I've been reading a lot lately on the Cold War and the speculation about what might have happened had war broken out. One thing that I've been surprised about is the speculation about what would have happened in the air war. My understanding has always been that the Warsaw Pact had the advantage in the number of planes that the could put in the air (just like they did with the number of tanks). My question is this....

Given what we know now that the bulk of the Warsaw Pact air forces were made up of obsolete planes, how could they have possibly won in the air?

I'm thinking specifically about the period of time (1980 and on) when Reagan took over, and when the US would be putting F-15s and F-16s in the air. The only way that I can think of that the Warsaw Pact could have negated US air power is with mobile SAM launchers.

Some one is living in the past, hasn't much of the old Warsaw pact joined NATO and haven't many of those countries joined the EU, so no longer come under the Russian influence

Originally Posted by KND

My understanding has always been that the Warsaw Pact had the advantage in the number of planes that the could put in the air (just like they did with the number of tanks). My question is this....

Given what we know now that the bulk of the Warsaw Pact air forces were made up of obsolete planes, how could they have possibly won in the air?

As far as I know, US/NATO has always had superiority in number of planes and, in certain conditions, also in quality of planes.

However, USSR get a good lesson on air defense during WW2, and regarded air defense very seriously after.

Besides, any modelling of war should be viewed in complex - including ground forces too, not only air. For example - air froce could be destroyed by launching of large number of tactical missiles at air fields... without air fields, even the superior side has to retreat for a while to in tact airfields.

Originally Posted by KND

Given what we know now that the bulk of the Warsaw Pact air forces were made up of obsolete planes, how could they have possibly won in the air?

Thats because at the time when it was a problem they were not obsolete and countries like Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and other minors trained their pilots to a much higher level then the West.

Originally Posted by KND

I'm thinking specifically about the period of time (1980 and on) when Reagan took over, and when the US would be putting F-15s and F-16s in the air. The only way that I can think of that the Warsaw Pact could have negated US air power is with mobile SAM launchers.

At that time neither F-16s nor F-15s had any significant combat winning advantage over MiG-29s, yes they were superior but not to an extent where they could just take the sky and the Warsaw Pact had a whole lot more planes and pilots.

In fact if you read up its the West including USA that tried to negate Soviet airpower with oodles of AA.

Originally Posted by Supostat

As far as I know, US/NATO has always had superiority in number of planes and, in certain conditions, also in quality of planes.

Actually, the only category in which NATO had superior numbers was in helicopters. In fighters, the WP had a 3:1 numerical advantage. Unfortunately for them, the bulk were MiG-21s and MiG-23s. The MiG-29 did not see first service in the USSR until 1986 and the Su-27 in 1988 for V-VS.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

At that time neither F-16s nor F-15s had any significant combat winning advantage over MiG-29s, yes they were superior but not to an extent where they could just take the sky and the Warsaw Pact had a whole lot more planes and pilots.

The F-15s and F-16s had a significant advantage in aerial combat over MiG-21s and MiG-23s. Remember the F-15s and F-16s were designed after the Viet Nam War to correct air combat problems of previous American fighters. Among the design features were that the American jets had to be able to handle MiG-21s, 23s, and, 25s effectively.

In order to prevent going nuclear NATO needed the F-15 to have at least a 6:1 kill ratio and the F-16 in air to air and air to ground have at least a 3:1 kill ratio. In a conflict between NATO and the WP, there would have been some horrible surprises on both sides.
BAD SURPRISES FOR THE WP INCLUDE;
The F-117 was as good as the KGB/GRU said it was, the Soviet commanders did not believe it.
Soviet air combat tactics were further behind NATOs than the WP realized. The WP would push for the 'furball' (many versus many fighters) while NATO would work to get air battles of 4V4 or less.
The radar warning receiver (RWR) on the MiG-29s could not detect lock-ons of the F-16s. Signal strength was lower than the WP had estimated.
The Alamo Missile was less effective than anticipated! About one-half the Sparrow's success rate.
Economic problems in the USSR were beginning to be felt early in the 1980s. By 1984, the Soviet AF reduced the flying time of combat pilots due to budget cuts. The excuse given was that simulators were good enough to keep up the pilot's proficient.

BAD SURPRISES FOR NATO INCLUDE;
The HMDS on the MiG-29 would have been a horrible surprise.
The 105mm cannons on most NATO tanks would not penetrate the frontal armor on the 'Soviet' T-72s. The other T-72s of the WP did not have armor as thick.

There are many other surprises for each side but, I can't think of them right now. The PGW#1 in 1991 showed former members of the WP what an around the clock allied air offensive would have been like, it surprised many.