Great Lakes vs Mississippi Usefullness

[kalos72]

So I am sure most of us have thought that the Ole Miss will be a great resource to repair/control during the rebuilding process. But what about the Great Lakes, and more importantly I think, the Saint Lawrence River access to the Atlantic.

I am thinking about the value of setting up a team on the Great Lakes to gain control of the Lakes and start to use it to transport people/materials throughout.

What kind of "Navy" would you need to control the waterways? A Brown Water Navy style?

Would Canada take issue?

[swaghauler]

Considering that the Freedom Class is being built in Wisconsin and the average lake freighter is about 750 FEET long, you can use a "blue water" vessel to do it.

The largest power distribution system in North America is located at Niagra Falls NY (and Ontario). The Canadian side produces 2 MILLION MW of power while the US plants produce 2.675 MILLION MW of power. This does NOT include the Wind Farms located on Lake Erie near Buffalo New York. This system powers the ENTIRE Northeastern US from Canada to the Atlantic Ocean.

The Lock System:

There are SEVEN locks on the ST. Lawrence Seaway. They are all built to the following dimensions: Length= 233.5m (766ft), Width= 24m (80ft), Depth= 9.14m (30ft).

The Welland Canal between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie is comprised of EIGHT locks which bypass the Falls. They are EXACTLY the same specification as the Seaway's canals and locks.

The Detroit and ST. Clair Rivers transits between Lake Erie west of Port Clinton OH through the very shallow lake ST. Clair and on into Lake Huron. There are no locks but navigable channels (8.2m/ 26.65ft) have been dredged in the rivers and the place is congested with LOTS of boat traffic.

There are FOUR locks on the ST. Marys River between Lake Huron and Lake Superior. They were originally linked by the SOO Lock System.
The POE Lock is for commercial traffic. It is 366m (1200ft) in Length, 34m (110ft) in Width, and 10m (32ft) in Depth.
The MacArthur Lock is also primarily used for commercial traffic. It is 224m (800ft) in Length, 24m (80ft) Wide, and 9m (29.5ft) Deep.
The Davis Lock is also located here. It is 411m (1350ft) Long, 24m (80ft) Wide, and 7m (23.1ft) Deep.
The Sabin Lock has been retired and is NOT used (in need of repairs).

The distance from the entry to the ST. Lawrence Seaway to Duluth Mn is 2340 miles and EVERY major city has a port and a dry dock of up to 700 feet in length.

[Legbreaker]

When were those wind turbines installed?
After November 1997 would be my guess, therefore they're not there in any of the T2K timelines.
The locks are likely to be the big failure points of the Great Lakes. If maintained there shouldn't be too much of a problem besides those posed by pirates/marauders and the like. If not....

[kalos72]

There is no standing US Navy presence on the Great Lakes are there? Canadian Navy?

I know there are a few USCG Ice Breakers but thats all I know of...

The only boo I have seen on Canada after 2000 shows Quebec being separatist and under France influence so that might get dicey on the tail end of the Saint Lawrence.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by kalos72

There is no standing US Navy presence on the Great Lakes are there? Canadian Navy?

I know there are a few USCG Ice Breakers but thats all I know of...

The only boo I have seen on Canada after 2000 shows Quebec being separatist and under France influence so that might get dicey on the tail end of the Saint Lawrence.

The Canadian river authorities misjudged the winter and a U.S. destroyer or troop ship was stranded at a Canadian city this year. But all the strip joints and bars were happy! Sorry, I can't remember the details.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

The Canadian river authorities misjudged the winter and a U.S. destroyer or troop ship was stranded at a Canadian city this year. But all the strip joints and bars were happy! Sorry, I can't remember the details.

If you're talking about the most recent incident, that would be the Freedom Class LCS-9 USS Little Rock while she was undergoing pre-commissioning sea trials on Lake Superior. She was finally able to commission and actually made an appearance at the Naval Museum in Buffalo NY for that ceremony.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by kalos72

There is no standing US Navy presence on the Great Lakes are there? Canadian Navy?

I know there are a few USCG Ice Breakers but thats all I know of...

The only boo I have seen on Canada after 2000 shows Quebec being separatist and under France influence so that might get dicey on the tail end of the Saint Lawrence.

There is ONE warship homeported on Lake Erie. The Brigg Niagra, a veteran of the War of 1812 is ported at the Erie PA Maritime Museum. She currently only sports TWO of her original EIGHTEEN 32-pound Carronade (a short barrelled lighter weight artillery piece) and NEITHER of her TWO 12-Pound Long Barrel Cannon. Both Cannon and half a dozen of her Carronades are located in the maritime museum and COULD be loaded back on board. Her Draft of 10.5ft/3.2m would enable her to travel everywhere on the Great Lakes and she is FULLY modernized and Coast Guard Certified.

