Super 530D could need a perormance update!

[Thinder]

Means exactly nothing other than to say the rocket motor has different configuration.

 

So NOW their motor have "different configuration" but they are designed to achieve the same performances with a deficit of 0.5 to 1.0 Mach are they?

 

Yep, the 7M is slower, but it does the 30000' vertical separation thing too, it's in the 7F specs.

 

I suggest you stop writing about what you don't know and go dig it, you will see that the only way for the AIM-7 F to achieve a snap up altitudes equivalent to that is in high air density on RANGE or from Mach 2.0/40.000ft with an effective range of less than 15 to 20 Nm.

 

Not comparable with transonic launch from 52.000ft unless you figured the Mirage 2000C was M3.0 capable with 90.000ft/mn climb rate.

 

 

Obviously the two concepts are way above your head.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where's the drag/lift/thrust curve?

Where is the graph showing 30.000 ft vertical separation from transonic flight with a 40 km range?

 

 

Stop asking for B.S unavailable info when you're not even capable of figuring your alphabet letters or what a 0.5 Mach advantage can do for an AAM. 26 nm from 0.3 M in the case of AIM-7F from the E.

 

The AIM-7 type equivalent to the 530 D is the M, and the Super-530 F/D are superior in those aspects, AIM-120 were designed for range, not vertical separation and high Mach from lower speed, bummer, I forgot, you can't read French can you?

 

Now go and find the part where AIM-120 was designed to intercept the Mig-25 please.

 

I'm sorry but I am done entertaining geezers who doesn't know their ABC, please go and troll another topic. Bye.

 

 

......

Edited September 1, 2020 by Thinder

[myHelljumper]

[...]

 

What a sad angry man...

 

If you had a change to move the point it's now gone.

 

You just insulted a guy that is known here for his knowledge and understanding of missiles and systems in general, not a smart move.

 

Not sure what you are trying to achieve with this thread but you should leave your ego out of this

 

Edit: And yet GGTharos stays civil in his answer below me, would rep+ if I could XD.

Edited September 1, 2020 by myHelljumper

[GGTharos]

The page certainly provides: 115kg of propellant for the 530F, which is a very significant and useful find for modeling the missile. The D having 16% impulse can easily be interpreted as having 133kg of propellant. A 70/30 split by mass can be assumed for boost/sustain with similarly average ISPs and you'll have the ball-park thrust curve.

 

For those of you who are interested, the relevant information is here:

http://marc.mistral.free.fr/aventure/militaire/missiles%20tactiques/mt%2059%2079/mt%20ch%2009.htm

 

ctrl-f and type in '115 kg' with the space, obviously no quotes.

 

We don't know where that figure comes from, but it's awefully specific and there's no reason to not believe it. The fuel fraction is huge (nearly 50%), so it's possible that the mass is provided with the casing, which would require yet another assumption, but whatever - it's a big, heavy missile that can house a lot of fuel.

Edited September 1, 2020 by GGTharos

[Thinder]

You just insulted a guy that is known here for his knowledge and understanding of missiles and systems in general, not a smart move.

 

 

Sorry say again?

 

From where I'm standing he is not able to figure out most of what he wrote, get his fact on the charts completely wrong, what kind of knowledge are you talking about?

 

I worked with professionals, weapon specialists, aerodynamicists and I know such a guy when I read one, I'm sorry, when I'll need an opinion I will not ask him nor you for that matter.

 

I made a point which was clear from my first post, the Super-5320 F/D were designed for a completely different engagement envelop than ~Russian and US AAMs.

 

THIS is a FACT and well known in the case of the AIM-7, if he can't figure this from fantasies it's no insult to point it out.

 

 

......

[Thinder]

The page certainly provides: 115kg of propellant for the 530F, which is a very significant and useful find for modeling the missile. The D having 16% impulse can easily be interpreted as having 133kg of propellant. A 70/30 split by mass can be assumed for boost/sustain with similarly average ISPs and you'll have the ball-park thrust curve.

 

For those of you who are interested, the relevant information is here:

http://marc.mistral.free.fr/aventure/militaire/missiles%20tactiques/mt%2059%2079/mt%20ch%2009.htm

 

ctrl-f and type in '115 kg' with the space, obviously no quotes.

