April 1922 Proceedings—In “American and British Destroyers,” Lieutenant T. E. Chandler, U.S. Navy, wrote that during the World War, “Destroyers were employed by the British in many varied activities; attacks against capital ships, as scouts and patrols, as fast mine-layers, for convoying, and for all forms of antisubmarine work . . . our destroyers were employed exclusively in antisubmarine work as patrols or escort vessels. . . . [This] must not blind us to the true function of the type in a more general naval campaign.”
April 1972 Proceedings—Fifty years later, in “Common Purpose – Common Ship,” Australian Navy Commander Eric Eugene Johnson wrote that “smaller naval powers must re-appraise their concepts of naval defense requirements. Such forces can best achieve a more effective common defense through the flexible deployment of comparable units. Some of the problems besetting the smaller maritime nations financially incapable of mounting extensive research and development programs could be overcome by the production of a small vessel of war with universal appeal—a Free World Frigate—of about 2,000 tons with a good mix of weapons and sensors.”
April 1997 Proceedings—In “Running Too Silent & Too Deep?” Lieutenant Commander Gary Watson Jr., U.S. Navy, wrote, “It is apparent that the Cold War is not over. The U.S. Navy continues to compete in an arms and technology race with Russia, with the goal of achieving the quietest submarines in the oceans.
. . . There is an increased proliferation of submarine technology to Third World nations. . . . It would seem that the Congress would be eager to hand the U.S. Navy dollars to build more submarines.
. . . However, the Navy and Congress are battling over what submarine should be built, the builder, and when.”
A. Denis Clift
Golden Life Member