bombers. IIRC, if the Soviets launched a "bolt-from-the-blue", only about one third of the USAF's land-based nuclear bomber deterrent would get off the ground in sufficient time to escape the nuclear strikes on their air bases and proceed to their targets.
 
While being occupied and forcibly "socialized/communized" by the USSR would have been a terrible thing for >90% of the population, survival and an acceptable if reduced lifestyle was possible. Unlike the Nazis, the Soviets were not going to be exterminating 50-90% of the population (in the east) or select Untermenschen in the west. The USSR of the 1960s or the 1980s is not the Stalinist USSR that took over Eastern Europe after WWII. Naturally select segments of the population will be hit hard, but actually only a small slice would for sure be killed or sent to the GULAG. For the vast majority keeping your mouth shut, keeping your head down, and doing the minimum at work to avoid attracting negative notice will keep you and your family alive and out of the spotlight.

Doing all of the above means never talking about "rights", avoiding going to the church/synagogue/mosque, and even at home being careful about what you say. With your children being careful about trying to counteract what they will now be taught in schools. Naturally any guns you have will be gone, and having your house searched for "wrong" books on your bookshelves might be expect - hiding guns or banned books would very risky. Basically those who are below the line for "capitalists", known political activists, "senior" military active/retired will be left alone as the Soviets want a productive captured nation. Left alone means following the rules as outlined. Executions, GULAGs, and reduced rations will, of course happen but no Generalplan Ost.
 
I think I'm starting to track the objection - you think the Soviets were never ahead in any aspect of air warfare.

Don't try to straw-man me, Glenn. I never proposed anything like that. You're trying to win the argument by painting me as some sort of extremist, which I am not. It's juvenile of you, and you'll get my hackles up. The Soviets had some good stuff- I have already praised their antiaircraft systems, and their integrated air defense system was pretty good, too.* But how about we look at what I actually said: that the AA-11 wasn't common or superior enough to make a great difference. Which you pretty much agreed with, to whit:

...but keep in mind NATO had over 10,000 jets, so losing 500 or a 1,000 to AA-11 over the course of the war was simply not going to be decisive.

So why are you doing underhanded stuff like straw-men? If you need a clear win I'll agree that AA-11 was and is a great weapon system. After all I've already tacitly agreed that it was better than AIM-9L. Just not better enough.

The importance of C3I has risen in recent decades because of the combination of AMRAAM and stealth technology. But in the 1970's it just didn't matter that much.

*cough!* Oh, boy, I need a cite for that one. I'm a professional military officer (one more year to retirement!) so I'm sort of sold on the importance of C3I, Brother. Being able direct aircraft better than your opponent allows the assumption of local superiority- pretty damned helpful even without AMRAAM. Especially in the scenario of a large theater, as opposed to a smaller regional conflict with less airframes aloft at any given moment. A larger theater gives you many more aircraft to concentrate when needed. In fact one could argue that in such a scenario the ability to concentrate becomes decisive.

Not to mention that AIM-7, while certainly inferior to AMRAAM, isn't nothing. The AIM-7M, which was the 38nm variant that entered service in 1982 (ahem- two years before the AA-11), had a 70% hit rate and 60% kill rate in the Gulf War.

But the Soviets had a number of systems - AA-11, SA-10, SA-12, MIG-31 - that were first class and would have inflicted heavy losses on NATO forces, even as NATO was winning the air war.

I hope that the Mig-31 is a joke, at least. I mean, yes, it's fast a hell but it's designed to intercept strategic bombers. How does that help the air war in Europe? Fast, yes, but not fast enough to pick off AWACS with impunity. See above re: C3I. And Samurra was a very well executed air-to-air ambush that... failed to splash a single victim. Hardly an endorsement. Yes, when faced with F-15s the Mig-31 sure can run away fast. :) Sorry. Couldn't resist.

* I can of course go on. The Mig-15 was a damned nice plane, and a hell of a surprise for the West. It would have done even better with better-trained pilots (with G-suits fer chrissakes!). Better wing loading, better power loading, better guns, better altitude- it really should have done much better against Sabers. The Su-30 was probably superior to contemporary F-15s (there are at least valid arguments), though it does benefit from being much more recent. It certainly is a damned impressive aircraft. But honestly when comparing later-generation fighters you almost have to break them down by systems. Shall I continue? If I tried I could probably think of a couple of others that I think edge out contemporary F-15s. But even you must admit that the West was more often ahead in most areas.
 