 

We don't know where that figure comes from, but it's awefully specific and there's no reason to not believe it. The fuel fraction is huge (nearly 50%), so it's possible that the mass is provided with the casing, which would require yet another assumption, but whatever - it's a big, heavy missile that can house a lot of fuel.

 

Wow! I'm impressed, and you only figured this one now after posting all those nonsense?

 

Nice contribution, just say thank you for providing with this information.

 

Now, there is no need to translate the MATRA document, there is an English translation and if you have managed to comprehend the problem of AdlA with the Mig interception under 3mn, then the Mirage 2000C flight envelop, you can find out what is fundamentally different between the US/Russian AAMs and those two.

 

That's called Politico-Industrial history and is a useful research tool, best all-public sources would be a copy of Jane's Weapon Systems... Just saying.

 

 

Have a good day.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Thinder

[myHelljumper]

.

[Ramsay]

So Effective range IS 40km in case of the F, and not a Max Aero of 45 or 48km in the case of the D, and since it correspond to the Maximum Firing Range in optimum conditions, in the case of the D, it should be 50 km, not 40, I watched Jojo tests and he never was able to fire further than 38km with a limit of 40km, I checked during a training mission and I'm pretty sure it is the maxi in my case too.

 

I never saw the Maximum Range for the 530 go over 40. km, it's quiet easy to figure out with the scale giving you all data, and passed this Maxi, the AAM should be firing.

 

Max range will depend on the speed of the approaching target.

 

Unfortunately I couldn't get the MiG-25PD to maintain M2.5 @ 63,000 ft but here's a 52 km shot that was successful.

 

Tacview

 

 

HUD/Cockpit view after launch

 

 

I could have fired ~5 seconds sooner but I was slow dropping the center tank and it was my first attempt to bracket max range vs the faster and higher MiG-25.

 

I don't see much wrong here, the 530F was quoted to have a 40 km range at high altitude and the more powerful 530D has a range of ~50 km against a M2.0 target in DCS.

 

As one would expect, when the 530D is fired at lower altitude (40,000 ft) against a slower (M1.2 ?) co-altitude target it has less range.

 

While this debate has been interesting and I'd like to see more accurate dynamic range info on a non-manoeuvring target in the HUD*, I'm not sure if the DCS 530D needs much (if any) increase in performance.

 

*530D HUD launch cues seem "off" i.e. underestimate what will be a valid shot.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Ramsay
Add Cockpit view from track file

[Thinder]

Max range will depend on the speed of the approaching target.

 

Unfortunately I couldn't get the MiG-25PD to maintain M2.5 @ 63,000 ft but here's a 52 km shot that was successful.

 

Tacview

 

 

HUD/Cockpit view after launch

 

 

I could have fired ~5 seconds sooner but I was slow dropping the center tank and it was my first attempt to bracket max range vs the faster and higher MiG-25.

 

I don't see much wrong here, the 530F was quoted to have a 40 km range at high altitude and the more powerful 530D has a range of ~50 km against a M2.0 target in DCS.

 

As one would expect, when the 530D is fired at lower altitude (40,000 ft) against a slower (M1.2 ?) co-altitude target it has less range.

 

While this debate has been interesting and I'd like to see more accurate dynamic range info on a non-manoeuvring target in the HUD*, I'm not sure if the DCS 530D needs much (if any) increase in performance.

 

*530D HUD range cues seem "off" at lower altitudes.

 

 

That's all very nice, but I have read most of the charts and apparently they all rely on incomplete information, this is just yet another evidence of that.

 

In the case of the F it's 40 km AND 30.000 ft vertical separation, with a Max speed of M 4.5 from lower altitude and speed, the D have an increased snap-up capability, range and a max Mach of 5.0.

 

I haven't seen a single chart comparing AIM-7 and the Super 530 showing Mach 5.0 as Maximum Mach, your test is no exception after supersonic launch? In any case it is irrelevant the AAM should reach its Max Mach in this interception profile.

 

You all assume that such interception would take place in supersonic and level flight, this is not what the Super-530 were designed for.

 

As I said previously, a Mig-25 flying at M 2.5/67.000 ft, crossing the East German border from around Suhl would be above Dijon BA-102 in just above 3mn.

