do you think there are u.s. nuclear subs in the great lakes?

[chad]

having a discussion here online with my cousin. he says no, there's no way to drive them in due to locks.

i say of course, it's the perfect place to plant extra nukes, no fear of getting attacked by a chinese or russian sub.

[gunDriller]

militarily it makes sense. sort of like the MX missile, it allows an offensive military capability whose location is impossible (or very difficult ?) to detect.

and that's the conventional US military. i wouldn't put anything past the crazies in Israel and their supporters in the US.

[Dogman]

So far as length they would fit!

Now here are the tricky part's!

If they want to operate in the lakes without any hostiles knowing they are there the subs would have to go through the locks submerged and I am not sure how deep the water normally is used in the locks, because the depth normally is for ships that float on the top of the water.
Sure they can sail on the surface and get in the lakes but they would be seen. So to do it the subs would have to be submerged to do it.

Then there is the problem of density! Salt water is denser and most if not all subs are designed to operate in salt water, A sea going sub may have problems submerging in fresh water, unless they take on ballast to make up the difference. But that is really a minor problem in general.

The lakes would be a good place to operate a ballistic sub, but not necessarily the best place, It is hard enough to track them, Once a nuke sub is out of port no one and I mean no one knows where it is at! The captain of the boat has an area of operations that is almost unlimited.
and command has not a clue of where any nuke boat really is. Maybe only a general ideal (with in several thousand square miles or more)

Sure a nuke boat could operate in the great lakes but , IMHO it is much better to have the sub right outside the door of what ever threat (read country) that may do something dumb, and try to send a missile our way. The ocean of this world is huge! And to put a sub in the Great lakes would really be a strategic mistake. Much better to have a boat lurking as close to the target as possible so if a launch was needed the warning time would be much less.

Just saying

Edit: My father was a plank holder of the USSN Thomas A Edison (SSBN-610) and before he passed on we talked about something like the op question.

[SLV^GLD]

Then there is the problem of density! Salt water is denser and most if not all subs are designed to operate in salt water, A sea going sub may have problems submerging in fresh water, unless they take on ballast to make up the difference. But that is really a minor problem in general.
The denser the medium the more buoyant the object will be. You have it precisely backwards; things are less buoyant in freshwater than they are in saltwater.

Carry on...

[Dogman]

Then there is the problem of density! Salt water is denser and most if not all subs are designed to operate in salt water, A sea going sub may have problems submerging in fresh water, unless they take on ballast to make up the difference. But that is really a minor problem in general.
The denser the medium the more buoyant the object will be. You have it precisely backwards; things are less buoyant in freshwater than they are in saltwater.

Carry on...


Brain fart on my part, Thank you! They still would have problems getting a sub working in the great lakes. too light or heavy, they are designed to work in salt water...

This has been one of my thinking right but saying 180 degrees of what I wanted to say..Days! ;D

[willie pete]

how would you get a sub in the great lakes?

[Dogman]

how would you get a sub in the great lakes?


Easy Mr. Watson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lawrence_Seaway



;D

[basplaer]

I'm sure they've been to Chicago for fleet week at some point, but as to getting a boomer into the great lakes stealthily, I'd guess it impossible.

[willie pete]

how would you get a sub in the great lakes?


Easy Mr. Watkins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lawrence_Seaway



;D




But Holmes.......the SLSW has Locks and canals I think the max depth through the locks is only 30 ft....and I doubt the locks would be wide enough...

[SLV^GLD]

how would you get a sub in the great lakes?
Helicopters

[Dogman]

how would you get a sub in the great lakes?


Easy Mr. Watson!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lawrence_Seaway



;D




But Holmes.......the SLSW has Locks and canals I think the max depth through the locks is only 30 ft....and I doubt the locks would be wide enough...


Mr. Watson You make a Dam fine point!!

The Edison id was 30'

;D

[willie pete]

how would you get a sub in the great lakes?
Helicopters


helicopters... :lol :lol :lol

[SLV^GLD]

Why is that funny? I can't think of much of anything that can't be airlifted with a few helicopters.

[basplaer]

Why is that funny? I can't think of much of anything that can't be airlifted with a few helicopters.


If the full faith and credit of these united states can be airlifted by a single helicopter, then I don't see why they couldn't carry a sub or 3.

[Dogman]

how would you get a sub in the great lakes?
Helicopters


I agree with Mr. Watson there is not a flying critter that can lift a full grown sub!

