I have been black-listed by the “elders” here at Straight Dope. That’s ok with me. For some people, getting on the good side of satan(which is an easy way to waste time) is their goal. So be it. We’ve all heard the phrase, there’s a sucker born every minute. You can find a lot of them hanging around satan.
Ok, now for a real question. (I’d prefer it if satan didn’t respond).
Where are our nuclear subs? Many people I’ve talked to have placed them across the Atlantic, in the Pacific, up in the Artic. No one, however, mentioned the Great Lakes. It might just be me, but isn’t it possible that a submarine is hidden there?
I may be new here, but isn’t this more of a GQ than a GD?
It’s no secret that the main U.S. sub bases (missile subs, that is) are in South Carolina (King’s Bay or Charleston, I don’t recall) and Washington (Bremerton, IIRC). It’s reasonable to posit that their operating areas are in the Atlantic and Pacific, and it’s a long way from those bases to the Great Lakes. and the St. Lawrence Seaway is a shallow and narrow transit area for submarines, making it vulnerable. Pretty stupid of our admirals to spend billions on stealthy subs that can hide in the deep blue, then send them through a canal where they have to stay surfaced so anybody can see & shoot 'em. Dumber things have happened, but I have a higher opinion of the Navy than that.
If you’re a submarine, depth is your friend. The oceans are deeper than the Great Lakes (although Superior is pretty darn deep for a lake!).
If you’re not talking about missile subs (I’ve assumed you are, so far), then the only purpose behind stationing subs in the Great Lakes would be to protect us from the Canadian naval juggernaut… er, how many subs do the Canadians have again?
… or there’s another possibility, if you’ve played X-Com 2: Terror of the Deep… our nuclear subs must be really darn scared of those aliens tho
You’re right, wevets, this should be in GQ. So I’m sending it there.
Note to Federalist: personal attacks belong in The Pit. If you had placed your first paragraph in there, it would have been far more appropriate. Please keep offensive remarks directed at other posters out of threads that are not in the Pit, or else all your threads will shortly end up being sent there, and you will never get any answers to your questions. It also makes you look somewhat petty and silly, BTW.
I don’t know about nuclear patrolling the Great Lakes, but during WWII, diesel subs were built at Manitowoc, Wisconsin, on Lake Michigan. During that war, they were also built at Mare Island (Calif.), Portsmouth (N.H.) and at the Electric Boat Company in New London (Conn.)
New subs have not been built at Portsmouth for some time, but I believe they do refits there. Electric Boat is still turning out new subs. The Navy’s main submarine school is at Gales Ferry, Conn., across the Thames River from New London (and a couple of miles upstream.) Many active-duty submariners are stationed there when not at sea (about half the time).
Stationing nuclear submarines in the Great Lakes would be a waste of resources. The whole purpose of nuclear subs is to carry nuclear missile silos closer to their targets so we would be able to strike first should it ever become necessary (Spam forbidding). Since Canada isn’t our enemy (and we’d be screwed if Canada ever became our enemy), it’d be counter-productive to drop a sub and crew in Superior.
Second, nuclear subs secondary role is to eliminate enemy nuclear subs, of which there would probably be a shortage of in the Great Lakes.
As far as the public knows, our (the United States’) nuclear subs are kept in patrol in the neutral zones of the three oceans surrounding N. America. And some of the older nuclear subs (the ones that have a nuclear reactor, but don’t carry nuclear missiles anymore) are used for Arctic research… they break through the ice pretty easily… but that role is being discontinued due to budget cuts. Damn the liberal presidency!!
I’m going to assume that you mean the ballistic missile submarines (all US subs currently in service are nuclear powered). These are all stationed in either King’s Bay, Georgia, or Bremerton, Washington. The attack submarines are all located in Groton, Connecticut, Norfolk, Virginia, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, San Diego, California, and Bangor, Washington. Actually, I may have the bases in Washington mixed up. There are no submarine bases in the Great Lakes. I doubt it is even possible for a sub to get there, especially a ballistic missile sub.
I believe all subs are currently built by either Newport News in Virginia and Electric Boat in Connecticut.
As for depth, much of the Great Lakes is probably deeper than the Persian Gulf, where we regularly send attack subs. But there would be no reason to put one of those in the Great Lakes. Also, they are quite good at hunting surface ships. As the joke goes: “What do submariners call surface ships? Targets.”
waterj2, I’m assuming that you mean that all the locations you mentioned (which I won’t repeat here) are where the subs are stationed… what I meant was that our subs are regularly sent on PATROL in the three oceans surrounding North America. A nuclear attack sub can last something like six months submerged with no problems, though I doubt they’re out THAT long.
Anyway, just wanted to clear things up, bruthah-man.
There are two basic types of subs, with two different missions.
The boomer – Parking warheads off the coast of an enemy nation.
Attack boats – Anti-submarine warfare, sinking surface combatants and enemy shiping.
There is one really important reason for U.S. submarines to be in the Great Lakes and there is at least one there each summer.
Public Relations.
Each year a different submarine is directed by SUBLANT to participate in the Great Lakes Cruise. For one-and-a-half months, up to seven Atlantic Fleet ships visit cities on the Great Lakes giving recruiters from the heartland a chance to expose potential recruits to the Navy before they enlist.
The transit to and from the Atlantic is done on the surface. This would strategically nulify the advantages of operating a sub in the lakes. Now, if some subs could be built in a Great Lakes shipyard (U.S. boats are built in Bath, Maine and will soon be built in Newport News, Va.) during a war, they would be effective in minimizing port-to-port waterborne transportation. Much like the rebel U.S. Fleet in Lake Champlaine(?) during the Revolutonary War.
