Unfinished prototype flew by the airforce for a official program.
The plane with functioning prototype is your best counterargument?
Im all for it, I wonder how deep will you dig your hole.
The AAS-72X was tested. Just not chosen. No different than your argument. As I said the airframe was ALREADY in service with the Army. The EADS North America team (Lockheed Martin , Eurocopter and American Eurocopter) fully tested the platform…It was fully tested. Read up on it. It wasn’t chosen. That doesn’t mean it never existed. We aren’t going to agree…so I’m done arguing with you. Do your own research. You are bringing the EXACT same argument. Period. Have a good day bro. Happy playing…
It should be easy for you to prove that then.
Assumed it was actually tested, you would be right. But you have yet to prove that.
UNARMED utility UH-72 was. Not AAX-72X.
Nothing like admiting defeat.
I will, and you know what? AAS-72X wont be added anytime soon.
It’s not admitting defeat, it’s not arguing with a rock. I could admit there’s no operational AAS-72X in the military. I can also admit there’s no operational Yak-141 that made it to active service. But there’s evidence of both aircraft being tested. The difference is the Uh-72 Lakota is an active airframe that was used to test the gunship version. The UH-72 Lakota is still active today. The Yak-141 air frame has NEVER been in active service yet it’s in the game. You are wanting me to prove that the gunship version existed, just like I want you to prove that a Yak-141 operational version existed in the military. You can’t. It’s not very hard to understand. I have nothing to prove. I could care less if it’s added. It was a question to the devs. Are you a Dev? No… Therefore, you can’t answer the question. This is like a dog chasing its tail…
If the AAS-72X never made it to even the state a prototype was even starting to be assembled, it fails even the lowest of requirements of Gaijins rules of what vehicles should or should not be added. To make a direct comparison of what you are asking, you are trying to make the same sort of argument people have made to add the Montana class battleships because they were ordered (but never even laid down or had any dedicated parts made) but were canceled before work even started, all because they share parts and equipment such as on the Iowa class, however what is required it to be eligible to add is if say a single 16 inch gun may have been made that wasn’t built with the intention of being on an Iowa or a spare barrel for an Iowa, but was one meant to go straight towards a Montana, however due to the fact nothing that was made for a Montana by the time of cancelation is the reason the Montana class isn’t eligible to be added in the current set rules by Gaijin. The reason the Yak-141 is allowed is because while it wasn’t armed it actually existed, they aren’t going to just add a vehicle which never made it to the prototype stage even if it’s a vehicle based off something that is real and in active service with even the country in question.
There were three prototypes that were built and tested by EADS.
That’s not the american military tho. So it’s irrelevant
If the US is to get an armed UH-72 then surely the AAS-72X is the one to add rather than weaponising the UH-72A/B (unless someone can dig out pics of the being armed of course).
AAX-72X - definitely existed.
No trees should get foreign machines that were only tested unless there is a gap that must be filled.
Looking into it (sort of) briefly, while Army Tech does mention 3 airframes it does so when mentioning the AAS-72X+ however I am not exactly sure where that information comes from, because while I do agree based off what I could confirm separately, the AAS-72X existed however based on the photo evidence of that the site uses, yes N940AE does exist and it was an AAS-72X however one things of note, N940AE appears to in fact be the only AAS-72X, as not only is it odd that they only used photos of one airframe, but looking at another site where it’s actually possible to not only search up the airframe but track some of its ownership, and from what it list there was only a single AAS-72X.
Eurocopter AAS-72X · Helis
N488LF AAS-72X Geisinger Health (C/N 9377) – Flight History and Last Known Location · Helis
From what I can say, it could be added (this is nothing to say if I think it should or should not be added) however I would recommend making a suggestion for it instead of simply asking for it because while it is from the same family of helicopters as the H145M we are getting, if you were hoping to see a H145 added to the US which has the same missiles as the German one, yeah I wouldn’t get your hopes up especially since the H145M Germany is getting came after the program AAS-72X was built to compete in was canceled, and based on what I could find the AAS-72X only was ever equipped with rocket pods and gun pods. Personally, speaking without further in-depth research I would argue the AAS-72X actually got far enough into the prototype phase compared to the Yak 141 it may not leave as much room for creative interpretation of what it could or couldn’t use because it was armed. Also, before you call back to the image of a H145 posted before which is armed with atgm’s, as far as I can tell that is not the AAS-72X given the nose is different from all the photos of N940AE not to mention trying to reverse search it leads to an article that doesn’t even claim that one is the AAS-72X so as far as I can care it’s a H145 for another country.
