In Defense of the Red Army

[Raellus]

Fishbed v. Eagle

Western airframes, avionics, and pilot training were all generally superior to their Soviet counterparts throughout the entirety of the Cold War. That is a given.

However, here is yet more evidence that technical superiority does not necessarily translate to victory.

During a joint exercise between the USAF and the Indian Air Force, the latter, flying MiG-21s and SU-27 variants, roundly defeated a force of F-15C Eagles in air-to-air combat.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25274/f-15s-arrive-for-rebooted-cope-india-air-combat-drill-as-us-indian-relations-tighten

Yes, the parameters of the exercise did favor the IAF, but still, if technical superiority always translates to victory, the IAF would not have won.

In a v1.0 T2K situation, the Red Air Force would have had several months of aerial combat experience versus the Chinese Air Force before the war with NATO kicks off.

[ChalkLine]

Actually soviet metallurgy was considerably better than western equivalents and soviet guns, up until the 120mm Rhienmetall gun, tended to be better as well. A lot of the cannon stuff the west used came from soviet ideas and built on their prototypes, which is why espionage was such a big thing.
Western electronics, plastics and ceramics were a lot better than soviet efforts though. Western electronic miniaturisation was also better.

[RN7]

Western airframes, avionics, and pilot training were all generally superior to their Soviet counterparts throughout the entirety of the Cold War. That is a given.

However, here is yet more evidence that technical superiority does not necessarily translate to victory.

During a joint exercise between the USAF and the Indian Air Force, the latter, flying MiG-21s and SU-27 variants, roundly defeated a force of F-15C Eagles in air-to-air combat.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25274/f-15s-arrive-for-rebooted-cope-india-air-combat-drill-as-us-indian-relations-tighten

Yes, the parameters of the exercise did favor the IAF, but still, if technical superiority always translates to victory, the IAF would not have won.

In a v1.0 T2K situation, the Red Air Force would have had several months of aerial combat experience versus the Chinese Air Force before the war with NATO kicks off.

If this is from the Cope India air combat exercise at Gwalior in 2004 I think it was the USAF deliberately wanting to lose to bolster its case for buying the F/A-22 and F-35 at the time.

[Raellus]

If this is from the Cope India air combat exercise at Gwalior in 2004 I think it was the USAF deliberately wanting to lose to bolster its case for buying the F/A-22 and F-35 at the time.

I suppose that could have been the case, but this sounds like an excuse for losing.

[Raellus]

According to this write-up, it sounds like tactics and equipment played a very big roll in the exercise results.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26880/enough-with-the-indian-mig-21-bison-versus-pakistani-f-16-viper-bullshit

Also, if it was just the USAF putting on a show to convince Congress to buy more shiny new toys, then why allow the older, "obsolete" MiG-21 platforms to do the most damage

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

According to this write-up, it sounds like tactics and equipment played a very big roll in the exercise results.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26880/enough-with-the-indian-mig-21-bison-versus-pakistani-f-16-viper-bullshit

Also, if it was just the USAF putting on a show to convince Congress to buy more shiny new toys, then why allow the older, "obsolete" MiG-21 platforms to do the most damage

-

That was an interesting read and again it shows that how skilled/experienced you are and how well you use your equipment is often times much more important than how up to date something is.

[Raellus]

Wounded Nighthawk

This is an interesting piece on F-117 Nighthawk combat ops over Serbia. Apparently, a second Nighthawk was hit by a Serbian SAM.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37894/yes-serbian-air-defenses-did-hit-another-f-117-during-operation-allied-force-in-1999

I'm glad we never had to find out, but I really wonder how a full-spectrum air war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have played out.

I just recently re-read Red Storm Rising and, although I still enjoyed it, one thing that really bothered me about Clancy and Bond's vision- especially in light of this story- is how ineffective Soviet AAA/SAM defenses are against NATO strike and attack aircraft. There's no Red Army bridge, command post, fuel depot, or tank farm that NATO aircraft don't manage to destroy in the novel.

I could forgive the authors this vision if they'd written this after Desert Shield/Storm, because I think that experience convinced many that Soviet-made air defenses were no match for NATO aircraft. I still content that this lesson was wrong- the Gulf War was not a peer v. peer conflict. It was like an NFL team (the Coalition) playing against a Pop Warner [under 12] team whose players had a few pieces of adult-size pads (the Iraqis). Against a modern, full-scale, integrated, Soviet air defense (AAA & SAM) network, I think NATO aircraft would have sustained significant losses.

