Named Rivadavia and Moreno after important figures in Argentine history, they were Argentina's entry in the South American dreadnought race and a counter to Brazil's two Minas Geraes-class battleships.

The British Royal Navy bought two Swiftsure-class pre-dreadnought battleships that were being built for Chile, and Argentina sold its two Rivadavia-class armored cruisers under construction in Italy to Japan.

[5] Meanwhile, beginning in the late 1880s, Brazil's navy fell into obsolescence after an 1889 revolution, which deposed Emperor Dom Pedro II, and a 1893 civil war.

[7] Soaring demand for coffee and rubber brought the Brazilian economy an influx of revenue,[10] which paid for a US$31.25 million[C] naval repair scheme, a substantial amount for the time period.

The National Autonomist Party cabinet was in favor, despite a probable cost of nearly $10 million, but a specific plan for two 14,000-long-ton (14,225 t) battleships and ten destroyers was not popular with the public.

Alarmed, the American ambassador to Brazil sent a cablegram to his Department of State, warning them of the destabilizing effects that would occur if the situation devolved into a full naval arms race.

Hoping to end the arms race, Argentina made an offer to purchase one of the two Brazilian ships, but the refusal prompted the dispatch of an Argentine naval commission to Europe to acquire dreadnoughts.

[14] Proposals from shipbuilders for two dreadnoughts (along with a possible third, to match Brazil should a third ship be ordered) and twelve destroyers were solicited in 1908 by open tender.

[18][D] Even with this assistance, industry leaders in the United States believed that they had no chance in the bidding without active cooperation from their government, as Europe was the traditional arms supplier to Argentina (and to all of South America).

"[21] The president of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company believed that the United States would not receive contracts due to what he saw as a large amount of European meddling in Argentina: The political influence of foreign powers is being exerted in a very forceful manner to turn the business to English and Continental firms; the King of Italy, the German Emperor, and the force of English diplomacy are being made use of; and American firms will have very little consideration, I fear, unless our government will exert some very powerful influence in favor of this country.

[21] In a surprise move, the Argentine naval commission then threw out all of the opening tenders and called for another round of bidding; they simultaneously updated the specifications to include what were judged to be the best aspects of all the plans.

Despite a British attempt to allow the Armstrong Whitworth-Vickers team to lower their price by $570,000, prompt American diplomacy granting various assurances regarding recent events between the United States and Brazil, the upcoming 1910 Pan-American Conference, and a guarantee of American participation in the Argentine centennial celebrations secured the battleship contracts for Fore River on 21 January 1910.

[28][F] The maximum price Fore River tendered, $10.7 million, underbid the British by more than $973,000, but their ship's displacement was 2,000 long tons (2,000 t) smaller, the belt armor was 2 inches (51 mm) thinner, and the top speed was slightly lower.

[26] The Secretary of the Argentine Naval Commission, the body which chose the final design, said the reason the American tender was lower than that of the English was that "steel for construction work and armor-plating is a great deal cheaper in the United States than in England.

An American diplomat wrote back to the United States that "this newspaper rivalry promises the early conclusion of a movement which means a third battleship whether by public subscription or by Government funds.

[22] Britain's reaction in particular was scathing: Sir John H. Biles, a professor and well-known naval architect, decried the bidding process as "unethical": ... it may be presumed that everything ... good in the first proposals [was] seized upon by the Argentine authorities and asked for in the new design.

They referred to a "startling" fact printed by the Daily Mail: the steel used for the armor of the American design was obtained for a much lower price.

[39] The New York Times noted that with Argentina's and Brazil's dreadnought orders, countries in North and South America were building the five biggest capital ships in the world (Brazil's Rio de Janeiro, Argentina's Rivadavia and Moreno, and the United States' New York and Texas) in addition to seven of the ten largest (including the United States' Wyoming and Arkansas).

"[41] After Brazil sold Rio de Janeiro to the Ottoman Empire, Argentina began to actively seek a buyer for their two ships so the profits could be invested in education.

[45] The United States, worried that its neutrality would not be respected and its technology would be released for study to a foreign competitor, put diplomatic pressure on Argentina to keep the ships, which it eventually did.

The secondary battery of 6-inch (152 mm) guns and the three-shaft system were influenced by German design practices, while the engine and boiler layout was reminiscent of the Italian battleship Dante Alighieri.

[53] In the early 1920s, both ships spent time in the reserve fleet due to an economic depression,[57] but enough money was available by 1924 to have the dreadnoughts modernized in the United States.

[61] The money gained from selling the two dreadnoughts along with an older armored cruiser, Pueyrredón, was used to buy an aircraft carrier from the United Kingdom, Independencia (ex-Warrior).

The 4-inch weaponry, intended for use against marauding destroyers, was mounted unarmored in various places around the ship, including the main deck, superstructure, and far up near the bow.

To assist the main battery with targeting during a battle, the two ships were equipped with two Barr & Stroud rangefinders that were located above the conning towers.

With a total output of about 40,000 shaft horsepower (30,000 kW), the ships were designed to travel at a maximum speed of 22.5 knots (41.7 km/h; 25.9 mph) and may have been capable of slightly more.