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
An important detail we need to discuss is serviceability rates. For all NATO and Pact nations, as well as the PVO and VVO. I am looking to see what I can dig up, but should hopefully have something this weekend.

Unless someone else has something sooner (which would be awesome). If your fighter regiment (60 aircraft typically) has only 50% of its aircraft fit for action, and the NATO nations are running around 60-75% (of 54-72 aircraft), that too will matter.

Of course over a prolonged campaign, if each side is hitting each others airfields with persistent chemical weapons, ballistic missiles (even without nuclear warheads) and air attacks, those rates are likely to fall anyway. But what they start at matters a lot.
 
Of course over a prolonged campaign, if each side is hitting each others airfields with persistent chemical weapons, ballistic missiles (even without nuclear warheads) and air attacks, those rates are likely to fall anyway.
How much damage would ballistic missiles cause compared to normal bombs?
 
How much damage would ballistic missiles cause compared to normal bombs?

Disruption of operations, even it is just for a few minutes and occasionally they will hit something important (like a command center, aircraft shelter, fuel tanks etc). If they carry chemical warheads, the problem is compounded further.

Of course cruise missiles later in the decade can scatter munitions around, which can all kinds of problems
 
While the F-14 was primarily a fleet defender it had better dogfighting capability than the MiG-23. There would be more F-14 squadrons than there were active carriers - when you count carriers that were in refit and could not deploy quickly. Also you have F-14s in the training squadrons/RAGs. A few of them in Europe, used primarily against Soviet Mainstays or patrolling for tankers or even hitting transports at a distance could be very disruptive.
 
Again, doubtful. F-14s would be needed with their carrier groups to defend against Soviet long-range air and missile attack and provide air supremacy at sea for NATO fleets. Only if they were evacuated off say a sunk carrier then could their use to supplement land theaters become feasible. And then, given their specialised role of long-range fleet air intercept and defense, they would be hampered muuch like the MiG-25 - long range only, and much weaker in dogfighting. albeit probably still a reasonable combatant.

F-15s weren't designed to handle the AIM-54. In fact I believe only the Tomcat can mate with the Phoenix. (which is somewhat ironic given that the Eagle could probably looking at the stats in Wikipedia handle a full Phoenix load better than the F-14 did...)

In any event, the Phoenix's effectiveness in combat is disputed. I doubt they would bother using it; take too long to re-train pilots for shorter range combat , and the Navy would probably want theirs back at some point, along with their hardware. Even if F-14s were on the front lines, they'd use AIM-7s and AIM-9s. Western sources have not attributed any kills or impacts to the few times it was recorded as being used. (However, Iran is rumoured to have destroyed some fifty aircraft with it before their stockpiles were depleted.

Correct. The AIM-54 was part of an integrated weapons system, and could not function independently of its fire control system, the AN/QWG-9 radar - which was only on the F-14. In fact the entire aircraft was basically designed to fit around that radar and carry those missiles. I suppose that given time, the F-15 and the AN/AWG-9 could have been reconfigured to mate, but in this scenario, there's no way it could have been done quickly enough.

And good point about the effectiveness of the Phoenix. Outside of Tom Clancy, the AIM-54 has never shot down a plane in combat. If we had ever reall\y had to rely on that weapons system, we might have been in dire straits.
 

SsgtC

Banned
And good point about the effectiveness of the Phoenix. Outside of Tom Clancy, the AIM-54 has never shot down a plane in combat. If we had ever reall\y had to rely on that weapons system, we might have been in dire straits.

If used for it's intended mission, it would have been highly successful. It was designed specifically to take out Soviet bombers, not highly maneuverable fighters.
 
If used for it's intended mission, it would have been highly successful. It was designed specifically to take out Soviet bombers, not highly maneuverable fighters.

Do you think so? I suspect you know more about what you're talking about than I do. I'd like to think you're right. Have you got time to expand on this and explain it from a more informed perspective? I think it'd be very interesting if you would.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Do you think so? I suspect you know more about what you're talking about than I do. I'd like to think you're right. Have you got time to expand on this and explain it from a more informed perspective? I think it'd be very interesting if you would.

I can try. Whether it's more informed or not, I'll leave that for others to decide.

I'll start with this quote:

The AIM-54 was primarily designed for long-range fleet defense against incoming bomber streams, a threat which has dimished nowadays. Although it can theoretically also be used against low-flying high-speed anti-ship missiles, there are more effective weapons for this role.

That info it's from this site:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html

Essentially, the Navy needed a long range fighter and missile for fleet defense against Soviet bombers. They needed to intercept the bombers as far away from the fleet as possible. Hopefully before the Soviets could launch their ASMs.

To reliably take out a bomber needed a big missile. And the Phoenix is big. Over 1,000 pounds with a 132 pound warhead. If it gets close to you, it will fuck up your day.

