Lockheed Axe

[Michel Van]

from this homepage
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Assault-Breaker.html

Lockheed Axe is conceptually similar to CAM, but uses a new winged armoured re-entry vehicle to attack not one but several airfields, coasting at high supersonic speeds along a preprogrammed flattish trajectory. As is very apparent, this family of weapons possesses all of the attributes of nuclear first strike weapons, aside from the political disadvantages associated with the use of tactical nukes.

The conceptual approach used in these counter-air systems is also common to the emerging family of anti-armour weapons. These were physically demonstrated in the Assault Breaker weapons program, which served to prove the feasibility of the mass deployment and use of standoff anti-armour systems.

 

[quellish]

This is still one of the most significant posts on the forum. Yet no comments!

The Lockheed AXE was neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire. Discuss.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

This is still one of the most significant posts on the forum. Yet no comments!

The Lockheed AXE was neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire. Discuss.

Have seen this same image tagged [somewhere] as being the Lockheed HGV, no?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

It's on Andreas Parsch's website. Here:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hgv.html

 

[quellish]

Have seen this same image tagged [somewhere] as being the Lockheed HGV, no?

It's appeared in several places. The image and AXE reference were originally in an issue of Lockheed Horizons, apparently from the early 1980s (though I have not seen the issue).
The AXE RV and HGV (BGV?) are supposedly essentially the same, but the boosters are very different. AXE was a concept for runway denial, ground launched, while the HGV was air launched. Different boosters but basically the same vehicle.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

It's on Andreas Parsch's website. Here:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hgv.html

Ah yes, I see the image is credited to "Image: via Stéphane Cochin, Stratosphere Models". I believe that is forum member Desert Dawn?.

In 2002 he posted [under the name Fuel Fraction] some information on HGV, AXE, CADM and a BOSS on DLR. Andreas Parsch was also involved in the dicussion.

There's quite a bit of it, but the original source is not clear [and so given another discussion ongoing at the moment I won't bother posting it! ;D ].

 

[Tuomasn]

Top view of AXE is reproduced in the first post, but does anyone have an idea what it is supposed to look like from the side or front?

 

[mz]

Excuse me, why is this better than a ballistic missile? Parsch says the low trajectory makes it only detectable at the last minute. Is this so?
Mach 5 is about 2 km/s. Coming in at 30 km height, it's visible at the target from 3000 km away (assuming the radar is at ground level and not on a hill or tower). That's 1500 seconds or let's say half an hour. Is there an advantage?

 

[Yellow Palace]

It can (at least in theory) manoeuvre, which makes the intercept problem much harder than for a ballistic missile. 100,000 feet/Mach 5 is also well out of the realistic* engagement envelope for any SAM on the planet today, making an HGV almost impossible to kill.

*S-300/S-400 are theoretically capable of doing the deed, but only if they're in exactly the right spot and if everything is working. The first condition is unlikely and the second far from guaranteed.

 

[flateric]

The image and AXE reference were originally in an issue of Lockheed Horizons, apparently from the early 1980s (though I have not seen the issue).

Recently got this one (Number 12), stay tuned! Lockheed called it BOSS (Ballistic Offensive Supression System) - a large surface to surface missile, carrying 18,000-lb payload consisting of Clustered Airfield Defeat Munition (CADM) sibmunition and dispensing system at 350 nautical miles range. In its turn, USAF called concept AXE. Concept is from 1979, and would become operational, as planned, in 1985.

 

[flateric]

from http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/4987.html

Message posted by Fuel fraction (= Stephane aka DesertDown here) on April 24, 2002 at 19:54:45 PST:

The Lockheed HGV is also known as AXE.

The system was used to dispense a cluster of non-nuclear submunitions over a target (exemple, an airfield). Vehicule was listed as being 45 feet long (my calculation of the dimensions of HGV based on the X-15 pylon make it more accurate, at 45.96 ').
The total weight of the vehicule is given by Lockheed as being 58,000 lbs.

I quote:
-Clustered Airfield Defeat Munition (CADM), CADM is a submunition and dispensing system that can disable airfield runaways and destroy bunkers ane buried stores. It was successfully demonstrated to the Air Force Armament Laboratory in 1978. One version of the CADM weapon consist of 36 simple kinetic-energy penetrators containing high explosives which are ejected from an LMSC-developed explosive dispensing device. This controlled pattern of submunitions penetrates runaways and detonates under the surfaces at optimum damaage depth, producing effective cratering to make the runaway unusable.
Each submunition can penetrate 12 inches of reinforced concrete; penetration sets off a six pound explosive charge which blows a large hole in the runway. One submunition is capable of tearing up a 12,000 lbs slab of concrete; with 36 submunitions in each CADM assembly, the weapons has formidable destructive capability.