 

What matters here, as the MATRA slides says in no uncertain terms, is the fact that the AAM was designed to make this interception possible within 5mn from take off, by bridging the difference between the launcher altitude and speed and that of the target, the Super 530 were NOT designed with Max range in mind but high-altitude/high Mach and high altitude difference as priorities.

 

 

So here are a few facts:

 

 

.The simulated Super 530D is behaving much more like an AIM-7 (maximum speed and firing range) than a real D.

 

.You wouldn't be able to fire it passed 50 km, its Maximum Firing range is 50 km, seeker limited.

 

.In the event of an Alert V take off within the same scenario than what the Super-530 was conceived to meet, you would be at <> M 0.90/ 48.500 ft Maximum and climbing.

 

.You won't get a Mirage 2000 at target altitude from Alert V in 5 mn that's a fact, the launch tests occurred in transonic at best in the case of those data.

 

So congrat if you managed this, but it just shows that what I have stated so far is justified, not only by MATRA slide, but also the new info I provided and more to the point the Mirage 2000C flight envelop.

 

 

>>>>>>

 

 

If you really wanna help you can try to replicate MATRA interception as it is described in their doc:

 

Combat configuration from take off, that's 4 AAMs and 50% internal fuel to help, but I can assure you that they would carry more fuel than that.

 

Get your Mig-25 to keep a steady M 2.5/82.000 ft toward your airfield.

 

Time your take off for an interception after 5mn including AAM flight time from brake release, then see when you reach 52.500 ft, how long it's going to take you and what your speed will be.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4471647&postcount=1

 

 

http://marc.mistral.free.fr/aventure/militaire/missiles%20tactiques/mt%2059%2079/mt%20ch%2009.htm

 

 

 

 

......

Edited September 1, 2020 by Thinder

[Ramsay]

.You wouldn't be able to fire it passed 50 km, its Maximum Firing range is 50 km.

 

I'm following the described 530F profile with a zoom climb (AB 450 kias / M 0.92) to 50,000 ft

 

Launch was made (after dropping center tank) @ 27 NMI (52km), time of flight was 34 seconds.

 

.In the event of an Alert V take off within the same scenario than what the Super-530 was conceived to meet, you would be at <> M 0.90/ 48.500 ft Maximum and climbing.

 

I levelled off (after the climb) at 50,000 ft as target wasn't in range, airspeed was M 0.95 / 235 KIAS.

 

.You won't get a Mirage 2000 at target altitude from Alert V in 5 mn that's a fact, the launch tests occurred in transonic at best in the case of those data.

 

Correct, M-2000C was at 50,000 ft, MiG-25 was at 63,000 ft (~2,000 ft below it's max in DCS)

 

So congrat if you managed this, but it just shows that what I have stated so far is justified, not only by MATRA slide, but also the new info I provided and more to the point the Mirage 2000C flight envelop.

 

Thanks, DCS gives TAS in the ME, so it's relatively easy to calculate time/distance and add a little "wiggle" room for the taxi, etc.

 

The biggest issue is where the AI can't maintain the desired speed/altitude.

 

If you really wanna help you can try to replicate MATRA interception as it is described in their doc:

 

Combat configuration from take off, that's 4 AAMs and 50% internal fuel to help, but I can assure you that they would carry more fuel than that.

 

I've been using 4 AAMs and 100% fuel plus center tank.

 

 

Get your Mig-25 to keep a steady M 2.5/82.000 ft toward your airfield.

 

Not possible in DCS, MiG-25 max altitude is ~65,000 ft, M 2.5 was set but AI can only maintain M~2.0

 

Time your take off for an interception after 5mn including AAM flight time from brake release, then see when you reach 52.500 ft, how long it's going to take you and what your speed will be.

 

Check the flight log in the bottom left of the Tacview picture.

 

• 6 minutes from mission start to the destruction of the target.

 

+1:00 minute to taxi/takeoff

+4:25 to launch of first 530D

+0:34 to MiG-25 impact/destruction

 

Detail

 

08:00:00 Mission Start (04:00:00 UTC)

50 second taxi (RWY 27, Senaki)

10 second takeoff run

 

08:01:00 Airborne

450 kias/M 0.92 AB climb

 

08:04:27 Radar contact

08:04:31 TWS/PID Lock (53 NMI)

 

08:05:00 Top of climb (51,600 ft)

08:05:12 Drop center tank

 

08:05:25 Launch first 530D (27 NMI)

 

08:05:43 Launch 2nd 530D - unneeded ???