Last edited:
While being occupied and forcibly "socialized/communized" by the USSR would have been a terrible thing for >90% of the population, survival and an acceptable if reduced lifestyle was possible. Unlike the Nazis, the Soviets were not going to be exterminating 50-90% of the population (in the east) or select Untermenschen in the west. The USSR of the 1960s or the 1980s is not the Stalinist USSR that took over Eastern Europe after WWII. Naturally select segments of the population will be hit hard, but actually only a small slice would for sure be killed or sent to the GULAG. For the vast majority keeping your mouth shut, keeping your head down, and doing the minimum at work to avoid attracting negative notice will keep you and your family alive and out of the spotlight.

Doing all of the above means never talking about "rights", avoiding going to the church/synagogue/mosque, and even at home being careful about what you say. With your children being careful about trying to counteract what they will now be taught in schools. Naturally any guns you have will be gone, and having your house searched for "wrong" books on your bookshelves might be expect - hiding guns or banned books would very risky. Basically those who are below the line for "capitalists", known political activists, "senior" military active/retired will be left alone as the Soviets want a productive captured nation. Left alone means following the rules as outlined. Executions, GULAGs, and reduced rations will, of course happen but no Generalplan Ost.
While I don't disagree with this, I just don't see NATO accepting any terms worse than perhaps "Finlandization" of any of their member states without at least using tactical nuclear weapons.

In my view the people in charge have to much personally to loose, I have my doubts that to accept worse terms would be accepted by the population at large in many nations and the nuclear armed great powers have to much prestige on the line to accept anything worse and even accepting "Finlandization" is probably a stretch unless the government of the nation in question essentially decides to leave NATO.
 
Last edited:
The single biggest threat in a NATO vs WARSAW PACT aerial battle is the fact that the WARSAW PACT air force is very very big . This is a double edged sword . The numbers are high but many are obsolete . The number of hours flown each year are also low compared to NATO units . The training is also not as realistic etc . I have zero doubt that the best %5 of the WARPAC air forces will become aces . I also have no doubt the remainder will die fast . In the NATO airforces I suspect the number of aces will be a larger percentage due to BVR missiles in F-15 units and the superiority of the AIM 9L over the AA-8 , Simply put even an F-111 on an interdiction mission can put their nose on an approaching adversery fire from 10 miles away and have a better then %60 chance of a kill . that and use the opponents manoeuvring to get the hell out of dodge .

I know the SU-27 and MIG-29 fanboys think they are awesome . I agree they are pretty good . However the radars and missiles are substandard in the early 80's and by the late 80's the NATO electronic warfare has advanced a full generation past the WARSAW PACT capabilities . The Ground based missiles will be more dangerous then the fighters after a day or three .
 
Archibald
This doesn't prove anything. Wikipedia marred by Iraqi propaganda (or fanboism).

It’s hardly surprising the Iraqis used a Mach 2.5 interceptor for Soviet style ground controlled interceptions. MIG-25 in 1991 didn’t accomplish much, but with ground direction, its high dash speed and big radar always had to be watched out for.

You specifically referenced the MiG-31 while talking about dogfighting and engaging WVR.

I said,

“A MIG-31 WVR had done something terribly wrong”

That means if a MIG-31 gets into WVR (ie, IR or cannon range), it has made a big mistake. A MIG-31 wants to never be WVR. He wants to stay BVR, (beyond visual range). I said that ’31 and ’25 were pure interceptors. '31 uses their big AA-9’s from 50 or 70 miles, then get the hell out of Dodge at mach 2.5. That’s what they “do”.

The battle you listed, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the Mig-25/31 family. They only survived because of issues with the AIM-7, with one aircraft's missiles not launching and the other having a dud.

I linked an action showing the use of interceptor tactics. The MIG’s survived the action because they were fast as hell and an R-60 knocked out one of the F-15's.
 