-Ballistic Offensive Suppression System (BOSS).
An ongoing effort begun in 1979 is the definition of a BOSS to deliver large quantities of penetrator munitions against ennemy airfields. The system uses a large surface-to-surface missile with a CADM warhead to destroy runaways. Each missile could deliver an 18,000 lbs payload to a distance of 350 nautical miles. One BOSS could inflict 200 to 300 craters in a runaway. The all-weather BOSS, using existing technology and hardware, could be operational in the mid-1980's. The Air Force now calls this weapon concept AXE.
(that was dated Spring 1980).

(on the drawing, we see the HGV/small booster configuration, obviously, this is the version carried by the B-52 bomber, contradicting a bit the text. But, the range given by the text also contrasts witht the range that was given Wolfbane as being 5,000 miles (350 nautical miles here in my document).

I also recently found another proof that the vehicule was flown, as i found someone who worked on this program.

Steve

This is almost exact quotation from Lockheed Horizons, but I better will scan this page from magazine for forum members reference, plus it has slightly better quality BOSS/AXE planform view drawing.

There are some more interesting stuff there http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/4985.html

 

[flateric]

ADVANCED TACTICAL SYSTEMS

Advanced Tactical Systems was organized in 1969 to develop systems and subsystems to be employed against targets in the battle area. Some examples of the technologies and demonstration programs pursued are the following:

— Radiometric Area Correlation Guidance (RACG). LMSC has been investigating RACG technology and systems since 1965. Sponsored by the Air Force on a number of contracts, successful flight tests have been conducted covering a wide spectrum of terrain, altitudes, and weather conditions.
The system has a variety of terminal guidance and navigation features. It is a passive, adverse weather, day or night, fix-taking system which precisely updates a low-cost missile inertial unit. Its radiometer detects relative energies emitted naturally by common materials in a scene. Its correlator compares temperature with reference maps stored in a digital memory, and then updates the inertial system, thus refining accuracy as the aircraft or guided missile approaches its preplanned target.

— Clustered Airfield Defeat Munition (CADM). СADM is a submunition and dispensing system that can disable airfield runways and destroy bunkers and buried stores. It was successfully demonstrated to the Air Force Armament Laboratory in 1978. One version of the CADM weapon consists of 36 simple kinetic-energy penetrators containing high explosives which are ejected from an LMSC-developed explosive dispens-
ing device. This controlled pattern oi submunitions penetrates runways and detonates under their surfaces at optimum damage depth, producing effective cratering to make the runway unusable.
Each submunition can penetrate 12 inches of reinforced concrete; penetration sets off a six-pound explosive charge which blows a large hole in to runway. One submunition is capable of tearing up a 12,000-lb slab of concrete with 36 submunitions in each CADM assembly, the weapon has formidable destructive capability.

— Ballistic Offensive Suppression System (BOSS). An ongoing effort begun in 1979 is the definition of a BOSS to deliver large quantities ol penetrator munitions against enemy airfields. The system uses a large surface-to-surface missile with a CADM warhead to destroy runways. Each missile could deliver an 18,000-lb pay-load to a distance of 350 nautical miles. One BOSS could inflict 200 to 300 craters in a runway. The all-weather BOSS, using existing technology and hardware, could be operational in the mid-1980s. The Air Force now calls this weapon concept AXE.

 

[quellish]

Unfortunately, this is not in the public domain, and I do not yet have enough information to make a complete FOIA request for it:

R.D. Neal and C.L. Bohn, “NATO Surface to Surface Missile Study: Ballistic Offensive Suppression System (BOSS) Utility Study”, DASSR801, Directorate of Aerospace Studies, Kirtland AFB, NM, Jan 1980.

 

[Clioman]

To identify Flateric's helpful post more fully, Lockheed Horizons issue no. 12 is described as a special 'History of Lockheed' issue, and the introduction page is dated June 7, 1983. The text and image are on p. 116; this is included in the section on Lockheed Missile and Space Corporation's Advanced Systems Division. The Division was also involved in the exoatmospheric Homing Overlay Experment program (1979-83), and it received a contract in 1981 for the Talon Gold orbital acquisition, pointing and tracking experiment.