Check her out for yourself:

www.flagshipniagra.org

Swag

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

www.flagshipniagra.org

You're missing an "a" from the link...

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The locks are likely to be the big failure points of the Great Lakes. If maintained there shouldn't be too much of a problem besides those posed by pirates/marauders and the like. If not....

They would be a "nice" target for a nuke...

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

When were those wind turbines installed?
After November 1997 would be my guess, therefore they're not there in any of the T2K timelines.
The locks are likely to be the big failure points of the Great Lakes. If maintained there shouldn't be too much of a problem besides those posed by pirates/marauders and the like. If not....

The original turbines were installed around 1995 and comprised around 2 dozen half megawatt turbines located SOUTH of I90 Eastbound. This system produced a whopping (said sarcastically) 2 MW of power. They were replaced in 2007 by 14 FIVE MEGAWATT turbines that average 34 MW of power and can peak at 70 MW of power. A BIG improvement over the original farm. There are MANY more such farms in the Great Lakes Region now. back in the 90's, there were like 3 such facilities with generation capability from 2 to 5 megawatts.

Those early turbines could be salvaged though. They were about 100 to 150 feet high and the turbines had 50ft blades and were this size of a small car. Today's turbines are 266ft high, with 160ft blades and weight in excess of 250 TONS. You aren't moving that without specialized equipment.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

When were those wind turbines installed?
After November 1997 would be my guess, therefore they're not there in any of the T2K timelines.
The locks are likely to be the big failure points of the Great Lakes. If maintained there shouldn't be too much of a problem besides those posed by pirates/marauders and the like. If not....

Wind turbines dont really factor into the power generation at Niagara Falls - the power generation is from the falls themselves - i.e. its the water going over the falls generating a huge amount of power - FYI most of the equipment that runs and generates power was installed a very long time ago - meaning EMP will basically not effect the ability to generate power there - its one of the big screw ups in the game - i.e. unless you nuke those power generating plants then there will be power to burn for Western NY for sure - and you dont need a drop of fuel or a single pound of coal to do so

Info on the power plant on the US Side - The Robert Moses Niagara Hydroelectric Power Station is a hydroelectric power station in Lewiston, New York, near Niagara Falls. Owned and operated by the New York Power Authority (NYPA), the plant diverts water from the Niagara River above Niagara Falls and returns the water into the lower portion of the river near Lake Ontario. It uses 13 generators at an installed capacity of 2,675 MW (3,587,000 hp). Plant was commissioned in 1961

Then on the Canadian side you have two plants that have been there since the 1950's that can produce another 2000 MW as well - and dont need modern control systems to work - one of them has been continuously generating power since 1922

Thus the Great Lakes at Niagara would be a very interesting area indeed by 2001 considering the lack of power generation capability in much of the US and Canada - and the closest strikes were at Toronto and Hamilton - nothing hit Niagara Falls at all

[Olefin]

FYI the Great Lakes would also be producing food like crazy - no amount of drought is going to make the biggest concentration of fresh water in the world go dry

[Legbreaker]

The generators may still be there, but the distribution network isn't exactly in prime condition. Also need maintenance on the generators, even if it's just removing logs and other debris from the inlet screens and lubricating various moving parts.
Provided EMP didn't screw things up too much, it shouldn't take TOO much effort though, provided a few basic parts and machines (cranes, perhaps a few boats, etc) are available, along with the necessary fuel to run them. Not a completely insurmountable obstacle, but certainly one to keep a few score people busy for a while.

As for agriculture, the big issue is moving the water for irrigation. Without fuel many pumps will be useless, and without electricity, the rest won't be any good either.
That said, there's been ways of shifting bulk amounts of water for nearly as long as organised agriculture has existed. The more modern methods are just a lot more efficient than a chain of buckets or windmills.
Certainly some areas would have to be abandoned at least in the short term for crops, although may still see some use as pasture, provided water could be provided for stock. Establishing a low elevation stock watering point is definitely a lot easier though than irrigating the entire field.

Realistically, it doesn't take much to work out what the Lakes would look like post nuke - only have to look back to the first half of the 20th century.
I'd imagine there wouldn't be too many refugee camps in the area either - all able bodied people would quickly find work tilling fields, digging irrigation ditches or refurbishing/making old style farm equipment. Many may even be put to use pulling plows and other equipment given the limited number of suitable draft animals compared to even the 1950's.

The big problem is feeding and housing the influx of people in the first twelve months or so.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by kalos72

What kind of "Navy" would you need to control the waterways? A Brown Water Navy style?