But here is where the trade-off comes in. It's big, it's fast, it's powerful. But it can't turn for shit. Which, when your targeting a bomber that also can't turn for shit, that's not that big of an issue. As long as the AIM-54 could outturn a Backfire, Badger or Bear, that's all the Navy cared about. That and getting the missile there in one damn big hurry, hence it's nearly Mach 5 speed.

If the Navy needed to engage fighters, they carried Sparrows and Sidewinders for that.
 
I can try. Whether it's more informed or not, I'll leave that for others to decide.

I'll start with this quote:

The AIM-54 was primarily designed for long-range fleet defense against incoming bomber streams, a threat which has dimished nowadays. Although it can theoretically also be used against low-flying high-speed anti-ship missiles, there are more effective weapons for this role.

That info it's from this site:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-54.html

Essentially, the Navy needed a long range fighter and missile for fleet defense against Soviet bombers. They needed to intercept the bombers as far away from the fleet as possible. Hopefully before the Soviets could launch their ASMs.

To reliably take out a bomber needed a big missile. And the Phoenix is big. Over 1,000 pounds with a 132 pound warhead. If it gets close to you, it will fuck up your day.

But here is where the trade-off comes in. It's big, it's fast, it's powerful. But it can't turn for shit. Which, when your targeting a bomber that also can't turn for shit, that's not that big of an issue. As long as the AIM-54 could outturn a Backfire, Badger or Bear, that's all the Navy cared about. That and getting the missile there in one damn big hurry, hence it's nearly Mach 5 speed.

If the Navy needed to engage fighters, they carried Sparrows and Sidewinders for that.

Great answer. Most of it is pretty much what I figured, but I never properly researched this subject. You have a half-ton missile doing mach 5, it's not going to turn very quickly. If I have one coming at me head-on, I would much rather be driving an SU-30 than a Badger or Backfire.
 
I would recommend you look up the current thread for the Iranian F-14 on the Navweaps website and read what Wabpilot has to say . He was an F-14 pilot and knows the AIM-54 better then anyone posting here from what I can tell .
 
I would recommend you look up the current thread for the Iranian F-14 on the Navweaps website and read what Wabpilot has to say . He was an F-14 pilot and knows the AIM-54 better then anyone posting here from what I can tell .

Thanks, but it didn't let me do a search without logging in. I may join someday, and if I do, I will definitely look for such a thread.
 
Every single night the WARSAW Pact supply routes will receive a visit from F-111 Bombers striking key points.

So there are good odds they blow up a decoy and on every night they return they find the target still looks like it's still destroyed to them because they've been gussied up to look like they've been destroyed from the air. So they go off and hit other targets, and odds are other decoys, because there's no point in bombing an already bombed target... all the while the previous target continues to chug along quite good.

In the ground battle, the M1A1 is the king.

In so far as any of the sides top-line main battle tank is king, sure. What is most likely is that given the circumstances, everybody's top-line main battle tank will kill everybody elses top-line main battle tank just fine.
 
Did these "Dual Key" powers include any NATO countries besides the nuclear ones?

Dual Key was what kept the none nuclear nato countries as 'not nuclear states' as they were US weapons on NATO taskings , that just happened to be delivered by o ther NATO nations , IIRC the dual key stuff was stored by US personnel and was only released to the host nations at the point of sending the bomb carts to go and get the devices to load them onto the aircraft etc .
 

SsgtC

Banned
So there are good odds they blow up a decoy and on every night they return they find the target still looks like it's still destroyed to them because they've been gussied up to look like they've been destroyed from the air. So they go off and hit other targets, and odds are other decoys, because there's no point in bombing an already bombed target... all the while the previous target continues to chug along quite good.

If you think this will work for more than one or two nights, you're lying to yourself. Reports of supplies and reinforcements still reaching the front in that sector will force intell to reevaluate they're post strike assessment. And they'll likely see what they missed and hit the real targets. That goes for both sides. The WP may be lacking in technology, but they aren't stupid.

In so far as any of the sides top-line main battle tank is king, sure. What is most likely is that given the circumstances, everybody's top-line main battle tank will kill everybody elses top-line main battle tank just fine.

Eh. Not really. Not in the 80s. Soviet fire control was pretty far behind NATO in the 80s. Not too mention their primary MBT, the T-72 has a pretty serious design fault. It's ammunition storage. Live rounds are stored, unprotected in the crew compartment. Realativly minor damage and that T-72 gets turned into a jack-in-the-box.
 
And good point about the effectiveness of the Phoenix. Outside of Tom Clancy, the AIM-54 has never shot down a plane in combat. If we had ever reall\y had to rely on that weapons system, we might have been in dire straits.

The Iranian Air Force got numerous kills with the AIM-54 Phoenix on their Tomcats, and not to mention through a fair amount of the Iran-Iraq War, because of the radar, they functioned essentially as AEW assets and I think for the most part restricted to fly over Iran only.
 

