![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Chad Irby" wrote in message m... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: Having actually seen a SADM (minus a real core, of course), I can tell you it is not a "suitcase" device, unless you haul around one hell of a suitcase. It is closer in size to a garbage can (like the large kitchen variety). It pressed the ability of being a manportable device (the guy lugging it on his back could not carry much else in the way of mission equipment). As the Nuclear Weapons Archive describes it: "It was a cylinder 40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed only 27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb" it is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight." But there is a rather scary little piece about suitcase nukes at the Nuclear Weapons Archive, which says about suitcase nukes: "We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is probably closer to 15 than 11)." http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices (which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so. That isn't how I understood it. 'This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead. This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages)' John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Keith Willshaw | Military Aviation | 2 | December 10th 03 08:05 AM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |
please stop bashing France | Grantland | Military Aviation | 233 | October 29th 03 01:23 AM |
What about the AIM-54 Pheonix Missile? | Flub | Military Aviation | 26 | October 5th 03 05:34 AM |
Laser simulator provides weapons training | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 28th 03 09:58 PM |