[mightymanx]

I make my living as a Submariner and the answer is:



No

[willie pete]

Why is that funny? I can't think of much of anything that can't be airlifted with a few helicopters.


You're kidding right? ....airlift a nuclear sub? :D :D even the small "attack" class nuclear subs are 7k tons and over 350' Long, that's the length of a football field....lol

[SLV^GLD]

No, I'm not kidding. I doubted myself and did a bit of research. Yes, the larger subs are outside of airlift capabilities and the smaller subs are just within those constraints. Fact is, civilian accessible internet data is limited. Helicopters are the wrong answer. However airlift specific winged aircraft do meet the needed criteria. Based on this limited data 2 AN-225 Aircraft could tote the French SSN Barracuda wherever one wished.

I admit my initial assessment of the logistics was deeply flawed but I stand by assertion that nuclear powered submarines can be airlifted to their destination waters.

[LuckyStrike]

do you think there are u.s. nuclear subs in the great lakes?

Highly unlikely but entirely possible.

[bellevuebully]

No reports of salmon fishermen marking 362ft fish on any of the angling boards so I kind of doubt it. Let's get real.

[Cebu_4_2]

If it was mighty small, like a 5 man sub it could be possible but maneuvering it around in a hurry impossible. Perhaps in the straights above Michigan but not on either side, that's beyond realism.

[bellevuebully]

Average depth of lake Erie is 62 feet.....or about 40 ft in the troughs on a real bad day, so rule that lake out.

Here's an interesting map....but it only shows a bit of the wrecks in and aroung long point......about 200 in all.


(edit.....sorry having trouble with the image.......do a search for long point wrecks)

[bellevuebully]

If it was mighty small, like a 5 man sub it could be possible but maneuvering it around in a hurry impossible. Perhaps in the straights above Michigan but not on either side, that's beyond realism.


Agreed. Even still.....there are so many friggn boats toolie'in around the g/l's with imaging equipment, the chances of being undetected would be not worth the risk, imo.

[willie pete]

No, I'm not kidding. I doubted myself and did a bit of research. Yes, the larger subs are outside of airlift capabilities and the smaller subs are just within those constraints. Fact is, civilian accessible internet data is limited. Helicopters are the wrong answer. However airlift specific winged aircraft do meet the needed criteria. Based on this limited data 2 AN-225 Aircraft could tote the French SSN Barracuda wherever one wished.

I admit my initial assessment of the logistics was deeply flawed but I stand by assertion that nuclear powered submarines can be airlifted to their destination waters.


Well...I still it's a very big stretch, and of course you'd have to Build another An-225 because the russians only ever built 1, and IF you could feasibly cut a French SSN in half it'd still be a payload of almost 5M lbs and 160' long and you have the logistics of reassembly and transporting the sub to the water, because an aircraft that large would have to land on a very long runway... I think it would well beyond the capabilities of any fixed-wing aircraft....

[Dogman]

No, I'm not kidding. I doubted myself and did a bit of research. Yes, the larger subs are outside of airlift capabilities and the smaller subs are just within those constraints. Fact is, civilian accessible internet data is limited. Helicopters are the wrong answer. However airlift specific winged aircraft do meet the needed criteria. Based on this limited data 2 AN-225 Aircraft could tote the French SSN Barracuda wherever one wished.

I admit my initial assessment of the logistics was deeply flawed but I stand by assertion that nuclear powered submarines can be airlifted to their destination waters.


Well...I still it's a very big stretch, and of course you'd have to Build another An-225 because the russians only ever built 1, and IF you could feasibly cut a French SSN in half it'd still be a payload of almost 5M lbs and 160' long and you have the logistics of reassembly and transporting the sub to the water, because an aircraft that large would have to land on a very long runway... I think it would well beyond the capabilities of any fixed-wing aircraft....



Fixed or rotary , we are talking major tonnage. nothing that flys today can do it.!

[willie pete]

^^^the French SSN Barracuda displaces almost 5k tons... :D not even a Saturn 5 rocket could lift that much weight

[Bullion_Bob]

Assemble it in a building on the water, toss some extra weight on it, and launch.

[Dogman]

To take the op to an higher level, you do not need a sub, just a laker boat! It stays on the surface, It does work? looks like any other laker, but it has a secret, in its holds is a missile battery. Much more plausible than putting a sub in the lakes!

[Hillbilly]

If it's water the navy will be in it in some way shape of form.

