PVO/VVS best strategy in case of a big conventional war

[Monk78]

I’m going to make a big assumption that major war between NATO and Warsop pact does not go nuclear between 1979-1987
But assuming that happens and it is purely a conventional fight. What should be the best strategy adopted by VVS and PVO to counter the superiority of NATO in the air ?
Let’s say, if you are the Soviet commander, how would you marshal your forces to meet this threat?
Not talking about far reaching and long-term changes like better training or better modifications on existing weapons platforms
Just what is the best way you can utilize the resources you have on hand at day 1 of the war
Assume any year from 1979 -1987

 

[uk 75]

We know from various released war plans that the Soviets planned to nullify NATO's advantages in technology by massive initial use of nuclear weapons.
The large scale availability of missiles of various sizes and ranges (Scaleboard, Scud, Frog-sorry old NATO names) was designed to implement this.
However, the Soviet leadership were in no hurry to unleash such a war as their handling of the Polish crisis in 1980 showed. The well publicised Soviet fears about NATO's 1983 Able Archer exercise show a reluctance to go to war.
So much for what we know.
Your desired scenario is pretty implausible given both the Soviet system (a politburo of cautious old men) and the weaknesses of Soviet conventional forces.
The most popular scenario for a general war was a crisis in the Middle East after the fall of the Shah and the Soviet 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.
A Soviet invasion of Iran and the potential threat to Saudi Arabia was the main likely flashpoint where your scenario would become reality (rather than in Europe).
US and Western forces were not deployed and the US Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) relied on the 82d and 101st Divs.

 

[Monk78]

We know from various released war plans that the Soviets planned to nullify NATO's advantages in technology by massive initial use of nuclear weapons.
The large scale availability of missiles of various sizes and ranges (Scaleboard, Scud, Frog-sorry old NATO names) was designed to implement this.
However, the Soviet leadership were in no hurry to unleash such a war as their handling of the Polish crisis in 1980 showed. The well publicised Soviet fears about NATO's 1983 Able Archer exercise show a reluctance to go to war.
So much for what we know.
Your desired scenario is pretty implausible given both the Soviet system (a politburo of cautious old men) and the weaknesses of Soviet conventional forces.
The most popular scenario for a general war was a crisis in the Middle East after the fall of the Shah and the Soviet 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.
A Soviet invasion of Iran and the potential threat to Saudi Arabia was the main likely flashpoint where your scenario would become reality (rather than in Europe).
US and Western forces were not deployed and the US Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) relied on the 82d and 101st Divs.

Please explain some weakness of the Soviet airforces

Also did the Soviet Union make any contingency plans about invading Iran or Saudi Arabia?

 

[uk 75]

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/15/world/1980-soviet-test-how-to-invade-iran.html

 

[uk 75]

Soviet air forces were dependent on ground control and pre-planned sorties to a much greater extent than NATO.
Soviet aircraft were not as all weather capable as NATO.
As with other weapons numbers were more important than quality.
However, these assessments were never put to the test and were to an extent influenced by the performance of Soviet supplied weapons in the 1973 Arab-Israel war.

 

[Monk78]

Soviet air forces were dependent on ground control and pre-planned sorties to a much greater extent than NATO.
Soviet aircraft were not as all weather capable as NATO.
As with other weapons numbers were more important than quality.
However, these assessments were never put to the test and were to an extent influenced by the performance of Soviet supplied weapons in the 1973 Arab-Israel war.

So is there any hope of minimizing the disadvantages of soviet airforces without nuclear weapons ?

 

[uk 75]

As with all alt-history the starting point has to be real history.
We know that the Soviets saw missile delivered nuclear strikes as an effective weapon against NATO (a legacy is Russia's use of conventional versions in Ukraine). We also know that the WW2 veterans who ran the Soviet Union had no desire or appetite for a ahooting war, prefering the political struggle and use of client states and proxies.
The Soviet Union (again like Russia and Ukraine) did have formidable air defences both for its sea and land forces as well as key installations. This is where they were far more active than the West. Given the likes of Curtis Le May and co you can understand why.