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

For what it's worth, there were a few "voices in the wilderness" back in the early 2000s who disagreed with the popular view that air forces win wars that seemed to form after the Gulf War.
They argued that the air campaign against the Iraqis was pretty much a one-sided affair with Iraqi air defence being lacklustre and no real test of coalition doctrine/equipment/enemy suppression.
They argued that it was a false assumption to conclude that Western air forces would dominate the skies and win the war and that the assumption came about because the coalition forces never had much opposition for control of the skies.
Against any enemy that put up a proper fight in the air, the situation would be very different.

[Legbreaker]

For what it's worth, there were a few "voices in the wilderness" back in the early 2000s.....

As I've said before, and will probably keep saying for another 50 years, the Iraqi army was not a valid test to see how NATO would have done against the Soviets. The majority of Iraqi equipment simply wasn't up to the same standard as the Pact and lacked components such as the more advanced armour, targeting systems and so on (downgraded export versions). Their training was....lacking, and morale outside the Republican guard virtually non-existent.

[Southernap]

I'm glad we never had to find out, but I really wonder how a full-spectrum air war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have played out.

I just recently re-read Red Storm Rising and, although I still enjoyed it, one thing that really bothered me about Clancy and Bond's vision- especially in light of this story- is how ineffective Soviet AAA/SAM defenses are against NATO strike and attack aircraft. There's no Red Army bridge, command post, fuel depot, or tank farm that NATO aircraft don't manage to destroy in the novel.

I could forgive the authors this vision if they'd written this after Desert Shield/Storm, because I think that experience convinced many that Soviet-made air defenses were no match for NATO aircraft. I still content that this lesson was wrong- the Gulf War was not a peer v. peer conflict. It was like an NFL team (the Coalition) playing against a Pop Warner [under 12] team whose players had a few pieces of adult-size pads (the Iraqis). Against a modern, full-scale, integrated, Soviet air defense (AAA & SAM) network, I think NATO aircraft would have sustained significant losses.

-

So a couple of things about the Serbian Operations with the F-117. I have friends who were in the planning cells at the time that all went down in the air war over Kosovo. There was serious mistakes made by the USAF and NATO air commanders that others had warned the planners about. Such things as always flying on a specific time and always having specific types of electronic warfare occur at both the ingress and egress points. Then there was actionable intelligence developed by some NATO and USN assets which showed that the Serbians were detecting the F-117s by using an old Soviet method, which we knew about but assumed only the Soviets did. That was using phone line connections and a bi-static radar setup. The USAF did the fingers in ears and "I can't hear you lalalalallal" method. There were too many folks in senior leadership of the USAF that believed the vaporware on what LO tech offered and still only say the 1991 footage of the F-117 in operation as being the benchmark. They didn't want to hear from folks who had flown against it or trained against in at places like Yuma, Fallon, or Nellis. That it could be beaten with the right tactics and that if we don't do dumb things we open ourselves up to getting beaten. Which as they say is now the history.

If you do some reading of US air ops against some Soviet air defense systems and some of the US operations in the early 80s. There is strong evidence that one could penetrate the Soviet air defense corridor and lay weapons on theater and strategic targets. This is even before Mathias Rust did his stunt in 1987 with his C172.
There have been EP-3s, RC-135s, and other national security aircraft that were shown to have penetrated the edges of Soviet Air Defense systems and survived. Similarly, if you read some of the recent books by John Lehman and a few others in the Cold War era; they talk of the USN and RN conducting carrier operations in the Norwegian Sea, Bearing Sea, Sea of Japan all well with in range of Soviet Air defenses and being able to get with in a hair's breath of the 12 nautical mile limit before the Soviets knew who was there and what was going on. In some cases with a full on SIOP styled Alpha strike from the carrier decks.

One of the things about both Tom Clancy and Larry Bond is they knew when to listen and in the case of Tom Clancy, he was smart that he started to put various pieces of separate information and draw sometime accurate information. There is even video of talking to NSA staffers about how he collected information from folks and how he go to some of his logical conclusions.

Also, if you re-read RSR; he doesn't talk about the Soviet Air Strikes against NATO land forces. We read a few about the US Carriers, and Larry Bond has actually mentioned that was a huge gaming event that lead to trying to figure out how to write that specific chapter with an ending in mind. Otherwise, there is no talk about how the Soviet air power does to NATO or is even able to penetrate the NATO IADS belt.

