Register here

Author Topic: Lockheed Axe  (Read 10619 times)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7147
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2012, 01:53:07 am »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 393
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2012, 09:18:44 am »
Quellish, ..am glade you prompted folks and now have many responses. The Axe is not an extremely important issue to discuss in this forum.. although ..am glade so much has been posted.

This Axe is overkill for addressing a 'boutique' proliferator in the proliferated world and the Axe is a likely a mismatch for dealing w/ 21st century peer competetior . Likewise, some form of it might well be 'still on ice' somewhere anyway.

There were few responses to the military industrial issues mentioned in the NexGen Bomber thread.  Even the F-35 is still potentially under the 'axe' as we still do not have anywhere near a sustainable military industrial policy. The person who mentioned the cost of a B-2 in the NGB thread understands folks like Norman Augustine, who served president of LockMart upon its formation as well as a Assistant Director of Defense Research and Engineering.  A sustainable military industrial policy is an important issue to be discussed in most threads dealing w/ future threats as well as existing and emerging systems. sorry for so 'heavy' but advancement itself needs some cognition.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2012, 09:37:07 am »
. . . the Axe is a likely a mismatch for dealing w/ 21st century peer competitor.

Actually, it seems to me that air- and sea-launched versions of this might be just what the Navy needs.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 393
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2012, 10:23:04 am »
From Flateric's post "The total weight of the vehicle is given by Lockheed as being 58,000 lbs."
..looks like B-52 only for exactly what?

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1680
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2012, 07:38:20 pm »
...
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA234977

" Three TBMs proposed for air base attack were the conventional attack missile (CAM-40) based on the Pershing missile with a 1,200-pound payload of kinetic energy runway penetrators (KERP), the ballistic offensive sup- pression system (BOSS) also known as AXE, based on the Trident with a 13,970-pound payload of conventional airfield defeat munitions (CADM), and the total air base attack system (TABAS) with a 25-metric-ton payload 3 9"

(reference is
  N. F. Wlkner. "Interdicting Fixed Targets with Conventional Weapons." Armed Forces JournalInternational,March I983)    

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 393
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2012, 06:49:36 am »
Ballistic missiles start nuke exchanges thus the controversy which hopefully the Congress will continue to remind folks of. ..beleive a discussion of MARVs is not relevant here. Whether the range is 350miles or 5,000km the speed it travels will expend the vehicle's energy quite rapidly thus preventing the vehicle from reacting to widely dispersed, fleeting targets likely to be encountered w/ a 21st century peer-competitior.  Concentrated airfields and armoured formations which typlified the Warsaw Pact scenario are no longer relevant.  Individual airfields are better dealt w/ utilizing single weapons from an NGB or even from a fighter while individual widely dispersed HVTs would be better dealt w/  high speed single weapons. Huge hypersonics which can only be carrier by B-52s and might well be defeated by S-5/400 and not economically deal w/ transient targets over long periods make no sense.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5392
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2012, 07:09:32 am »
Ballistic missiles start nuke exchanges thus the controversy which hopefully the Congress will continue to remind folks of. ..

Really?  How many "nuke exchanges" have ballistic missiles started thus far? 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 393
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2012, 07:37:19 am »
from bobbymike:
From Defense News:

Conventional ICBM Still an Option: Schwartz
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 2 Mar 2011 17:25

Is the U.S. Air Force considering a conventionally tipped ICBM or not?

This morning, the service's top uniformed officer said yes - that such a missile, along with a hypersonic glider, were options for the service's Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) portion of its nascent Long Range Strike (LRS) family of systems. "We don't know yet. The less challenging solution to that demand signal clearly is a conventional ICBM application or [Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile]. There are complications with that, which are pretty self-evident," Gen. Norton Schwartz said at a March 2 conference hosted by Credit Suisse. "The hypervelocity test vehicle is another potential solution, which is much less mature obviously. We have another test coming up. We'll see how that one goes." Schwartz said the Air Force would focus on the long-range stealth bomber and stand-off cruise missile as part of an integrated family meant to defeat anti-access and area-denial threats. His comments came one day after Air Force science and technology director Stephen Walker told a Congressional hearing that a conventionally tipped ICBM was indeed an option.

