@PhantomBoltSP ??????

RMZ tells me that Mitchell6137 is a RMZSP's Second User before i was created my user

@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 I have to admit, this is true. So at most, I only acknowledge B0B and do not acknowledge other aircraft using this mechanism.

@JSTQ well yes, however, the big difference why, the ft missiles are a side effect of the limits of SP, the other is intentionally used as a sort of jamming

@JSTQ Precisely. Granted, the LF-5s could fix this issue provided that they don't get shot down by the SPAAs first, or it could fly at night when it would be somewhat harder to see without night/infrared vision.

@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 Practice in a dogfight and directly determine the opponent's victory
since that’s effectively what it is
Let me introduce another one to you - because FT missiles have a lot of parts, after all of them are launched, the same situation may occur due to the loss of too many parts. Please also think that I have initiated interference.

@TheUltimatePlaneLover I remember a question. According to your statement, only he can be immune locked in... but that was a bomber, wouldn't it have been brutally attacked by air superiority as soon as it entered?

@JSTQ just treat it as jamming, since that’s effectively what it is

@JSTQ Oh ok
Well then I better brace my iPad to do some heavy naval content

@TheUltimatePlaneLover Um... ok. Anyway, I am not the only one with revolutionary anti-aircraft vehicles, and others can also provide manual anti-aircraft vehicles. Moreover, we lack a navy, and a naval blockade would be the best way to counter us, as torpedo attacks are not as efficient.
In fact, when it was designed, it was intended for you to have the navy as the main force in the first stage of combat. And in the second phase of the war, APLA had a debuff called Supply Difficulty, so there was still room for you to operate.

@JSTQ Trust me I've tried pistons, they rarely work. If it's stable you'll have too little range, and if the range is anywhat decent it will be unstable. Plus it's unreliable, you'll normally get hit by the missile anyways.
Plus, the feature in concept may not be exclusive to the B-0B, but in current reality it is. There is no other aircraft in the entire CSV which uses such feature, and I didn't plan on using it on any more aircraft except maybe a replacement for the B-0B.
And we gotta have something here mate. You guys have FT missiles and torpedoes, neither of which can be tracked via radar (to my knowledge), and like I said the SBS is literally unstoppable when moving. We need some edge or else the Reformists would just completely take over the world at that rate, less of a war and more of a takeover.

@TheUltimatePlaneLover But this is very foolish because this feature is not exclusive to this aircraft. As long as you are willing, all aircraft can be equipped with this design. This is called cheating. There is only one radar interference, with this thing, I will directly demonstrate how to use the P-51 to shoot down the J-20
Even if you keep moving a piston and say it's radar interference, I admit it… may.

@JSTQ
1. I wouldn't know actually... whether it be my personal preference for quick and intense air combat or simply having little familiarity with most tanks and therefore less motivation to play ground, I'm strictly an air player, I've only played real ground and naval battles once. I've test-driven several tanks, but none of which were SPAAs.
2. Technically it's not invisibility, just radar-invisibility. The naked eye and normal sight devices can still see it with little to no obstructions except maybe at night, so anyone willing to fight the old-fashioned way will actually have no problem with the B-0B (its performance is mid, and its current loadout is little different. Its radar-killer being the only true advantage of it)

@TheUltimatePlaneLover When you play War Thunder, you can't attack while the anti-aircraft vehicle is moving, can you?
As for your invisibility... I should have complained about the design of this deceptive game system a few months ago. It's all cheating. It's directly judged that the unit is killed according to the game.

@JSTQ @MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26
I tested it with the engine so that's probably why literally everything I tried got pummeled, but logically in combat it would have an engine, so removing it, at least if we want to play realistically, is out of the question.
As for stealth, trust me, conventional stealth will not save us. I'm talkin' like B-0B stealth, maybe even something greater.

@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 Indeed, the accuracy of fire control radar may not be that high. However, this still makes sense as stealth fighters have a stealth failure burn through distance when approaching radar, and anti stealth technology can increase this.
However, this does not allow our air defense units to directly attack stealth fighter jets that launch missiles from a long distance. At most, they can only intercept missiles and transfer them.
However, if we have to insist... As an FT missile, ZG-6A does not require locking, only detection is needed. (Only exists in the game)
Ultimately, the best approach is to equip our stealth fighter jets with second-generation FT missiles for combat. But that will take some time, because one of them has not participated in the war (ETSF is not equipped with fighter jets), and the other is still in the laboratory.

@JSTQ detecting and locking a stealth plane are different

@TheUltimatePlaneLover The vast majority of MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 aircraft have stealth characteristics, unless they have weapons attached externally
But we also have stealth fighter jets, so we have the ability to detect stealth fighter jets because we know how to design them
Then I don't know how you tested it, but one thing needs to be clear, which is that the SBS-2B used by AI is mobile and has a significant impact on its attack accuracy. It is best to remove its engine during testing

@MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26 Naw we did decently in M-War I, the air was dominated and their ground resistance was aight but not great (the IS-3 carried tbh). And of course, their navy was incredible.
This time will be different. They've got much better aerial combat fighters, and @JSTQ's SBS AA tank is literally unsurvivable unless you have stealth (trust me I tried, all of our M-War II fighters got backhanded by that thing, even the tanks. I didn't try navy but it would probably kill them too. The A-40D survived but at the cost of my game, which crashed when the two were spawned it at the same time. Heck, I'm not even sure if it would survive the Anti OP/Meme Treaty at this rate, only the B-0B can elude the SBS).

@TheUltimatePlaneLover ya ik, it'll be like the OG M-war

@Karroc9522 @MIGFOXHOUND31BSM26
Yep lol

Also not related but be careful, the Reformists won't just be a big bad to topple like other forces we've fought, they're gonna strike back. Just got word that one of the Reformist's worst pilots has already claimed 6 kills in a Mu-19.

@Karroc9522 always has been, although this time I was actually busy

@TheUltimatePlaneLover your official new job
tagging everyone cuz we all hate doing it
lol

@B1BLancer yes

F22 reference?

“You really ought to go home now…”

Average American-Iranian jet encounter.