Archibald

Banned
The Iranian Air Force got numerous kills with the AIM-54 Phoenix on their Tomcats, and not to mention through a fair amount of the Iran-Iraq War, because of the radar, they functioned essentially as AEW assets and I think for the most part restricted to fly over Iran only.

I second that.
 
If you think this will work for more than one or two nights, you're lying to yourself. Reports of supplies and reinforcements still reaching the front in that sector will force intell to reevaluate they're post strike assessment. And they'll likely see what they missed and hit the real targets. That goes for both sides. The WP may be lacking in technology, but they aren't stupid.

That relies on NATO intelligence gathering apparatus to see through Soviet deception efforts to notice the continuing arrival of supplies and reinforcements in the midst of a high intensity war where their liable to be straining as it is with the existing demands and then conducting reassessment under the same circumstances. It's gonna take a lot more then one to two days to do that, especially if the people behind Soviet maskirovka are clever enough to tailor their deceptions to NATO expectations. And by the time NATO managed to hack through the fog of war and see what went wrong, the whole thing might well be over.

I mean, OTL NATO in the 1980s also believed in that with their new technologies and C3I structure they could peer through Soviet deception techniques even if the Soviets correctly implemented them. Then in the 90s, the Serbs came along and proved them horribly wrong. It proved a reminder to NATO, which they have taken to heart, of something that a lot of people on this thread are ignoring with their talks of simple pieces of equipment: warfare isn't a science where everything can be easily measured against each other, it's an art.

Eh. Not really. Not in the 80s. Soviet fire control was pretty far behind NATO in the 80s. Not too mention their primary MBT, the T-72 has a pretty serious design fault. It's ammunition storage. Live rounds are stored, unprotected in the crew compartment. Realativly minor damage and that T-72 gets turned into a jack-in-the-box.

Yeah really. Fire control for the Soviets was inferior, but not to an extent that really matters at the ranges that will be taking place. So long as their training holds up (always the big unknown here), their still solidly in "if you can see it, you can hit. If you can hit it, you can pen it" territory given the terrain these fights will be occurring. That a T-72 or T-80 loss has a higher chance of being irrecoverable to a pen is true, but then a number of NATO recoverable losses are likely to become irrecoverable because they have to be abandoned in their position if it's overrun which helps even things out.

The Iranian Air Force got numerous kills with the AIM-54 Phoenix on their Tomcats, and not to mention through a fair amount of the Iran-Iraq War, because of the radar, they functioned essentially as AEW assets and I think for the most part restricted to fly over Iran only.

Given the poor skills of Iraqis, and most Arab states, pilots, I'm not that surprised.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
That relies on NATO intelligence gathering apparatus to see through Soviet deception efforts to notice the continuing arrival of supplies and reinforcements in the midst of a high intensity war where their liable to be straining as it is with the existing demands and then conducting reassessment under the same circumstances. It's gonna take a lot more then one to two days to do that, especially if the people behind Soviet maskirovka are clever enough to tailor their deceptions to NATO expectations. And by the time NATO managed to hack through the fog of war and see what went wrong, the whole thing might well be over.

You are seriously underestimating NATO here. Do you honestly think the ground commanders won't be SCREAMING to the Air Force that their interdiction efforts weren't worth jack shit and the Soviets are still pouring in men and supplies? That right there will trigger them to look again. And they'll know to disregard the previously hit target because that obviously wasn't the real one. And here's your other problem with camoflauge. People tend to fall into habits. They stick with what works. Pretty soon, analysts will know exactly what to look for. That last point, btw, applies equally to both sides.

Yeah really. Fire control for the Soviets was inferior, but not to an extent that really matters at the ranges that will be taking place. So long as their training holds up (always the big unknown here), their still solidly in "if you can see it, you can hit. If you can hit it, you can kill it" territory. That a T-72 or T-80 loss has a higher chance of being irrecoverable to a pen is true, but then a number of NATO recoverable losses are likely to become irrecoverable because they have to be abandoned in their position if it's overrun which helps even things out.

Again, you're overlooking a few factors. Once the Soviets start committing their Category B and C reserve formations, there is a drastic drop off in the quality of equipment compared to they're first line stuff. The more first line equipment is irrecoverable, the quicker they need to go to their reserves. You're also ignoring another factor. Fire control means more than just keeping the gun locked on target. It means actually being able to see your target. And in that regard, NATO equipment is generations more advanced. Particularly with thermal sights. NATO thermal sights had nearly double the effective range of WP sights. NATO will be able to engage well beyond the effective range of WP tanks.

Given the poor skills of Iraqis, and most Arab states, pilots, I'm not that surprised.

This just seems really condescending if not borderline racist.
 
Given the poor skills of Iraqis, and most Arab states, pilots, I'm not that surprised.
It's more-so the fact that the Iranian Air Force was pretty much the most well trained branch of any in the Iranian military, considering it was the 'golden child' of the Shah, not to mention the kind of equipment that was had.
 
Top