Why don't they increase supplies of food on submarines?

[hello_there]

Apparently the only factor that limits a submarines endurance is food resources. If this is true, then would it not make sense to simply take more food. Of course this would mean more space needed, but still wouldn't this be a good trade off to have a slightly bigger submarine which was capable of staying submerged for longer?

 

[Ballistic]

 

[WreckerL]

Boats only have a finite amount of space and can't do RAS's plus it would negate the whole point of a boat if it had to surface to meet an RFA. You'd be surprised how much scran can be stowed away.

As it is, if it's going to be a long patrol we use false decks (the decks have crates of tinned food and you walk on the crates).

If food is getting low then you can go to rationing (basically one cooked meal a day). I've had to do that on a couple of patrols, it's no biggy and the fat knackers lose some weight

 

[SONAR-BENDER]

...........As it is, if it's going to be a long patrol we use false decks (the decks have crates of tinned food and you walk on the crates)..............

Yep, had a snag on 2001 one time and couldn't get the drawers open 'cos of all the tins of scran on the deck! They also used to fill the small space at the end of your mattress with bog rolls!

OP - have you ever been down a boat......?

 

[hello_there]

I think my point has been missed. I'm not saying they should have more food to consume on a daily basis, I'm saying why cant they take more than a 3 month supply, which would allow the boat to stay submerged for longer?

 

[slim]

I think my point has been missed. I'm not saying they should have more food to consume on a daily basis, I'm saying why cant they take more than a 3 month supply, which would allow the boat to stay submerged for longer?

FFS read the replies!
THE BOAT DOES NOT HAVE THE SPACE TO FIT MORE SUPPLIES!

 

[hello_there]

FFS read the replies!
THE BOAT DOES NOT HAVE THE SPACE TO FIT MORE SUPPLIES!

Ok maybe I should have been clearer. I understand that there is not enough space, I did state that in my original post. The question was, would it not be a worthwhile trade off to build bigger submarines which can carry more food, the up side to the trade off being that the sub could stay dived for longer, the downside being that the sub would be slightly bigger?

Now obliviously I don't mean the current fleet, we couldn't increase their size, I mean future submarines.

 

[bollotom]

I'd like to think also that we give those lads a break after three months at sea. Can you imagine a daily order coming out that all boats would now be on six months patrols?

 

[Sumo]

HT we carried fresh for a few days, some stuff in freezers the rest in tins, dry provisions, vacuum packs, which were stored in every possible space, boats are not cruise liners, many on here would have been on trips greater than 3 months, we came back meaner, leaner and hungrier. The 3 months supply is standard rations, 3 square meals a day, plenty of wiggle room to stretch it out, but obviously the further you are into the 3 months before you know of any extra time out the harder it is to stretch the rations, it is the submarine service not the boy scouts, you do what is needed,
Bollotom, if only the SM service cared that much about us?

 

[Taztiff]

How about if you ditch all them nasty 'orrible torpedos and Trident thingies. Think of all the spare space to store beer - sorry, food! And the tree huggers would love you and send you tofu and quorn nutroasts to help out.
Gosh - Jeremy will be over the moon!

 

[dapperdunn]

How about if you ditch all them nasty 'orrible torpedos and Trident thingies. Think of all the spare space to store beer - sorry, food! And the tree huggers would love you and send you tofu and quorn nutroasts to help out.
Gosh - Jeremy will be over the moon!

Just the small matter of the reactor left.

 

[WreckerL]

Just the small matter of the reactor left.

Then what would you cook on?