 

[Monk78]

As with all alt-history the starting point has to be real history.
We know that the Soviets saw missile delivered nuclear strikes as an effective weapon against NATO (a legacy is Russia's use of conventional versions in Ukraine). We also know that the WW2 veterans who ran the Soviet Union had no desire or appetite for a ahooting war, prefering the political struggle and use of client states and proxies.
The Soviet Union (again like Russia and Ukraine) did have formidable air defences both for its sea and land forces as well as key installations. This is where they were far more active than the West. Given the likes of Curtis Le May and co you can understand why.

IMHO Soviets are better off sending their considerable fleet of tactical bombers for the first strike unescorted esp to hit NATO airfields
And keep their fighter regiments ( who are nuclear capable) for a second strike reserve.
Esp since soviet fighters operating outside, the GCI in escort role will be pretty much useless anyway.
The dense SAM system backed up by PVO interceptors would be a big deterrent to NATO strike aircraft.
Avoid air to air combat like the plague ( performance of mig23/25 here can be advantageous)
Take out AWACS and tankers as many as possible
Avoid CAP / air superiority roles as it’s a fools errand against NATO

How can they best use their standoff jamming aircraft?

 

[Dilandu]

Soviet air forces were dependent on ground control and pre-planned sorties to a much greater extent than NATO.
Soviet aircraft were not as all weather capable as NATO.

On the other hand, Soviet AAM were generally better than NATO's and Mig-29 was significantly better than early models of F-16 (due to helmet sight, integrated ability to use SARH missiles, ect.)

 

[Scott Kenny]

IMHO Soviets are better off sending their considerable fleet of tactical bombers for the first strike unescorted esp to hit NATO airfields
And keep their fighter regiments ( who are nuclear capable) for a second strike reserve.
Esp since soviet fighters operating outside, the GCI in escort role will be pretty much useless anyway.
The dense SAM system backed up by PVO interceptors would be a big deterrent to NATO strike aircraft.
Avoid air to air combat like the plague ( performance of mig23/25 here can be advantageous)
Take out AWACS and tankers as many as possible
Avoid CAP / air superiority roles as it’s a fools errand against NATO

How can they best use their standoff jamming aircraft?

Again, the declassified plans that have been made public assumed all those first strikes would be nuclear, probably with unholy persistent chemical weapons delivered onto the US prepositioned equipment sites to make the vehicles there unusable (nuking them would not be super effective).

On the other hand, Soviet AAM were generally better than NATO's and Mig-29 was significantly better than early models of F-16 (due to helmet sight, integrated ability to use SARH missiles, ect.)

Yes, the R-73 in particular was a very rude surprise.

 

[lancer21]

I can't see such a war not going nuclear at some point, in which case no one would be left to see who won the air war anyway.

But MiG-29/Su-27 and even MiG-23MLD with the R-73/HMS would have eaten alive the western oposition in a dogfight, judging by the initial experiences in the post 1990 OTL testing. And probably do as well in BVR, since there is no AMRAAM yet. And the MiG-31 and even the MiG-25PD would have been very difficult opponents for NATO as well, very fast, long range missiles and radars, as Desert Storm proved.

US/ NATO wouldn't have any significant advantage because all their electronic gizmos like ECM, AWACS, satellites etc would be largely neutralized by the soviets who also have much of the same gizmos. PLUS a dauntingly formidable new generation SAM network (S-300, Buk and the like) which NATO din't even met in significant combat up to now. So whatever US/NATO planes escape soviet interceptors will be cut down by SAMs.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes, the R-73 in particular was a very rude surprise.

R-73 is good. R-27 has not distinguished itself however.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I can't see such a war not going nuclear at some point, in which case no one would be left to see who won the air war anyway.

But MiG-29/Su-27 and even MiG-23MLD with the R-73/HMS

MiG-23MLD did get R-73 but no HMS. Good luck dogfighting an F-16 or F-15 with that.

would have eaten alive the western oposition in a dogfight, judging by the initial experiences in the post 1990 OTL testing.

Big assumption there. R-73 is better than AIM-9L in off-boresight capability but training and tactics determine success as much as raw performance.

And probably do as well in BVR, since there is no AMRAAM yet.

AIM-7M is a bit better than R-27. R-27ER/ET would give the Su-27 a bit of a longer reach, but the F-15's radar has significant advantages in range and situational awareness.

And the MiG-31 and even the MiG-25PD would have been very difficult opponents for NATO as well, very fast, long range missiles and radars, as Desert Storm proved.

