This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Aviation: Rotorcraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

I think someone should add some content that draws a better distinction between these models. How much difference is there between a UH-72 and a EC145? Subsequently, what is the true leap to becoming an AAS-72X and AAS-72X+, respectively? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the confusion seems to be the poorer-quality sources that were uesd. I found 2 articles on FlightGlobal, which is generally accurate when it comes to reporting the details of aircraft types. See EADS, Lockheed launch technology demonstration for OH-58 replacement and EADS urges US Army to buy new scout helicopter. The main difference is that the AAS-72X uses the basic UH-72/EC145 aurframe with conventional tail rotor, while the AAS-72X+ uses the fenestron (fan-fin) of the EC145T2 model. There are photos of the demonstators of each type in the linked articles, and here also.

As to the difference between the commercial EC145 and the UH-72, as I understand it, there isn't much difference overall, other than the UH-72 is built in Mississippi, not Europe. The UH-72 is basically a civil off-the-shelf EC145 with US Army specified equipment such as radios, etc. It's not up to military standards such as survivability. It's mainly for US in the US only, and isn't expeceted to ever be used in combat. The AAS-72X/+, however, must be modified "to meet the army's military airworthiness specifications." Not to mention armament, combat avionics, etc. - BilCat (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good info, problem is what are the specifics of the military airworthiness requirements? These could be just FAA requirements being accepted by the military. Now I know some things being looked at, but we have to present published info. Here's is a 72X+ brochure [1] --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for some PD photos of the UH-72B online, but haven't found any so far. We need at least one good photo of it that shows the whole aircraft with the fenestron. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, someone uploaded some with name "UH-72 Bravo" on commons. There is so many UH-72 photos, I suspect the B model with its different configuration will take time to trickle in as it enters service more commonly. A75 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]