But that followed conflicting statements by other Air Force generals. On Feb. 26, Maj. Gen. David Scott, who directs the Air Force's operational requirements, said, "We have no plans for conventionally armed sea-based missiles such as Conventional Trident Modification or conventionally armed ICBMs. Our focus is on boost-glide capabilities, including the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle concept." That followed a Feb. 17 interview in which Scott said, "Conventional Prompt Global Strike, which is the conventional Trident missile and it's the conventional strike missile; it's the things that we in the Air Force are working very closely with, with the hypersonic test vehicle that you've seen in the newspapers." At the Feb. 17 Air Force Association convention in Orlando, Fla., service vice chief Gen. Philip Breedlove had also said that a conventionally tipped missile such as a modified Trident was under consideration.

Analysts have called conventionally tipped ICBMs potentially very dangerous because it could be mistaken for a nuclear attack by other powers. "It's very expensive, and it's potentially very dangerous," said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate title of my last two posts, "Air Force Seeks to Confuse Everyone About Prompt Global Strike Plans".  :D
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus DARPA's Arclight project - Standard Missile converted to surface to surface range 2000 km

The ArcLight program will demonstrate the capability to engage tactical, long range, time critical threats. The goal of ArcLight is to design, build and flight test a boost/glide vehicle capable of carrying a 100-200 pound payload over a 2,000 nautical miles range in approximately 30 minutes. The operational version of the boost/glide vehicle will be launched from a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) compatible booster stack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like the US to convert a helicopter carriers large deck space to carry hundreds of Arclight missiles (or even a larger missile like ATK's Forward Based Conventional Strike missile) along with possibly hundreds of missiles for air defense.    Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 10:14:29 am by bobbymike

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 393
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2012, 08:03:34 am »
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=72445

Also sferrin I might refer you to your own previous posting on another site. Standard class ballistic missiles are not as large as the AXE would likely not be confused for large, high apogee ballistic missiles as well as being alot more effective and economical.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5392
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2012, 09:30:48 am »
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=72445

Also sferrin I might refer you to your own previous posting on another site. Standard class ballistic missiles are not as large as the AXE would likely not be confused for large, high apogee ballistic missiles as well as being alot more effective and economical.

Everything in that thread has been cancelled.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1680
  • I am not actually here.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1680
  • I am not actually here.
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2013, 02:52:00 pm »
To be clear:
The vehicle in the first post, shown at top above the CONOPS diagram of a runway defeat mission for AXE does not appear at all the be AXE (the two images appeared together in Lockheed Horizons). This is an air launched hypersonic glide vehicle, while AXE/BOSS was a ballistic submunition bus launched from a modified Trident booster. AXE/BOSS is actually pictured in the diagram as well as flateric's post.

The hypersonic glide vehicle is not related to AXE/BOSS.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 3091
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2013, 07:31:39 pm »
On a concept of operations note the US should move to develop a full range of IRBM (cut lose of the INF Treaty) to be based on land, in the air and at sea both on surface ships and submarines. Some of them large enough to boast very large payloads for airfield defeat missions. Imagine 25k lbs of tungsten rods slamming into an airbase or nuclear research facility at Mach 15.
 
 
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. 
H. L. Mencken

Offline Meteorit

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 414
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2013, 02:30:19 pm »
The hypersonic glide vehicle is not related to AXE/BOSS.

HAVE SPACE?
 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 3091
Re: Lockheed Axe
« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2013, 05:09:31 pm »
The hypersonic glide vehicle is not related to AXE/BOSS.

HAVE SPACE?
 

Is your site down? I can't log into the Soviet missiles of the 80's thread. You said you were doing an update is that in the works?
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. 
H. L. Mencken