[undgrd]

I'd say there's a better chance of there being a nuclear launch pad at the bottom of the lake than a sub.

[SLV^GLD]

For the record, I don't think there are subs in the Great Lakes and I don't think there are intentions to put them there. However, where there is a will there is a way and if the military opted to covertly put a submarine in the Great Lakes without going through the water I am certain they could get one in there. That said, I do think it would have to be a relatively small submersible craft not only from a logistics perspective but also from a tactical perspective (e.g. remaining undetected) which should preclude nuclear submarines altogether. By nuclear I mean power plant and not strike capability. Only nuclear subs have the extended submerging capabilities and even they have to come up a couple times a year. I think someone, somewhere would notice when a submarine surfaced on the Great Lakes.

[MNeagle]

& what purpose would a sub in the Great Lakes serve? :conf:

[Dogman]

& what purpose would a sub in the Great Lakes serve? :conf:


:ROFL:

The thought experiment gives all of us idiots (myself included) responding to this thread a chance to do the what if / could be thingy! It is fun to do a what / if / can be thing! ;D



|--0--| |--0--| |--0--| |--0--| |--0--|

:lol

Note: Hillbilly is right about the navy. If it is wet they see a highway! :lol

[willie pete]

& what purpose would a sub in the Great Lakes serve? :conf:


Well that's the first thing I thought, why would you need a nuclear sub in the GLs? ...to put any sub in the GLs, it'd have to be a really small...no more than 2 or 3 men?

[mightymanx]

No, I'm not kidding. I doubted myself and did a bit of research. Yes, the larger subs are outside of airlift capabilities and the smaller subs are just within those constraints. Fact is, civilian accessible internet data is limited. Helicopters are the wrong answer. However airlift specific winged aircraft do meet the needed criteria. Based on this limited data 2 AN-225 Aircraft could tote the French SSN Barracuda wherever one wished.

I admit my initial assessment of the logistics was deeply flawed but I stand by assertion that nuclear powered submarines can be airlifted to their destination waters.


The reactor needs a continous suply of water so that hellocopter would be hauling a really long freaking hose.

not to mention that the subs have no lift points so they need to be cradeled like when in drydock due the weight being to great on any one spot so you would need the worlds largest bridal and sling as well.
Some small rescue subs ca be airlifted but the Smalest US nuke sub NR1 is too big and with out rediculus amounts of work.

[mightymanx]

Now to assist the debate there was a shipyard on the greatlakes back in ww2 that made submarines Manatowic sipyard they they wend down the missisippi to the gulf.

The only submarine(s) curently existing in a lake are in Lake Pend Oreille ID which is up to 2500 ft deep. for testing. It is a WW2 era diesel boat that is set up to operate unmanned and the LSV Cutthroat which is a 1/3 scale remote control SSN21 class boat they are used for acoustic trials and testing. They have not been to "sea" in about 10 years due to lack of money.

http://www.dt.navy.mil/about_us/about_us.html

While it is possible to operate in the Great lakes like some one said earlier why?

Submarines cost way to much to put to sea for no reason. That would be to much money for even the military to waste because there is no reason, no threats and no hydrographic data to be gained by pulling a weapons platform to be pulled offline to go play in the great lakes. The US sumarine force has been gutted for "extras" there are no research submaries or any thing that does not shoot weapons anymore.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_11/submarine_stealth.html

[Neuro]

I think there are hundreds if not thousands of nuclear submarines in the great lakes. They were transported there by the secret navy submarine subway system. The intention is to have a powerful first strike on Canada when the time comes, soon probably. To wipe Canada off the map, really! This post is not a joke! Don't ask me how I know this!

[mightymanx]

I think there are hundreds if not thousands of nuclear submarines in the great lakes. They were transported there by the secret navy submarine subway system. The intention is to have a powerful first strike on Canada when the time comes, soon probably. To wipe Canada off the map, really! This post is not a joke! Don't ask me how I know this!
:ROFL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPLzB18Vq6c

[willie pete]

First strike on Canada? :D :D there's probably more people living in California than there are in Canada.... :D ....although I remember the morning of 9-11-2001, someone said that Fidel Castro was behind the attacks and that Cuban forces had in deed invaded Florida and were going to take over.... :lol ...of course later on these were proven to be rumors... :D :D

[Neuro]

First strike on Canada? :D :D there's probably more people living in California than there are in Canada.... :D ....although I remember the morning of 9-11-2001, someone said that Fidel Castro was behind the attacks and that Cuban forces had in deed invaded Florida and were going to take over.... :lol ...of course later on these were proven to be rumors... :D :D
Yes, it is all fun and games, until it isn't any more!

