Copied from the ADF discussion thread.
Been reading "The Impact of the Charles F. Adams Class Guided Missile Destroyers on the Royal Australian Navy" by Dr David Shackleton, AO Vice Admiral (RAN Retired).
https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/defau...ct_of_charles_f_adams_class_on_ran.pdf#page=9
Very interesting on the acquisition side of things, well frightening actually, the very successful procurement was more by accident than design, with government policy, the appearance to be a good ally, and the RANs desperation to get anything at all, over riding the capability required to achieve stated objectives. In a nut shell the Adams Class got up because it was American and the cheapest option, had there been a cheaper option, even if it was basically useless, it would have been selected instead.
Still have a long way to go but interesting statements about the apparent complete lack of understanding of the design compromises necessary in 60s vintage warships by the RAN, let alone the politically classes, the almost total reliance on the RN telling us what we needed and why, and most disturbingly the reason what the construction of the final two River Class DEs was such a mess, have been very informative.
On the Rivers, Swan and Torrens were constructed without even a formal contract, let alone a fixed design, they were sorted out as they were built. I had no idea that things were so amateurish in the decade before I was born.
I suppose this explains the romantic desire for simpler less complex times when a person with authority could sell a "bright idea" without any real need to "jump through hoops", it how it actually used to work. Put your idea forward, if it fit the government of the days narrative and was affordable with the money made available, then pretty much anything could get up, whether it fit the actual needs of the ADF or not, is how it actually used to happen. It explains a lot of the waste and inconsistency seen post war.