US/ NATO wouldn't have any significant advantage because all their electronic gizmos like ECM, AWACS, satellites etc would be largely neutralized by the soviets who also have much of the same gizmos.

Not equal. E-3 is significantly better in all major measures than A-50. ECM, ECCM. Satellites, overall NATO advantages. SEAD, BIG advantage to NATO (but they needed it much more).

PLUS a dauntingly formidable new generation SAM network (S-300, Buk and the like) which NATO din't even met in significant combat up to now.

Yes, this is definitely a useful factor but its making up for weaknesses in the Air Force / PVO capabilities.

So whatever US/NATO planes escape soviet interceptors will be cut down by SAMs.

Sure. Even the USSR never developed an impregnable SAM belt.

I've been a fan of Soviet aircraft since the early 1980s. In a conventional war between NATO and Warpac, casualties would certainly be high on both sides, but in most timeframes I'd say NATO airpower would hold its own.

Your attitude appears to be driven by a very narrow "Top Trumps" view of warfare.

 

[Monk78]

Another thing apart from training that we have to consider is stocks of weaponry specially the R 73 as far as I remember, it was not available and huge numbers until 1989 1990 please correct me if I’m wrong

 

[Monk78]

R-73 is good. R-27 has not distinguished itself however.

Do you think r 24 and r 27 are not very different in performance and capabilities?
I understand comment performance has not been the best

 

[Monk78]

I can't see such a war not going nuclear at some point, in which case no one would be left to see who won the air war anyway.

But MiG-29/Su-27 and even MiG-23MLD with the R-73/HMS would have eaten alive the western oposition in a dogfight, judging by the initial experiences in the post 1990 OTL testing. And probably do as well in BVR, since there is no AMRAAM yet. And the MiG-31 and even the MiG-25PD would have been very difficult opponents for NATO as well, very fast, long range missiles and radars, as Desert Storm proved.

US/ NATO wouldn't have any significant advantage because all their electronic gizmos like ECM, AWACS, satellites etc would be largely neutralized by the soviets who also have much of the same gizmos. PLUS a dauntingly formidable new generation SAM network (S-300, Buk and the like) which NATO din't even met in significant combat up to now. So whatever US/NATO planes escape soviet interceptors will be cut down by SAMs.

Before 1988 they’re just not enough flankers and fulcrums to make a difference
AFAIK by end of 1988 only 180 flankers are operational
And how many S300 batteries before 1988 suspect not more than 30 or 40
Again, I’m happy to be corrected

 

[Monk78]

IMHO it’s best for Warsaw Pact pilots to avoid dogfight with NATO fighters altogether, despite their advantage in some areas of weaponry

 

[Monk78]

What is the best way for WP to take out the NATO AWACS ?

 

[lancer21]

What is the best way for WP to take out the NATO AWACS ?

Send out some MiG-31 at maximum speed to kill them. They first need an initial package to engage the NATO escorts to keep it busy/distract it for that.

 

[Monk78]

Send out some MiG-31 at maximum speed to kill them. They first need an initial package to engage the NATO escorts to keep it busy/distract it for that.

Mig31 is not available in numbers until 1983 -84
Before that time Can we use a combination of fighters ?
Like send a regiment size formation of MiG-21/23/25 first to keep the escorts busy and then send 12 su-15TM / tu-128 against each AWACS

 

[Monk78]

Will use of SRBM with conventional weapons against airfields be useful?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Will use of SRBM with conventional weapons against airfields be useful?

Maybe?

It will take many more conventional SRBMs than nuclear tipped, and that's assuming that the guidance of the SRBMs is up to the needed accuracy. Any given runway needs to be broken into thirds to make it unusable.

 

[pathology_doc]

"...and when the runway-busters and airfield shredders on both sides had done their job, the fate of the West was in the hands of three Gloster-built Harriers named Faith, Hope and Charity..."

Okay, I'm being flippant here, but I couldn't resist...

 

[Monk78]

"...and when the runway-busters and airfield shredders on both sides had done their job, the fate of the West was in the hands of three Gloster-built Harriers named Faith, Hope and Charity..."

Okay, I'm being flippant here, but I couldn't resist...

In my opinion, even if the entire force of WP MiG 27 and Su17 ( amounting to 1000 aircraft by 1981) could have been expended to destroy 400 or so NATO strike aircraft on the ground esp F-4 then it would be well worth the cost