Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 10, 2020 18:25:22 GMT -6
I want to make a comment on reliability of equipment. You cannot build reliability into a piece of equipment. It takes testing, then usage. Over time, with usage problems that were never contemplated will show up. Sometimes, testing fails to recognize a problem. I will give you an example.
The AIM-7 Sparrow missile was tested extensively before it was released for use by the Navy. It was tested at the Yuma Test Facility and Nellis Air Force Base for the USAF. However, those are very dry bases, trust me, I've been on both of them. Now, we deploy carriers and the AIM-7's to Vietnam. A very damp, rainy environment and the missiles do not fire. They launch but the rocket motors don't fire. Part of the problem was the lanyard on the LAU-7A missile launcher was too short but the other issue was the failure to put an anti-moisture coating on the missile to protect it from the dampness. Pilots had to ripple fire to get one missile to launch and ignite. The problem was eventually discovered and corrected. So even with very extensive testing, the reliability of the missile was flawed.
Time and war are about the only ways of gaining reliability in a piece of equipment. Sometimes it is too late. The M-16 was another example. It is a very good weapon but when it went to Vietnam, it jammed a lot and many soldiers died because of that. Why? They forgot to chrome the chamber and provide cleaning kits and procedures to the soldiers. Simple solution found only in war.
So, we come back to how is the game going to represent that. Well, I guess with a reliability rating that will improve over time. We could add fleet exercises to help that issue. But time is the key.