 

[quellish]

"The "futuristics" issue consisted of two parts: The first of these dealt with the "hypersonic boost glide vehicle" and whether it could be used for INF weapons. "The what?" was the first reaction by the INF negotiating team. None had ever heard of the system until it
was identified inthe American Enterprise Institute study. After substantial probing, the system was identified and isolated as essentially a theoretical concept still on the drawing board. A hybrid system designed for strategic ranges, itwould have as one portion of its flight path a ballistic launch and the remainder a nonballistic, unpowered "glide" to target. Was this system covered by the INF Treaty? The Administration chose to duck, avoiding a "yes" or "no" and providing a response that said a system would be covered if it met the four treaty criteria of range (500-5500 km), weapon delivery, ground-launched, and cruise or ballistic missile. Although grumbling, the SASC
ultimately set this point aside." (this was during 1985)

 

[flateric]

...

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[GeorgeA]

. . . 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.

 

[jsport]

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?

 

[quellish]

...

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)

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[Sferrin]

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?

 

[jsport]

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".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 »

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[Sferrin]

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.

 

[quellish]

Report on CADM sled tests:
http://books.google.com/books?id=WGnbtgAACAAJ&dq=airfield+submunition&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BPCIT6mkGKasiQKZ4JXwCw&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCQ

 

[quellish]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[Tuomasn]

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

HAVE SPACE?

 

[bobbymike]

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?

 

[Tuomasn]

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?

I changed my ISP and the site went along. Haven't gotten around to an update either, too much other work. I'll try get the site back up somewhere sometime.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Hi All -

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hypersonic-Glide-Vehicle-concept-model-NASA-USAF/181191047900?_trksid=p2045573.m2102&_trkparms=aid%3D555012%26algo%3DPW.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D298%26meid%3D406369860929827025%26pid%3D100034%26prg%3D1079%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D8%26sd%3D350850879801%26

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[GeorgeA]

Interesting shape, almost like a lengthened ASSET. Wonder when it was built.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

The commentary on the Ebay page is interesting.

 

[aim9xray]

Might as well preserve the commentary here, I don't know when the page will be deleted.

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]This unusual model was built by GE for NASA/USAF. GE was a manufacturer of many of the exotic materials used on the Hypersonic Glide Vehicle designs. A friend of mine, Gene Young, who was a model maker told me that it was related to the "Aurora" vehicles. He built several models for Lockheed and was given many jobs by them to build their models. Gene passed away in 2011 so I have no way of confirming this.

On Aug-09-13 at 14:59:07 PDT, seller added the following information:

I added a few more pics, also the length of the model is about 14" nose to tail. That would make the model about 1/40th scale. I found a pic some time ago that is of an AF vehicle that is very close in design to this model, I think it was also a HGV concept. From what Gene told me, Lockheed was ready to roll out this vehicle, but then Iraq invaded Q8 and it was decided not to reveal the system. He said it never landed, it was an airborne drop/capture system. Also the "Aurora" was not just one vehicle, it was several vehicles under one program, but again this is from Gene who passed in 2011, but for those who knew him, he worked closely with the model shops of several of the Aerospace companies during the 70's,80's and 90's.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/font]

 

[quellish]

Related:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3721.0.html

 

[quellish]

HAVE SPACE?

Yes and no. I have never seen an official document with that name. However, the thing(s) people tend to associate with that name, yes. However those are quite different than what you may think.

It's difficult to answer some of these questions well without attracting things that live under bridges.

 

[sublight_]

He said it never landed, it was an airborne drop/capture system.

That sounds interesting....

 

[sublight_]

Related:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3721.0.html

Maybe Bill Scotts' Blackstar was an HGV......

 

[flateric]

Might as well preserve the commentary here, I don't know when the page will be deleted.

I added a few more pics, also the length of the model is about 14" nose to tail. That would make the model about 1/40th scale. I found a pic some time ago that is of an AF vehicle that is very close in design to this model, I think it was also a HGV concept. From what Gene told me, Lockheed was ready to roll out this vehicle, but then Iraq invaded Q8 and it was decided not to reveal the system. He said it never landed, it was an airborne drop/capture system. Also the "Aurora" was not just one vehicle, it was several vehicles under one program, but again this is from Gene who passed in 2011, but for those who knew him, he worked closely with the model shops of several of the Aerospace companies during the 70's,80's and 90's]

Err... did anyone saved 'more pics' from auction and can add them to the thread?