21:15 GMT +323 March 2017
    Type 45 destroyer HMS Duncan

    British Warships So Loud Russians Hear Them 100 Miles Away British Admiral

    © Flickr/ Defence Images
    Military & Intelligence
    Get short URL

    British Type 45 destroyers are so loud Russian submarines can hear them 100 miles away, a British Navy officer has revealed.

    The excessive noise is due to a design flaw, says British Rear Admiral Chris Parry.

    When someone from the West praises Russian weapons or criticizes Western ones, look for them to come asking for money shortly afterward. US military brass played this card throughout 2016, as the United States prepared its new military budget.

    This time, their British colleagues are taking the lead, as Rear Admiral Chris Parry said the country's brand new Type 45 destroyers have turned out to be "as noisy as hell" because of construction flaws, and now they're so loud Russian submarines can hear them from a distance of up to 100 miles.

    "We used to put little wooden wedges between the hatchclips and the hatches in my destroyer to stop them rattling so we could keep the noise down," Parry told the Sunday Times in an interview.

    According to the admiral, nobody considered noise suppression when designing the ship, which now makes them extremely vulnerable to submarines — throwing in the "Russian" to perhaps add an extra bit of trepidation.

    The British Ministry of Defense responded by saying that the Type 45 was designed as an air defense battleship and that stealth was not a "premium requirement," according to The Independent.

    According to British media, Type 45 are riddled with critical construction flaws. One of them, for example, prevents these ships from entering warm waters, as the engines, designed for the cold waters of Northern Atlantic, overheat and stop working. Now, each of the six $1.24-billion warships will need their engines replaced.

    And replacing an engine on a ship is nothing like replacing an engine on a car. According to the Independent, this process will involve cutting a hole in the side of each ship and fixing the problem with custom-made parts. Overall, the operations will cost an additional $1.25 billion and will take nine years to complete, the Independent reports.

    No one is currently coming for the Type 45 with deadly torpedoes, but one model has already displayed less-than-stellar performance during the recent march of the Russian fleet to the Mediterranean to take part in Syrian operation led by the aircraft cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov.

    "In October 2016, [the HMS Duncan], escorted by the frigate HMS Richmond, was dispatched […] to intercept and "man-mark" a fleet of Russian Navy vessels […] on their way to Syria," an earlier article from the Telegraph reported.

    "The destroyer then escorted the fleet out of the Channel and into the North Atlantic. A Royal Navy spokesperson said, ‘HMS Duncan experienced technical issues and will resume operations once a full assessment has taken place,'" the article continues.

    But the Royal Navy problems are only one example of what is going on in British army in general.

    For example, the British Defense Ministry spent £3.5 billion excluding value-added tax on its 600 new Ajax tanks, according to General Dynamics, the manufacturer of Ajax vehicles. (The Telegraph reports that the tanks were a mind-blowing £3.5 billion each.) Sadly, the machines turned out to be too big to fit into a transport aircraft without being dismantled first.

    Another example are Watchkeeper reconnaissance drones that were ordered 12 years ago. Despite £1.2 billion having been spent on the program, they still have not entered service due to continuous malfunctions.

    According to the Telegraph, all of this is the result of "years of defence cuts and expensive procurement contacts with a small number of large defence firms."

    Indeed, the Ministry of Defense makes keeping a small number of contractors a policy, according to General Sir Richard Barrons, a former commander of Joint Forces Command. According to the Times, Barrons has said that buying weapons "from one place" is an "act of industrial policy as well as sovereign security," and there's little wonder the government will need to pay "a premium."

    "Britain's defence budget is the biggest in Europe and it is growing every year, we are investing £178 billion as the UK steps up globally," the Telegraph cites an MoD spokesperson saying.

    "We are focused on maintaining an affordable program and getting the best value for the taxpayer to deliver the cutting-edge kit our Armed Forces need to keep Britain safe."

    The best value money can buy, indeed.