I would guess a mix -- near shore, with all the bays and inlets and such, a brown water navy would be appropriate. But from what I've seen on Discovery Channel, Science Channel, Smithsonian Channel, etc, the rest of the Great Lakes are more like a small ocean in currents, water conditions, and especially, weather. That's where larger ships would be best. (I don't think they'd put a carrier on the Great Lakes, though -- you couldn't get them there in the first place, and at least early in the war, aircraft from shore bases could probably respond faster. Well, maybe a small destroyer or frigate with a helicopter deck...)

I haven't been to the Great Lakes since I was a baby, so those who live there, please comment?

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I would guess a mix -- near shore, with all the bays and inlets and such, a brown water navy would be appropriate. But from what I've seen on Discovery Channel, Science Channel, Smithsonian Channel, etc, the rest of the Great Lakes are more like a small ocean in currents, water conditions, and especially, weather. That's where larger ships would be best. (I don't think they'd put a carrier on the Great Lakes, though -- you couldn't get them there in the first place, and at least early in the war, aircraft from shore bases could probably respond faster. Well, maybe a small destroyer or frigate with a helicopter deck...)

I haven't been to the Great Lakes since I was a baby, so those who live there, please comment?

I have sailed Lake Erie REGULARLY since I was 14. I have sailed ALL of the Great Lakes at least once. They are like inland seas with both tides and currents. In fact, during the Battle of Lake Erie (the War of 1812), the Brigg Niagra could only cross the sandbar to Presque Isle Bay at high tide in the morning and evening. Lake Superior is SO DEEP that the lake's temp rarely exceeds 60 degrees in late August and 50 degrees is more common. These cold lake temps are due to her latitude and her depth (1,330ft). It is the reason it is said that "Gittchi Goommie (Indian phonetic pronunciation) never gives up her dead." The rivers also create currents that run through the lakes. You will encounter 4 to 6 knot currents in various places on the great lakes. The most common locations being on the Niagra River near NY and Ontario heading towards the falls, the ST. Clair River from Lake Huron to Lake ST. Clair and in the ST. Lawrence Seaway proper.

Lake Erie is the shallowest lake (210ft at its deepest) and Lake Superior is the deepest lake (1,330ft at its deepest). Truly large ocean-going ships need to stick to established channels to avoid groundings. The area of Lake ST. Claire is the shallowest portion (with an 8.2m channel) with most of this VERY LARGE lake being only about 10 feet deep. Lake Superior is the easiest to navigate with an AVERAGE DEPTH of 210ft.

The real limiter would be the Drafts of the locks and channels. A Perry Class Frigate has a draft of 6.7m (21.8ft) and could sail in the locks/canals. A Burke Class Destroyer (draft of 9.3m/30.3ft) would ground and so would a Tico Class Cruiser (draft of 10.2m/33.2ft). It should be noted that this is the reason the Navy deployed the Cyclone Class PCs to The Gulf. There were MANY locations were US Navy ships COULD NOT SAIL in The Gulf. The PCs (with their 2.3m/7.5ft drafts) can go places no other US ship (including the Perrys) could go.

The biggest ports are Cleveland OH, Chicago ILL, and Duluth MN. Both Cleveland and Chicago receive both bulk cargo AND containers. Duluth receives mostly bulk cargo. There are also LARGE railheads in Chicago that can be used to move cargo inland. Cleveland, Erie, and Buffalo all have a few (2 to 4) rail lines which service their ports. Duluth has a railhead as well but it is mostly dedicated to bulk hauling (complete with a car dumper right at the port. Duluth is HUGE. I recommend YouTubing or Googling the port so you can see just how big it is. Chicago is undoubtedly the busiest port for all cargo types though. This port handles not only foreign cargo but also low-priority domestic cargos heading to the Eastern Seaboard from the heartland. It IS cheaper to ship items on a freighter than to send them by rail (or truck)... IF there is no deadline for delivery. Steel, flour, grain, and low-cost domestic goods are the normal cargo types.

In an affront to the name of this thread, I'd suggest that the Great Lakes are just a continuation of the shipping that can come up the "Mighty Miss." The Mississippi connects to the Great Lakes and ships CAN transfer to one or the other. They can do this by entering the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, a 28 mile/45km long shipping lane that connects to the Mighty Miss. This canal is 62m/202ft wide and 24ft/7.3m deep and located just West of Chicago's downtown. They can also link to the CS&S Canal from the 16 mile/26km long CAL-SAG Channel near the South Side of Chicago.

It should also be noted that The Ohio River joins the Mighty Miss and expands the potential river traffic all the way to Pittsburgh PA (and up to 30 miles North of her).

[unkated]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

... But from what I've seen on Discovery Channel, Science Channel, Smithsonian Channel, etc, the rest of the Great Lakes are more like a small ocean in currents, water conditions, and especially, weather.