I am telling you Canada is going to be a glass sealed parking lot!

[bellevuebully]

Don't ask me how I know this!


The mellon hat reveals all. Now we know your secret, bwahahahahah.

[Neuro]

Don't ask me how I know this!


The mellon hat reveals all. Now we know your secret, bwahahahahah.
HEY! BETTER THAN HAVING A SHEEPHEAD HAT YOU BIG BULLY! :CS :baa :baa :soap :boom

[bellevuebully]

Don't ask me how I know this!


The mellon hat reveals all. Now we know your secret, bwahahahahah.
HEY! BETTER THAN HAVING A SHEEPHEAD HAT YOU BIG BULLY! :CS :baa :baa :soap :boom


It's not a sheephead hat.......it's a wolf-face tie!

[Dogman]

I think there are hundreds if not thousands of nuclear submarines in the great lakes. They were transported there by the secret navy submarine subway system. The intention is to have a powerful first strike on Canada when the time comes, soon probably. To wipe Canada off the map, really! This post is not a joke! Don't ask me how I know this!


Dam! And I thought I could go wacky sometimes!


:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:

Edit: That ever you are smoking I want some!! Pm me for details and address! :lol

[Neuro]

Don't ask me how I know this!


The mellon hat reveals all. Now we know your secret, bwahahahahah.
HEY! BETTER THAN HAVING A SHEEPHEAD HAT YOU BIG BULLY! :CS :baa :baa :soap :boom


It's not a sheephead hat.......it's a wolf-face tie
Yeah! Really? Is that so? I say it's a wolf-faced lie! ;D ;D

[bellevuebully]

Don't ask me how I know this!


The mellon hat reveals all. Now we know your secret, bwahahahahah.
HEY! BETTER THAN HAVING A SHEEPHEAD HAT YOU BIG BULLY! :CS :baa :baa :soap :boom


It's not a sheephead hat.......it's a wolf-face tie
Yeah! Really? Is that so? I say it's a wolf-faced lie! ;D ;D


Even though we are jesting, this little conversation is like a microcosm of how world perspective works........different people see entirely different things, lol.

[Argentium]

To take the op to an higher level, you do not need a sub, just a laker boat! It stays on the surface, It does work? looks like any other laker, but it has a secret, in its holds is a missile battery. Much more plausible than putting a sub in the lakes!

During the early 1980s, there was a number of basing options for the yet to be deployed MX missile. Placing the missiles on railcars, over-the-road trucks and in the Dense Pack basing were discussed. One of the schemes was called "Great Lakes", in which the MX were to be placed in specialized missile subs, patrolling the Great Lakes. The idea of placing them in a modified laker would make sense, as long as it would have a plausible cover, as a cargo carrier.

[SLV^GLD]

I've always seen bb's avatar as the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing but also read into it that bb just plays being a sheep to stay under TPTB's radar while wolfing away all the PMs he can before SHTF.

[bellevuebully]

I've always seen bb's avatar as the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing but also read into it that bb just plays being a sheep to stay under TPTB's radar while wolfing away all the PMs he can before SHTF.


Sound of hammer hitting nail directly on head.

When I chose that avatar, that is precisely why I did so. Let them think we are sheep. But unlike them, we don't bite.....we bite back! :box

Very astute observation.

[bellevuebully]

If they ever decide to try out the idea we can always borrow these from the West Edmonton Mall. I think they are on loan from the Navy anyhow. ;D

[Dogman]

To take the op to an higher level, you do not need a sub, just a laker boat! It stays on the surface, It does work? looks like any other laker, but it has a secret, in its holds is a missile battery. Much more plausible than putting a sub in the lakes!

During the early 1980s, there was a number of basing options for the yet to be deployed MX missile. Placing the missiles on railcars, over-the-road trucks and in the Dense Pack basing were discussed. One of the schemes was called "Great Lakes", in which the MX were to be placed in specialized missile subs, patrolling the Great Lakes. The idea of placing them in a modified laker would make sense, as long as it would have a plausible cover, as a cargo carrier.


Still into slicing thin sections of rock? It is a shame that most will never see the stunning world of the micro tiney.. or pond critters!

[Argentium]

Still into slicing thin sections of rock? It is a shame that most will never see the stunning world of the micro tiney.. or pond critters!



As time allows!