    British, French Navies Join US Navy in Unified Trident Exercise in Persian Gulf
    Royal Navy's 'Lusty' on Last Sail From British Port to Turkish Scrapyard
    Navy Commander: US Warplanes Should Have Extended Deployment From British Ship
    military contractors, fail, flaws, Military Budget, design, Watchkeeper Drone, HMS Duncan, Type 45 Destroyer, Ajax, British Royal Navy, British Army, Chris Parry, United Kingdom
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik
    • Сomment

    All comments

    • avatar
      And you thought all that vaseline was for some other reason..?
    • avatar
      Hope the British spend trillions.
    • avatar
      Darrell R
      Is sounds like the British may have to get a contract with the Russians in order to move those tanks in one piece. That's a lot of money to spend without considering the limitations of transport.
    • avatar
      Maybe now the Brits can spend untold billions on new transport aircraft. This sounds like the US to me.
    • Alan Reid
      Warships? Wake up it's the hyper-sonic missile era. Targets are all they will be.
    • Angus Gallagher
      As long as you get lazy Tories and eurosocialist gimps like Labour- this will be the sorry result.
      They both have undercut the British military. Of course this will change when real leaders get power- but only then.
      In the meantime, enjoy the rackety fruits of liberal pacifism.
    • avatar
      A purpose of sound from surface or sub ships, in peacetime, is the idea, sleeping, that you are in control. Comes war, sound, switches of, can be very annoying. This game is most likely known practice. More disturbing is the fact, silent, can be detected to. It make the story more readable.
    • Angus Gallagher
      ivanwa88, the elites who have enslaved people like you in your sort of countries will always own you regardless of national currency fluctuations. Even if they don't break your jaw and crap down your throat directly- they own your government, your pension, and your descendants in perpetuity. You were born a slave and you'll die a slave.
    • avatar
      Erik Trete
      The failures of the British War Machine is not cuts to the defense budget, as the US with an ever increasing defense budget is experiencing the same problems. Nor is it that both countries are doing business with just a few Military Industrial Contractors.

      For comparison: The British type 45 destroyers vs the US Zumwalt-class destroyer, the littoral combat ships, the Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport ships and the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier - all majorly floored designs.

      The British spent a pittance on the still undelivered after 12 years Watchkeeper reconnaissance drones; compare that to the trillion spent on the F35, still not fully operational after 20 years.

      The US army still has issues with their M16 overheating and seizing in battle.

      Chinese and Russian military equipment developments have performed much better with far more modest military budgets using state owned development bureaus and manufacturing.

      There are three reasons: 1. Most programs are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. 2. As state owned corporations, state interests, not investor interests take precedence. 3. Rigid budget constraints; neither Russia or China can simply print money or borrow unconstrained like the US and Britain.

      There is no room in the defense of the country for Private contractors or development - anywhere. Whether it is Private contractors like Black Water, the Privately owned Military Industrial Complex, or Private "Think Tanks" - all these people are not driven by national and patriotic interests, they are driven by profit. It is this profit motive that corrupts and undermines the West's military defense. There is no profit unless there is conflict and war, so these private entities lobby for and promote war and conflict. Russian and Chinese military officers don't dream of retiring to their equivalent's of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon or General Dynamics with big fat paychecks or to some think tank with a big fat paycheck, US, British officer do. That is why these officers negotiate such obscene, bloated contracts. That is what has corrupted the West's defense establishment and lead to these massive failed developments.
    • sapper
      They still have HMS Victory in Portsmouth. She's silent and works in warm water as well. For anti-sub warfare they could drop cannonballs over the side!!!
    • avatar
      Another "strong signal" to Putin...
    • Panagiotis Brd
      The so called taxpayer has been so brutally violated in so many ways that I do not think the inadequate british navy 's decisions would make much difference. The best value for the taxpayer is to buy a ship from the Russian Federation.
    • Reginald Frackenwhip Spaulding
      Isn't the MIC greeeat?!?!!
    Show new comments (0)