Doctrine, as mentioned largely fell to The Soviet's ideal of a whole fuck-ton of cheap, durable, yet effective, single role planes. Which when compared to the U.S. strategy of high tech planes that sometimes filled 2 or 3 roles (either by retrofitting, upgrading or re-classing) and doing these things at the limits of the envelope. America tried squeezing performance and specs out of a single airframe, while the Soviets built a new airframe because they were able to effectively manage costs of maintenance on their deceptively simple aircraft.

America was trying to multi-task with planes, (look at the A6 Intruder compared to the EA6 Prowler) but they still had a litany of different fighters/bombers/electronic warfare planes. Today's task forces are threadbare in comparison. They have multi role fighter/bombers that are STILL retrofitted, upgraded and tasked with different missions. Look at the F/A-18. It carries both designations of F and A for fighter/ground attack, and still they have an E version called the Growler that replaced the EA6, F111-E and a few AWACS systems. And on top of that? The plane also has a ship launched airborne tanker variant!

Both sides had the same goal, however. Both sides wanted high speed, low level bombers carrying nuclear weapons. High altitude, long range tactical bombers, also nuclear capable. They wanted interceptors capable of mach 2 or higher to shoot down these bombers off the coast and they varied only slightly insofar as their mission.

Air superiority was an afterthought. The only doctrine was how do I drop the most nukes, while receiving the least amount of nukes?

If you are curious, I reccomend checking out the Discovery Wings series, Wings of the Red Star, and Seawings. Most episodes can be found on YouTube and The Wings of the Red Star was especially good about informing the viewer of the doctrine and design concepts that brought a plane into being.