I think there's a bit of 'violent agreement' going on here. Let's consider a few questions:
Was the MiG-31 dangerous when used as a high-speed long-range interceptor? Yes.
Would NATO have lost aircraft to it (and to the older MiG-25)? Yes - probably including High Value Air Assets (HVAAs) such as AWACS, AAR (tankers), etc.
Were other Soviet/WP aircraft also dangerous when used to their full capabilities? Yes.
Was the training and proficiency of Soviet/WP aircrew/groundcrew good enough to enable those aircraft to be used to their full capabilities? No, not in general (though we didn't know as much about that then as we do now).
Related to that, was the Soviet/WP C2 (command & control) system robust enough to stand up to the hammering it would take from NATO? No, though it was well dispersed, giving a lot of residual capability (SAM radars, etc), the general unwillingness to devolve responsibility would have hampered it.
On the other side, was the NATO C2 system robust enough to stand up to the hammering it would take in the first couple of days? Yes, probably, due to the multiple redundancies and fallback plans we had at the time, which included devolving authority down to the lowest practicable level.
Would WP aircraft have been able to gain limited air superiority at times over specific areas of the battlefield? Yes.
Would the WP have been able to maintain air superiority or even a favourable air situation for very long? No.
Would the WP have inflicted losses on NATO air forces in the air war? Yes.
Would those losses have been critical for NATO? No.
Would the WP have inflicted losses on NATO ground forces from the air? Yes.
Would those losses have been critical? No, or at least only in specific areas where the ground war was most evenly matched.
Would the WP have been able to sustain the air war for longer than NATO? No.
So, the ultimate question: who would win the air war? NATO

I know I'm over-simplifying, but IMO it's the war as a whole which matters, not individual battles or particular weapon systems.
 

Archibald

Banned
I think there's a bit of 'violent agreement' going on here. Let's consider a few questions:
Was the MiG-31 dangerous when used as a high-speed long-range interceptor? Yes.
Would NATO have lost aircraft to it (and to the older MiG-25)? Yes - probably including High Value Air Assets (HVAAs) such as AWACS, AAR (tankers), etc.
Were other Soviet/WP aircraft also dangerous when used to their full capabilities? Yes.
Was the training and proficiency of Soviet/WP aircrew/groundcrew good enough to enable those aircraft to be used to their full capabilities? No, not in general (though we didn't know as much about that then as we do now).
Related to that, was the Soviet/WP C2 (command & control) system robust enough to stand up to the hammering it would take from NATO? No, though it was well dispersed, giving a lot of residual capability (SAM radars, etc), the general unwillingness to devolve responsibility would have hampered it.
On the other side, was the NATO C2 system robust enough to stand up to the hammering it would take in the first couple of days? Yes, probably, due to the multiple redundancies and fallback plans we had at the time, which included devolving authority down to the lowest practicable level.
Would WP aircraft have been able to gain limited air superiority at times over specific areas of the battlefield? Yes.
Would the WP have been able to maintain air superiority or even a favourable air situation for very long? No.
Would the WP have inflicted losses on NATO air forces in the air war? Yes.
Would those losses have been critical for NATO? No.
Would the WP have inflicted losses on NATO ground forces from the air? Yes.
Would those losses have been critical? No, or at least only in specific areas where the ground war was most evenly matched.
Would the WP have been able to sustain the air war for longer than NATO? No.
So, the ultimate question: who would win the air war? NATO

I know I'm over-simplifying, but IMO it's the war as a whole which matters, not individual battles or particular weapon systems.

We have a winner here.
 
Sure, NATO would be able to sustain the air war longer than the WP, but that's not enough for them; they need to win it quickly and decisively, if they're going to prevent their ground forces from being overrun and destroyed. If the two air forces just cancel each other out for a week or two, that works largely to the WP's advantage.
 
Sure, NATO would be able to sustain the air war longer than the WP, but that's not enough for them; they need to win it quickly and decisively, if they're going to prevent their ground forces from being overrun and destroyed. If the two air forces just cancel each other out for a week or two, that works largely to the WP's advantage.
I'm not so sure about that. If NATO doesn't need to worry (much ?) about air attacks "behind the lines" that will make moving up supplies, reinforcements, moving forces where needed to counter the WP etc much eaiser in my view.

I'd suggest being able to run convoys of soft skinned vehicles in daylight on highways behind the lines without fear of significant air attacks would be a major boost for NATO.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure about that. If NATO doesn't need to worry (much ?) about air attacks "behind the lines" that will make moving up supplies, reinforcements, moving forces where needed to counter the WP etc much eaiser in my view.

I'd suggest being able to run convoys of soft skinned vehicles in daylight on highways behind the lines without fear of significant air attacks would be a major boost for NATO.
That goes both ways; the Soviets would also be able to move up supplies and reinforcements if the air forces are just cancelling each other out, and they have a lot more reinforcements they can move up.
 