Any operating fleet in the Great Lakes would eventually have to be abandoned becuse the St. Lawrence waterway provides an excellent choke point for transit to and from the lakes.
Homepage: http://www.bigfuckinboatwithbadassplanes.mil
Occupation: Swabbie Pounder, First Class
Location: Anywhere you feckless landlubbers ain’t.
Interests: Navy Chow, Port of Call, The Head, Air Superiority
ICQ Number: CVN69 – An UncleBeer Profile
“Avast and ahoy, landlubbers! Shore leave’s in August. Hide your women.” – A WallySig
SPOOFE, it wasn’t my intention to correct anything you had said, I was just discussing where they are stationed to give some idea of how unlikely it would be for the Navy to keep one in the Great Lakes. Although as ChiefScott pointed out, sometimes the Navy does things for other reasons. From a tactical standpoint, the greatest benefit of subs is that no one really knows where they are when submerged. A long surface transit (through the St. Lawrence Seaway) would nullify that.
ChiefScott, were you implying that subs are not built at E.B. in Groton? I was there in '98 and they were building subs without any apparent plans to stop.
A related question for you submariners (of the US Navy): what do you guys think of the subs which are now being built by nations like France and Sweden, which are closed-cycle diesels (I understand they can stay submerged about 2 weeks, and are actually quiter than our nuclear subs-no pumps running). Are these submarines any serious threat to the US fleet? They are quite small-are they capable of going to see, or are they intended to just hang around the coasts?
One further (probably last) point on subs in the Great Lakes: They would be really easy for an enemy to find. Erie is hardly deep enough to float a sub on the surface for much of its area. To go between Ontario and Erie requires spending the better part of a day in the Welland canal–very easy to spot, impossible to hide. To go between Erie and Huron requires a day-long trip on the surface up the Detroit River, across Lake St. Clair (which has to be dredged out in its narrow channel to let freighters through) and up the St. Clair river. I don’t recall the depth beneath the Mackinac Bridge, so there is an extremely small chance that a sub could travel between Huron and Michigan undetected, but it takes another day trip up the St. Mary River to get to Superior, passing some islands as close as 30 feet, and winding up at the Soo locks where people are invited to watch ships pass in the viewing stands. Putting a sub in any Great Lake in wartime is a pretty effective way to put a sub in that lake and announcing to the enemy where it will be any time it changes position.
I suppose that in a crisis you could send a sub to the lakes on a goodwill tour, then “forget” to bring it out and let it go lurk in one of the Superior or Huron deeps as a surprise missile base, but I doubt that anyone who was planning to have a war with us would “forget,” so it would have almost no chance of actually hiding.
Ah! Finally a Naval question dear to my heart. I served in the submarine service for 9 years. There are no subs in the great lakes because there is no reason for them to be (aside from skimmer chief’s). You could put a boomer there. A Trident missile can reach any target in the world from anywhere in the world. The reason they hang out in the oceans making figure 8’s in the water is that it is harder to find them. Putting a boomer in the lakes would just narrow the search area.
As far as fast attacks go: Well once again there is no reason. But rest assured, if we ever needed to keep shipping lanes open in the lakes or run covert ops on the evil Canadians, then we would have them there.
In deference to Chief Riding-on-a-big-assed-target Scott, there is a new purpose for submarines. After the relative success of launching tomahawk missiles from fast attacks during the Gulf War, the Navy is considering retrofitting our aging Ohio class boomers with tomahawk missiles (8 per tube I think).
This sounds a bit optimistic. According to the US Navy the Trident II has a range of 4000 nautical miles. I found 1 web site that listed the range as 6000 nautical miles.
Even at the greater range, from Lake Superior the following citiies would be out of range:
New Delhi, India
Cape Town, South Africa
Sydney Australia
Now granted these cities might not be targets for our nuclear arsenal today, but they would be out of rang for the Trident should that change.
John
Then he got up on top
With a tip of his hat.
“I call this game FUN-IN- A-BOX”
Said the cat.
The Straits of Macinac are deeper than you might think. Maximum depth at midspan of the bridge is 295 feet (according to http://www.mackinacbridge.org/ ). This is much deeper than the deepest point of Lake Erie (about 210 ft.). Also, Lakes Huron and Michigan are at the same elevation. These facts conspire to make some people call Huron and Michigan a single lake that happens to be pinched in the middle. (Did I read this in one of Asimov’s books?)
By the way, I think the canals on the St. Lawrence Seaway are plenty big enough to accomodate a sub. Some of the locks between Huron and Superior are 1300 feet long. They were built to accomodate ore boats that often exceed 1000 feet in length.
Interestingly, ore boats and submarines are the only marine vessels I know of that are called “boats” (and not ships) no matter how big they get.
Work is the curse of the drinking classes. (Oscar Wilde)
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three days, 21 hours, 53 minutes and 26 seconds.
156 cigarettes not smoked, saving $19.56.
Life saved: 13 hours, 0 minutes.
You’ve all been very helpful so far. But I have a few more questions and a comment.
First, like many of you have said, submarines by nature are clandestine. They’re very hard to find in the first place. It’s the job of the top officials in the Navy to keep it that way. I’ve noticed that most of you agree that it’s extremely unlikely that there is a submarine in Lake Superior(or any other Great Lake). Wouldn’t that FACT(that no one expects one there) help the Navy? When someone plays hide-and-go-seek, you don’t hide where you know the seeker will look. You hide where you don’t think he’ll look. Am I making any sense?
A few questions.
How often does a nuclear sub have to immerge from the water for supplies, fuel, etc.?
Would someone care to run by the types of submarines again?
I can only answer one of those, and that kinda vaguely…a family friend served on the Alaska, which could stay submerged for around 90 days. Odds are, he understated its capabilities.