 

08:05:59 MiG-25 Hit by first 530D (pilot eject/kill)

 

08:06:07 MiG-25 Hit by second 530D (engine shutdown)

 

Tested DCS Open Beta 2.5.6.54046

M2K 530D Intercept Test MiG-25_63,000ft, Senaki, 2_5_6_54046, LastMissionTrack.trk

[ZHeN]

I wouldn't be surprised if after this thread they'd nerf 530D in DCS, so it wouldn't be able to hit further than 50 clicks :D

[Fri13]

You just insulted a guy that is known here for his knowledge and understanding of missiles and systems in general, not a smart move.

 

Insults (ad hominem) are not wanted, and you just made two ad hominem as well.

[Ramsay]

I wouldn't be surprised if after this thread they'd nerf 530D in DCS, so it wouldn't be able to hit further than 50 clicks :D

 

Max range is very dependant on the speed of the target aircraft, +50 km requires the target to fly both fast and directly towards you, if it's slower (M 1.0) or cranks, it'll easily defeat such long range speculative STT/PIC shots.

 

The only 'real' purpose of testing these 530D long range shots is to find out if DCS's behaviour is consistent with the available public info for the 530F.

 

To my uninformed eyes, DCS's figures are at least believable.

[Thinder]

I'm following the described 530F profile with a zoom climb (AB 450 kias / M 0.92) to 50,000 ft

 

So imagine Alert V having 3mn to stop a Mig-25 flying well within its flight envelop, at M 2.5/78.000ft before it is right above your airbase and that's for the interceptor version with 2 AAMs, not the recce variant...

 

This is the reason why the aerodynamic and motor of the Super 530 were optimized this way and cannot really be compared to US or Russian AAms.

 

In the case of AIM-7 and R-40, range and sustain motor time are more important than high acceleration, high Mach and High vertical difference between target and the platform.

 

They have airspace to play with, they would have a good warning, not 3mn, be able to climb for a much longer period of time, to target altitude and go supersonic, not the case of the 2000/530.

 

Alert 5 are generally conducted from hardened shelters close to the runway in use to gain time, but they still have to conduct an emergency start up.

 

In peace time they would be assigned to "police de l'Air" missions with one or two IR AAMs (Some F-1 squadrons used to fly them with only one to save IR seeker flight life span).

 

 

Correct, M-2000C was at 50,000 ft, MiG-25 was at 63,000 ft (~2,000 ft below it's max in DCS)

 

That's 0.83Mach and more than 13.000 ft below what the real target is capable of, so I don't think we would be able to explore the full potential of the super 530D IF it had been accurately modeled up to this altitude...

 

 

 

 

Not possible in DCS, MiG-25 max altitude is ~65,000 ft, M 2.5 was set but AI can only maintain M~2.0

 

So much for testing AAM firing envelops, and 13.000 ft vertical difference and still no M 5.0?...

 

I tried to test the Mirage 2000 flight envelop, it won't reach 60.000ft, I got a flame out at <> 54.000ft, that's something DCS might want to fix for accuracy.

 

 

Tested DCS Open Beta 2.5.6.54046

 

Right, I was wondering how you manage to have a firing range above 40 km because I never saw it going passed 40. I think Jojo tried as well on the same server than me, his best was 38 km...

 

 

I don't know if I can but I'm curious to try the Open Beta server...

 

 

>>>>>

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if after this thread they'd nerf 530D in DCS, so it wouldn't be able to hit further than 50 clicks

 

It's already been nerfed as is the Mirage 2000, their flight envelop are limited at least in term of altitude, not very nice when you think it is designed as an interceptor.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/customer-support/operational-aircraft/mirage-2000/

 

As for the Maximum firing range, in the server used for this test 2/3 km matters little, what really matter is the lack of performances of the target in both altitude and Mach which prevent us to test the AAM real capabilities.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Thinder

[ZHeN]

It's already been nerfed as is the Mirage 2000, their flight envelop are limited at least in term of altitude, not very nice when you think it is designed as an interceptor.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/customer-support/operational-aircraft/mirage-2000/

 

As for the Maximum firing range, in the server used for this test 2/3 km matters little, what really matter is the lack of performances of the target in both altitude and Mach which prevent us to test the AAM real capabilities.

you're saying 50km is the seeker limit IRL

 

in DCS Super 530D launched from 85km away kills a target

 

if you're calling this a nerf, then I have nothing else to say :doh: :D

[jojo]

you're saying 50km is the seeker limit IRL

 

in DCS Super 530D launched from 85km away kills a target

 

if you're calling this a nerf, then I have nothing else to say :doh: :D

 

That 50km limit isn't hard coded.

