you should never ever use AI as a replacement for doing actual research because it likes to hallucinate to appease you What Are AI Hallucinations? | IBM
it tries to not give you a direct answer so it cannot be considered to be wrong asking ai on anything that isnt able to be know on a surface level is not a good idea because they often get details wrong
for example:
the Nite Hawk isnt the AN/AAQ-25 but the AN/AAS-38
why would you test the 9x on the F-14D in an active warzone?
that just dosent make any sense
test always happen in safty and not in an active war zone, simply because something could go wrong
imagine the F-14D has to engage someone but his missiles he carries, for testing, wont fire.
This can result in the loss of an Airframe and potentially the pilots.
AI does not replace research as (I hope) made clear
I mostly trying to find sources…
Well, clearly a pilot has said it in the open… but it’s not a source.
It doesn’t give… the answers roam around classified.
it is not that i dont belive the F-14D carried the 9x, i just wanted to show you that you shouldnt take a response from AI as fact because they often get stuff wrong
Reminds me of the AI response for “how many USB ports does my motherboard have” that used to tell people to “keep themselves safe” until google personally went and nuked that.
“AI”, or rather more accurately, Spicy autocorrect is a terrible source and an even worse researcher.
I know this is a meme, but people don’t understand that the F-14 wasn’t as spin-happy as people made it out to be. The airframe itself is very stable like the F-15. However, when you mix asymmetrical thrust into the mix, things change. High AOA, low speed, departing from flight maneuvers were soft spots, but still controllable. It’s when the thrust is cut from one of those spread apart engines that yaws the aircraft into a spin. Besides that, the lifting body made it great for that type of maneuvering.
