It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Seeking info on RA-115s (or RA-115-01s)

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:33 PM
My Son and I were having a discussion of the fabled Soviet Suitcase Nukes...
in doing a bit of digging I found this blip at Wikipedia.

The highest-ranking GRU defector Stanislav Lunev claimed that such Russian-made devices do exist and described them in more detail.[7] These devices, "identified as RA-115s (or RA-115-01s for submersible weapons)" weigh from fifty to sixty pounds. They can last for many years if wired to an electric source. In case there is a loss of power, there is a battery backup. If the battery runs low, the weapon has a transmitter that sends a coded message—either by satellite or directly to a GRU post at a Russian embassy or consulate.” According to Lunev, the number of "missing" nuclear devices (as found by General Lebed) "is almost identical to the number of strategic targets upon which those bombs would be used."

Lunev suggested that suitcase nukes might be already deployed by the GRU operatives at the US soil to assassinate US leaders in the event of war.[7] It was known that arms caches were hidden by the KGB in many countries for the planned terrorism acts. They were booby-trapped with "Lightning" explosive devices. One of such cache, which was identified by Vasili Mitrokhin, exploded when Swiss authorities tried to remove it from woods near Berne. Several others caches were removed successfully.[8] Lunev said that he had personally looked for hiding places for weapons caches in the Shenandoah Valley area[7] and that "it is surprisingly easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US" either across the Mexican border or using a small transport missile that can slip undetected when launched from a Russian airplane.

As to the question ... does anyone know what the RA-115s looks like? plus were there any photos taken of the weapons caches? Just curious if the have some kind of maker. who knows I might have hiked past one and never knew?

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:30 AM
Russian suitcase bombs were called "yadernyi ranets" so might help you track down some more info.

here are some pics I dug up of "mock ups"

I also suggest looking for info on The Burton-Lunev Hearing.

However these show a breifcase bomb of "bullet/gun type" nukes (link)

For better (read more realistic) look at the W54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM was produced in the United States until 1988. The W54 was a very small 0.01 or 0.02-1 kiloton suitcase nuke with the entire unit weighing in at under 163 pounds (74 kilograms).

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by freakyclown

Well I knew it would be small I read where the smallest nuke made by the US would fit in a footlocker and these suitcase nukes were even smaller

The lightest nuclear warhead ever acknowledged to have been manufactured by the U.S. is the W54, which was used in both the Davy Crockett 120 mm recoilless rifle–launched warhead, and the backpack-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition). The bare warhead package was an 11 in by 16 in (28 cm by 41 cm) cylinder that weighed 51 lbs (23 kg).

thanks for the pictures I'll show them to my son when he gets back

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:01 PM
I've seen videos of American SEALS carrying SADMs, except they were parachute from a plane into the sea in order to plant the SADM under the hull of an enemy ship.

As for Russian man-portable nukes, I am more familar with a cylindrical backpack version about one meter long, 2/3 meter diameter. If I remember right it weighs like 100lb and can take out several city blocks effectively.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

I am guessing this is the video you have seen

As I am pretty sure the SADM has never been used in anger!

[edit on 4-12-2009 by freakyclown]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:11 AM
I seem to recall studies which showed that the smallest possible size/weight was around that of the Davy Crockett warhead.

Those briefcase sized nukes in the external links look unfeasibly small.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by Retseh

Ive only seen pictures but if you look at the size of the multi warheads in an ICBM each of those cones it pretty small, smaller than I thought they would be... Still those are to big to fit in a normal suitcase maybe in one of those big wheeled ones...

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:27 AM
The smallest nuke deployed by the USA was the w54 (a varient was used for the crocket mentioned earlier)

Dimension wise the w54 is 10.75 inches diameter (270 mm), about 15.7 inches long (400 mm), and weighs around or slightly over 50 pounds (23 kg).

To create a nuclear bomb you need to make a critical mass for plotonium this about 10.5 kg (23 lb) or 10.1 cm (4 in) across. this is not enough to create the chain reaction needed though, you need to at least increase the mass by 10%, 10% will give a yeild of 10-20tons, 20% will yeild 100tons and 35% will yeild 250tons.

Although no internal photos of the w54 exist it has been interpolated to be a gun-type trigger a cylinder approx 11 inches in diameter and 5 inches long, with roughly 5.5 inch radius hemispherical ends.

When dealing with a "suitcase nuke" you must remember that the term suitcase came from former Soviet general, Alexander Lebed in 1997 which lead to the rough approximation of a suitcase 60 x 40 x 20 cm and not a breifcase nuke!

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by freakyclown

One of the most common mistakes when estimating the minimum size of a fission weapon is to forget the reflector.

A larger (thicker) reflector drastically reduces the size of the actual warhead, increasing size but reducing weight. A weapon will also work with a thinner reflector and a larger warhead (smaller but heavier).

Yield is also not just dependent on warhead mass, but also on the material used in the tamper/reflector (lead = big boom, uranium = bigger boom) as well as factors such as fusion boosting.

Bottom line - there is no one size fits all in designing small nukes - but if we were able to design something as small as the W54 in the 1950s, I have little doubt that we can, and have, designed even smaller warheads since that time.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:18 PM
Do not forget, Russians developed EMP devices the size of pop cans that have a range of a couple of city blocks. They are experts in creating specialized weapons that can cause extreme effect.

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by freakyclown

Do NOT click that last picture link!!!!! Its broken...the page that comes up says the document has "moved here" don't click the link...unless you want to see something that is very very nasty...

You've been warned!

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:27 AM
I seem to recall that when these things were originally in the news, that it was reported they relied on a substance called ' red mercury' (my memory may have failed there), to act as a neutron propogator or accelerator and decrease the mass needed to achieve critical mass.

There was also, I think, a bit of discussion between various physics and chemistry types, whether or not red mercury existed, as well as how it acted to reduce critical mass.

top topics


log in