If you do want to make a suggestion still about it that’s up to you, but I would not rely on Army Technology as definitive a reliable source based on information which appear to be incorrect.
Edit: After looking further, it seems more likely the AAS-72X indeed was never built, but that N940AE is in fact an AAS-72X+.
just to add, if im reading this right, N940AE was EC145 helicopter registered from 2014 to 2017, as civilian helicopter, not army UH-72 Lakota.
Needless to say I dont see the link.
It flew and was tested by soviet airforce tho.
Lakota being in active service isnt proof of AAS-72X existing.
Okay? Once again, just because Lakota is in active service it is not proof of AAS-72X existence.
Yak-141 not only existed, flew and was tested by soviet airforce.
I geniunely dont understand what your deal is, but we know for fact that Yak-141 existed and flew. See the vid:
You have yet to provide single proof of AAS-72X existing beyond your wishes. I dare you to provide similiar video of AAS-72X.
On the contrary, you claim AAS-72X, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.
I find hard to believe youre malding with rage because people dared to oppose your idea.
Buddy you fail to present an argument that will convince random user, what makes you think it will convince gaijin?
The EADS AAS-72X, Bell OH-58F Block II, Boeing AH-6i, MD Helicopters MD 540F Agusta Westland AW169 AAS, and Sikorsky S-97 Raider were all trying to get the contract to replace the Kiowa. The Sikorsky Raider was a paper entry. And from my reading the AAS-72x was leading the group on all the test the Army required up until the program was canceled. So I would say it’s just as probable to be put in the game at some point. I’m not sure on why you have such a hard on to prove me wrong. The aircraft was made, tested, and the program was canceled. The Yak-141 was made, tested, and then canceled. What is the difference between the two? And the connection with UH-72 is, the AAS-72X was a highly modified version of that aircraft which is currently flying and and in active service, unlike the Yak-141. Do I expect them to put it in the game? No. Could it be put in the game in the future? Possibly… That was my question. My question wasn’t, is it going to be added to the US tech tree this next update? My question was could the US get this version of the helicopter added to the US tech tree. And maybe I should have been more clear with that in my original post.
I never claimed it was a UH-72 to begin with. Also, I should make a slight correction, and I can’t believe it, but I actually took a peek at Wikipedia which might actually be a more reliable source (it at least makes things potentially clearer), since in the UH-72’s wiki page which does have citations, and if what it says is true, you are mostly correct.
Now if assuming what it states is in fact accurate (I suspect it’s at least more trustworthy than Army Tech) N940AE is indeed not a UH-72 and is a EC145, in this case it should be based off the EC-145T2 as even its registration does indeed suggest it is a EC145 (This is something I had seen already by the time of my previous comment, and the only reason include this is to make the point clear I never claimed N940AE was a UH-72), now the real kicker is that N940AE is not in fact the AAS-72X, it appear to in fact be the AAS-72X+, so you were more or less correct, the AAS-72X itself never was made even as a prototype, but what did make it would be the AAS-72X+, and if I had to guess they had the AAS-72X as an alternative cheaper option or something and decided for the competition to build a prototype/testbed/demonstrator of the AAS-72X+ to also stand in for the AAS-72X.
Could? Maybe.
Will it? Probably not.
Your silence speaks volumes. You are so argumentative with everyone on this forum. Even over a simple question. Find some joy in your life my friend. Happy Gaming…
I have life outside of this forum and I merely didnt have time to sit down and respond properly. Dont worry, response is coming.
1 Like
Thats clearly N940AE, originally an EC145 which was modified into a technical demonstrator for what they were proposing as AAS-72X entry.
Correct, trying.
So i actually had to go out of my way and did your job for you.
There was a flight demonstration, but the aircraft used for it was N940AE (the same shown in video), ir wasnt an actual AAS-72X prototype built for the US Army.
And the purpose of those flights is also kinda important here. It wasnt a competition where Army was testing prototypes to decide which one theyre going to buy.
Maj. Gen. Tim Crosby, who was responsible for Army aviation acquisition at the time, specifically described it as:
“not a fly-off, not a source selection.”
The point was basically to see what industry could actually offer at that time and use those results to further refine the AoA and requirements for AAX, saying that US Army “tested the AAS-72X” makes it sound like the program got much further than it actually did.
It wasnt tested as actual armed aerial scout entry.
Im tired how people jsut come to forums to spout bs without evidence and then be angry when they get called out on it. If you cant stand behind your point, its a bad point.
Explained above.
Yak existed.
Explained above, N940AE wasnt AAS-72X nor UH-72.