Super 530D is lock on before launch. So the range limit probably depends on target's RCS.

 

My best guess is that 50km/ 27Nm is probably for fighter size target.

 

The seeker antenna is smaller than RDI antenna, so it will lock at closer range.

[ZHeN]

85km is for a fighter size target, a big fighter though - Mig-31 ... RCS probably around 15-20m2

[jojo]

85km is for a fighter size target, a big fighter though - Mig-31 ... RCS probably around 15-20m2

 

You’re talking DCS, I was talking about the 50km maximum launch range quoted from the French DGA history article.

 

I don’t think that DCS handles different lock ranges for onboard radar and Fox 1 missiles...

[ZHeN]

I don’t think that DCS handles different lock ranges for onboard radar and Fox 1 missiles...

if you're talking difference between targets with different RCS, then of course it does

I can PIC A-50 at the range of 80nm now, but for TF-51 it's only 32nm

 

if you're talking difference between RDI lock and 530D's seeker lock - nah, it doesn't handle the difference ... I'm not even sure IRL there's any indication of 530D's seeker locked on target or not, same for R-27 or AIM-7

Edited September 2, 2020 by ZHeN

[GGTharos]

if you're talking difference between targets with different RCS, then of course it does

I can PIC A-50 at the range of 80nm now, but for TF-51 it's only 32nm

 

if you're talking difference between RDI lock and 530D's seeker lock - nah, it doesn't handle the difference ... I'm not even sure IRL there's any indication of 530D's seeker locked on target or not, same for R-27 or AIM-7

 

The AIM-7 has a DSR cue, the R-27 has a data-link.

It's possible that in practice unless the target RCS is very small, you can't shoot the 530 beyond its seeker range.

[ZHeN]

I don't think there's any way for a flanker pilot to tell if the launched missile is being radiocorrected or has already locked on a target with it's own seekerhead

Edited September 2, 2020 by ZHeN

[GGTharos]

You're right, but the system is designed in such a way that they don't need to...they just need to select he correct switch option of large/medium/small target.

[OpticFlow]

On 8/30/2020 at 2:04 PM, Thinder said:

>>>

 

 

 

There has been a terrific job done for the Mirage 2000 and it's weaponry so far but I know for a fact that the firing envelop and performances of the simulated Super 530D are closer to that of the F than the real thing.

 

 

Here are the reasons:

 

1) I served and handled weapons in AdlA and I know for a fact that all-public data are always "bunkered" in comparison to those available in Squadrons.

 

Some data were even classified AFTER service entry under supervision of DGA and Armed Forces Ministry (more severely so now), documents available then are no longer available after service entry, some made available to potential customer at Airshows are later deleted from public domain if they were leaked.

 

If the weaponry is still in service in any Air Force (as is the case for the Mirage III), all data remains classified as I did find out when I published the firing envelop for Mirage III/AIM-9 in an enthusiast website, the image was promptly taken out off the web, probably on the demands of the Pakistan Ministry of Defense.

 

In the case of the Super 530 serie, we have two different AAMs, both in weight, dimension and performances and as expected, the data for the D are still classified.

 

At the time MATRA were still advertising the 530 F, they disclosed this document.

 

 

The source (an active weapon specialist with AdlA) insisted that those data provided by MATRA were that of the F variant, and that there is no all-public data available for the D variant.

 

That's more or less the performances that we can expect from the actual Super 530D as we use it in the game, without the shot-down capabilities.

 

As I was alarmed by this, I tried to get some more information available to everyone (and not hearsay or even information from active members of AdlA), I bumped into this document:

 

 

Looking at his website, I can guaranty you that this person is very well informed, most of his sources are DGA archives and most probably in some case, documents obtained from members of the Centre des hautes études de l'armement.