Every single night the WARSAW Pact supply routes will receive a visit from F-111 Bombers striking key points . The Best targets of course are bridges over major rivers . Then a few days later if they strike the assembly points for the pontoon bridges etc . GBU-15 lofted from 20 miles away would ruin anyone's day . The use of toss bombing will greatly increase the defence task the Soviets are facing . A railway junction could be engaged without a single overflight by an F-111 tossing either CBU bombs or dumb bombs and still causing significant disruption . Any airfield struck on day one in a big way could then be revisited by toss bombing to maintain the suppression . The Soviet reinforcements would find that every 50 miles closer to the battle front the amount of knocked out bridges , rail lines and roads would increase drastically . A tank may not care about a few shell craters but a assure you the trucks carrying fuel and ammo will suffer . This is why the air battle actually matters . It doesnot matter how many tanks the Soviets send forwards if they become stationary pillboxes after day two and run out of ammo on day three .
 
If NATO establishes decisive air superiority in time. Until then, NATO ground forces will be suffering the same handicaps as the WP, or else they'll be unable to sufficiently penetrate WP air defenses. The key question is how long it takes NATO to establish that superiority, and turn it into victories on the ground. Just because the NATO air force is superior at the outset of the war doesn't translate into it being able to strike WP logistical routes at will throughout the duration; it will take time to attrit the Soviet air defenses down to the point they can launch strike missions into their strategic depths, and when the Soviets have massed overwhelming and highly mobile force against their main army, time is something they don't have.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Couple things. This:
(BTW - MIG-25/R60 was the hottest number on the Iraqi side in 1991)
Is damming with faint praise considering the utter lack of success by the Iraqi Air Force as a whole.

I think I'm starting to track the objection - you think the Soviets were never ahead in any aspect of air warfare. Sorry, I can't help you on that one - AA-11 with helmet mounted sights wiped the floor with NATO jets in Top Gun WVR dog fights after the Germanys merged and East German fighters began exercising with NATO planes - late 1980's, early 1990's. That's all there is to it. The West held many advantages, and would have been dominant in an air war. But the Soviets had a number of systems - AA-11, SA-10, SA-12, MIG-31 - that were first class and would have inflicted heavy losses on NATO forces, even as NATO was winning the air war.
Second, THIS is the comment I was referring to. Not your later attempt at backpedaling. You specifically mention WVR dogfighting with the AA-11 and the only aircraft you mention specifically is the MiG-31. An aircraft that will most likely never leave Russia as it's their primary bomber interceptor and will be needed for defense of the Motherland.

I linked an action showing the use of interceptor tactics. The MIG’s survived the action because they were fast as hell and an R-60 knocked out one of the F-15's.

You're right, they are VERY good at running away, very fast. And to claim that the R-60 "knocked out" an F-15 isn't exactly accurate. The way I read that article, the -15 was only damaged and only withdrew for the fight when two other -15s showed up to relieve it.
 
It seems extremely unlikely that PVO interceptors, like the Foxhound (Mig31), Foxbat (Mig25), PVO assigned Floggers (Mig23 B/G models), or the older Flagons (Su15), Fiddlers (Tu28) or Firebars (Yak28) (the older types are still a third of the force in the mid 1980s) will ever be sent west of the Vistula or Dniester Rivers. They are the principal air defense force for the Homeland against SAC.

A good look at mid 1980s Soviet capabilities here

https://fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_85_ch3.htm

Takes a look at NORAD too as well as NATO nuclear forces
 
Now the Soviet Army Air Force in the 1980s does have a lot of Mi23s and Mig27s(basically an overly complex F4 Phantom with far more reliability issues.... swing wings had a lot of problems although the Mig27 is almost a Tornado), some Mig25s (mostly for recon missions), a lot of Mig21s (principal aircraft of the Pact nations too), initially a small number of Mig29s (gradually increasing in numbers of the decade and replacing older models) as well as the Su24 (basically a Tornado strike version) and Su25 (basically an A7/Jaguar in bomb load) and a lot of Su17s (a swing wing A7 in capability)

These are the Soviet aircraft likely to be on the front line in the West (and China and Central Asia should that come up)

For those of you who missed the Cold War, the US Defense Department used to put out one of these every year. Generally speaking these publications exaggerated Soviet capabilities (because they were used to justify US Defense budgets)

http://edocs.nps.edu/2014/May/SovietMilPower1985.pdf

These publications also had a tendency to under count NATO forces (like ignoring reserve ground and air forces).
 
Top