[Raellus]

If you do some reading of US air ops against some Soviet air defense systems and some of the US operations in the early 80s. There is strong evidence that one could penetrate the Soviet air defense corridor and lay weapons on theater and strategic targets. This is even before Mathias Rust did his stunt in 1987 with his C172.
There have been EP-3s, RC-135s, and other national security aircraft that were shown to have penetrated the edges of Soviet Air Defense systems and survived. Similarly, if you read some of the recent books by John Lehman and a few others in the Cold War era; they talk of the USN and RN conducting carrier operations in the Norwegian Sea, Bearing Sea, Sea of Japan all well with in range of Soviet Air defenses and being able to get with in a hair's breath of the 12 nautical mile limit before the Soviets knew who was there and what was going on. In some cases with a full on SIOP styled Alpha strike from the carrier decks.

I humbly admit that you're more widely read on this particular topic than I am. I have a clarifying question: When you say NATO aircraft penetrated the edges of Soviet AD networks and survived, do you mean they did so completely undetected, or that the Soviets didn't launch SAMs at them

If it's the former, that's an impressive feat by NATO. If it's the latter, thank God the Soviets showed restraint. By the same token, NATO showed similar restraint. Soviet aircraft routinely violated neutral and NATO airspace during the Cold War (and Russian aircraft continue to do so today). But there's a big difference between not knowing someone is there and deciding not to to shoot at them when you do.

Also, if you re-read RSR; he doesn't talk about the Soviet Air Strikes against NATO land forces. We read a few about the US Carriers, and Larry Bond has actually mentioned that was a huge gaming event that lead to trying to figure out how to write that specific chapter with an ending in mind. Otherwise, there is no talk about how the Soviet air power does to NATO or is even able to penetrate the NATO IADS belt.

Yes, Clancy and Bond kind of hand-waved the WTO air forces out of existence after describing how F-119 'Frisbees' destroyed most the Red Air Forces 'Mainstay' AWACs aircraft. This allowed NATO to establish air superiority over the FEB. This, IMHO, was a case of wishful thinking. In RSR, NATO AD has no trouble swatting Frogfoots and Hinds out of the sky, but NATO aircraft are able to hit anything they want to.

A sim is one thing; the real world is quite another.

-

[Olefin]

Soviet Air Doctrine was not flexible enough and was a big thing that the Germans during WWII and the US and NATO would have been able to take advantage of during WWIII if it had occurred. Yes they had good pilots and good planes - but what they didnt have was an ability to be flexible - that was one thing we learned the hard way over Vietnam.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Part of that was due to the Soviet reliance on Ground Controlled Intercept (GCI)
Once the intruding aircraft was detected, a CGI controller would direct Soviet aircraft against the intruder and direct the air battle. The Soviet pilots were not given much control over their tasks and thus had little flexibility.
There was a very long command chain that controlled their actions and made their decisions for them.

I recall hearing a related comment by some South African PMC who had a number of Russian pilots in their company to fly Mi-8/Mi-17 helicopters. This was sometime in the late 2000s. The comment was essentially that the Russian pilots lacked initiative and had to be told what to do most of the time. Basically the Russian pilots needed to be supervised because if something out of the ordinary came up, they had not been trained to react to it but to wait for someone higher up the command chain to make a decision for them.

[Raellus]

Learning Curve

True, but that was starting to change in the late 1980s. When the Cold War ended, the Soviets were attempting to follow the NATO model, fielding increasing numbers of Mainstay AWACs so that their fighters/interceptors would not be so reliant on GCI. Also, their new fighters (Fulcrums and Flankers) were equipped with passive IR detection equipment so that they wouldn't be so reliant on radar (making them harder to detect by ELINT means). This was pretty innovative for the time, and has just recently started to be implemented on Western combat aircraft.

I am not claiming that the WTO would have won an air war with NATO. The latter had a decided edge in electronics and training. I just don't think it would be the cakewalk that some- Like Clancy and Bond, for example- think it would have been. NATO air superiority after the first 48 hours That's a resounding NO from me.

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Oh definitely and I do not disagree with you. If anything, I think the Soviet layered AA network would have made life very difficult for NATO air forces. The whole rationale behind the A-10 design was that the air environment would be tough to survive so at the very least, that's a tacit acknowledgement from the USAF that the Soviets would not be so easily overcome.