 

Centre des hautes études de l'armement. Département d'histoire de l'armement. Comité pour l'histoire de l'aéronautique. Paris

COMAERO

https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb42381212q

 

Otherwise said an Official website for archive on the subject of French weaponry, the document needed for this article are not all-public.

 

 

>>>>>>

 

 

Later in this document we can read:

 

 

I'm not sure that the denomination 9 M means, I think it's a typo most likely, but we can't have much doubts about the M variant, here is why:

 

 

1) The AIM-7P is an improved AIM-7M, and AIM-7P missiles are built since 1987 by new production as well as conversion of existing AIM-7Ms.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html

The author provides the date 1987 and type M as clues, Matra Super 530D service entry date is 1988.

 

2) It is very unlikely that an Super 530 D would reach the 70 km range claimed for an AIM-7 M, but this range is the Max Aero range, at which the AAM no longer have sufficient energy to hit as maneuvering target.

French AAM manufacturers doesn't provide this range, mostly because the AAM have auto-destruct timers in the event they miss the target as is the case for the Super 530F/D.

This is the reasons why the author can claim that the AIM-7 M and Matra Super 530D were roughly equivalent in performances.

 

3) The 50 km Maximum firing range seems realistic in view of the 0.5 Mach velocity advantage for the F (40 km/30.000 ft vertical separation) and full 1.0 Mach for the D

Maximum firing range is the range at which the AAM can be fired.

 

 

 

So, OK, we now have (yet another) potential debate on the subject so I want to put a disclaimer so as to avoid unnecessary critics:

 

.This is not a dumb critic of the job already done by developers, having worked in the industry as a 3D artist, I can tell the high level of quality of the product they provided us for the price they asked for. Thumbs up!

 

.My goal is to try to contribute as much as I can to possible updates, I have plans to achieve that in the near future.

 

.Since we're not likely to see a Mk2/-5F variant with MICA AAMs, it is kind of justified to expect Mirage 2000C weaponry updated so as to minimize the gap existing between it and the competition.

 

.An updated Super 530D would help actual Mirage 2000C players in PvP.

 

 

Having said that, I'll let you to your opinions and comments, have a good time flying the Mirage!

 

 

......

 

 

Rejoice, the 530D has been improved in multiple aspects,

 

[Thinder]

7 hours ago, OpticFlow said:

 

Rejoice, the 530D has been improved in multiple aspects,

 

Thanks! It was better than previously simulated anyway, the old one had more to do with the F variant. Merry X-Mass and Happr New Year to all!

[Maverick Su-35S]

On 8/31/2020 at 3:31 PM, myHelljumper said:

To quote an older post analyzing a missile performance test :

 

 

 

What is incorrect here ?

He wants more...!

[Maverick Su-35S]

On 9/1/2020 at 11:13 PM, ZHeN said:

I wouldn't be surprised if after this thread they'd nerf 530D in DCS, so it wouldn't be able to hit further than 50 clicks

Exactly..., let's hope it won't lead to that worse direction, because I don't know if anyone here has thought about (maybe it had, I didn't read all of the replies here) pointing out that the range of the S530 missile is limited to an operational range of 50kms to a head on target for a given launch speed and altitude of the shooter and target simply because after X SECONDS the seeker loses target (either a SARH signal loss high probability or simply the seeker battery dies) and that's why it is only limited to that distance and NOT because it can't physically fly or keep the interception on the target beyond that range as if the drag would be that high that it can't reach further than that! Not few were the cases when during tests, the missile would keep flying with still acceptable speed/Mach remaining on it's trajectory very much far ahead of its "operational range". So yeah, if it COULD actually keep tracking it's target as far as it's aerodynamics allow to keep up with it, it would definitely do so!

Speaking of witch..., the thing is that even after the latest aero corrections updates (at least 1 or 2 years ago I suppose), most if not all of the AA missiles are still suffering from higher than expected drag in the low angles of attack area (0 to 5 AoA) while at high AoAs the drag is actually too low and the missile keeps it's speed in very tight turn like it's a glider. A simple and irrefutable proof to the too high drag at low AoAs can be shown in the following track where a draggy loaded J-11A while flying with engines shut down and with the airbrake fully deployed is still decelerating at a lower rate than a R-27 or R-77 (for the R-73 and R-60 it is much worse as those missiles are like airbrakes in the air after engine burn, even when flying at 0 AoA).

 

R-27 & R-77 too high drag.trk