The Kh31P is an anti-radiation missile, and as such, carries a smaller warhead than the anti-ship Kh31A. The launch conditions and flight profiles of the two missiles are also extremely different. The Kh31P is designed to be released at medium to high altitude and adopts an almost ballistic trajectory towards its target. The Kh31A otoh, is designed to be dropped at extremely low altitude and adopt a sea skimming cruise profile to minimise detection range. Just look at the massive difference in fighter range figures when they adopt a Hi-Hi-Hi flight profile compared to a Low-Low-Low profile and its not have to see where the range difference between the two missile variants comes from.
I hope you could understand or translate Russian
Kh-31 A and P have respectively 610 and 600 kg start mass . Warhead on Kh-31 A is 94 kg , and on Kh-31 P 87 kg . As you can see , there is no much difference ( I'm talking about basic models , not improved ones which Syrians do not posses ) :
Both Kh-31 A and P could assume various flight profiles , although you are right - Kh-31A would usually drop very low to avoid detection , then pop-up very high and head for targeted ship performing violent maneuvers . That is the reason it has double less range then very similar Kh-31P - it would use all that fuel very fast .
What you are talking about is pre-programmed terminal evasives designed to thrown off gun based CISW. The SM2 will not be engaging the missiles at such extreme close range. At the range the SM2 will engage the Kh31s, they will still be in cruise mode, and they will be flying straight and level and won't be doing any sort of evasives. That's just how the missiles work. As such, any talk of agility is entirely moot, and the only thing that matters is the speed of the missile and its RCS.
In best case scenario ,SM-2 would engage Kh-31 A at 15-20 km from targeted ship . Considering delays in detection , man-in-the-loop , delays in firing etc ... Kh-31 A would be in downward path of its trajectory , where is extremely difficult to intercept .
That's the absolute worst thing they could do. An Aegis Burke has no blind spots. Attacking from different directions offers zero advantages against Burkes and USN crews. The only weakness the Burkes have, which the Syrians might be able to exploit to breach their defences is the limitation of the illuminators those SM2s depend on.
You are wrong . Burke could not detect objects under radar horizon . It would have to relay on AWACS . With limitations E-2 Hawkeye has , there is a posibility they won't be able to detect all of the attacking groups until they get to close . Especially if there is a decoy involved .
The exact number of targets each illuniator can paint simultaneously is restricted info for obvious reasons, but I would not expect more than half a dozen maximum under the best possible conditions. That means if the Syrians focus all the efforts on one specific point, there is a chance they might be able to overload the illuminator responsible for that area and overwhelm the ship's defences that way. But with co-operative engagement and the carrier's CAP, even that is a slim chance at best.
Attacking from multiple directions would just allow the USN to use multiple illuminators to direct more missiles at more targets at the same time.
Attacking from one directions means that all of the attacker will be detected at same time , and then possibly destroyed by concentrated fire from fighters on CAP and attacked ships . Coordinated attack from various directions would mean that at least some of the attackers may get trough .
Again, bad idea. The USN isnt going to fall for such an obvious ploy. Flying high would just make them easy targets for the surface group's SM2s, and also give the USN advanced warning and allow them to get more CAP in the air earlier.
Far better for the fighter escort to stick close with the strike package to remain undetected for as long as possible. Then, when the USN finds them, the fighters would push ahead of the strikers and keep the quick alert standby birds occupied while the strikers make a mad dash to get into firing range.
Decoy planes would obviously not fly close enough to be effectively engaged by SM-2 (SM-2 was not designed to engage maneuverable fighters at the edge of its flight envelope) . On the other hand , fighters on CAP would have to be alerted and to do something - in war you never know what is a decoy and what is a real deal . Overall , decoy force would definitely divert some attention from attacking groups .
Keeping fighter escort low with strike package is not a very good idea (to say the least
) . They would have less energy , less detection range , and less range with their weapons . Basically , sitting ducks without much use except to use up some missiles from defending CAP .