As we all begin to hum The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. :-)

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I don't think they'd put a carrier on the Great Lakes, though -- you couldn't get them there in the first place

No, but they have built them:

USS Sable and USS Wolverine, used on the lakes during WW2 to train carrier pilots, so real carriers could be at sea. Coal-fired, and paddle-wheeled.

Now, these (if reproduced) would not be capable of handling jets. But something similar with landing space for a few helicopters with some space could be built easily enough atop a lake freighter. It could be stationed where needed as a mobile offshore refueling/rearming base...

Uncle Ted

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by WallShadow

And if a few National Guard M2s and/or surplus mortars or recoilless rifles are allotted for self-defense against smugglers, drug runners, or gang activity, that'd be all right, too.

The reason why carronades are inaccurate? Their high, arcing fire much like a mortar (not to mention the impossible task of actually moving the weapon on the ship to track targets). Basically they're a form of mortar but with a somewhat flatter trajectory and therefore really only useful on calm waters.
Anything that can be swivelled around quickly and track targets independently to the movement of the ship however would very likely be quite useful. Mortars though I think are best reserved for land mounts or shore bombardment (although could be used if the conditions allow).

Originally Posted by unkated

Now, these (if reproduced) would not be capable of handling jets. But something similar with landing space for a few helicopters with some space could be built easily enough atop a lake freighter. It could be stationed where needed as a mobile offshore refueling/rearming base...

Can't see the resources being spent myself. Early on while jets are available they're virtually useless. Later and there's more pressing needs.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by kalos72

I am thinking about the value of setting up a team on the Great Lakes to gain control of the Lakes and start to use it to transport people/materials throughout.

What kind of "Navy" would you need to control the waterways? A Brown Water Navy style?

Would Canada take issue?

Two navies, or perhaps two types of several navies. I think you should want small boats for shoreline work, a flotilla for each lake, and maybe a few larger vessels for patrolling further out in each lake. Something like the Coast Guard cutters in the latter case.

The larger vessels for assisting shipping, the smaller for coastal patrols. Unless you have a marauder flotilla crossing a lake to raid another coast, I don't see a need for many of the bigger vessels.

Canada should certainly be involved in whatever arming takes place, IIRC, the treaties that demilitarized the lakes after the War of 1812 should still be in place.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by kalos72

So I am sure most of us have thought that the Ole Miss will be a great resource to repair/control during the rebuilding process. But what about the Great Lakes, and more importantly I think, the Saint Lawrence River access to the Atlantic.

I am thinking about the value of setting up a team on the Great Lakes to gain control of the Lakes and start to use it to transport people/materials throughout.

What kind of "Navy" would you need to control the waterways? A Brown Water Navy style?

Would Canada take issue?

I can honestly say that your first part "So I am sure most of us have thought that the Ole Miss will be a great resource to repair/control during the rebuilding process." had never crossed my mind before you brought it up. Being a life long West Coasty it was entirely out of sight out of mind. But having taken some time to read what others have said and thought about it now interesting. One of the things that did stick out to me I used to work at Grand Coulee Dam (one of the largest in the world) taking out the Dams is not that easy, but taking out the power grid is much easier (EMP would do it very well). And very few is any Dam has the parts needed to bring even the local power grid back up. So even if the dam is not damaged (very likely) the power grid is likely to be ruined.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by CDAT

I can honestly say that your first part "So I am sure most of us have thought that the Ole Miss will be a great resource to repair/control during the rebuilding process." had never crossed my mind before you brought it up. Being a life long West Coasty it was entirely out of sight out of mind. But having taken some time to read what others have said and thought about it now interesting. One of the things that did stick out to me I used to work at Grand Coulee Dam (one of the largest in the world) taking out the Dams is not that easy, but taking out the power grid is much easier (EMP would do it very well). And very few is any Dam has the parts needed to bring even the local power grid back up. So even if the dam is not damaged (very likely) the power grid is likely to be ruined.

The "Ol Miss" and the Great Lakes are actually part of a cruiser's (as in Sailing Cruisers who travel the World) Rite of Passage...
There is a thing called The Great Loop which is a 6,000-mile circuit of the Eastern US. You sail from the Great Lakes in the summer and either enter the Mississippi or exit the Great Lakes via the ST. Lawrence Seaway in the fall. You then sail towards either the Gulf of Mexico or the Intracoastal Waterway south of NY. If you sail the IC, you exit it in Florida and head west. You complete the Loop by returning to your start point from the opposite direction from which you started (making a giant loop).

I can see a group of players grabbing a sailboat (I'd grab a CAT) and heading down the IC to Florida for the Urban Gorilla module. I'd cross Lake Okeechobee and approach Tampa from the South. Mooring offshore would also provide an added layer of security for the team.