Military Launch Reliability

This is    https://jim-quinn7.blogspot.com/        NATO

see also https://jim-quinn0.blogspot.com/        Engineering skills

Try :

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/3004451/death-of-the-42s-type-42-destroyers-in-the-falklands-and-lessons-for-the-joint/

If the Army had not been able to walk so far, the British would have lost in the 1982 Falklands. And the main reason was a lack of missile fighting understanding by Captains putting their own ship in front of missile sighting space of another (untrained thinkers?), and launch reliability.

From my point of view, reliability was grossly inadequate, and Britain's ships "drowned" as a result. 

In Aerospace Aircraft, we KNOW to have backup systems, but in the UK  NATS air traffic control hours long shutdown (dangerous over cities!) in September 2023 they had none, in the UK May 2024 e-Gate passport check system long shutdown disaster they had none, and in the 1982 Falklands the UK missiles systems had none, so ships were destroyed by the oncoming enemy. It is silly to go for the cheapest system WITHOUT a designed independent backup to make sure it WORKS when needed 24/7/365 - were they just electrical or software failures to launch for example? 

Financiers must not be in charge of buying Military kit - they have NO IDEA what is important or alternatives possible, while Engineers DO, working with their Military Colleagues. And Engineers KNOW about money, for they have none and need to politely beg for it......and they plan/try for NATO's cost effectiveness.

Thus we MUST have Military Equipment that WORKS EVERY TIME, and MORE must be SPENT to ensure that. Early spend, saves big loss later. See the Vee diagram below...If you manufacture and test a not quite adequate design, you have to redesign, remanufacture, and retest - that can cost big money and significant delay, far more than if you spent the time to have it right in the first place. We in Aerospace now try (!) for right first time designs, for that produces happier customers too.

BUT I have not seen anywhere in Britain that recognises that......Why do the Military not have their own requirements acknowledged - what are we doing handing design solutions adoption to MP and Civil Servant, who have no idea how to fight, for the kit we need? They will never be able to choose the right kit for they live in a FANTASY world........of funny aircraft or ...... plastic pistols. 

And the High Speed Rail Government idea in England a costly disaster of not much thinking in Stage 2......launched by Parliament in 2017, well before they knew any overall completion costs, nor how much Engineering was to be done by 2028, nor even that they had sorted out the Overall National Requirement ....... yup, the politicians had a Glamour solution looking for an application, and they plumped, wrongly, for a route in already reasonably speedy Southern England! Middle England has low speed lines, possibly beaten by a car driver keeping to the speed limits, but producing more CO2 than rail. I would cancel that southern route for its next 4 years of big expenditure, and make funds available for Middle England - and as you may imagine, not even necessarily going High Speed Glamour....

THINGS MUST WORK OR WE DIE !!!! And Numbers Count too.....

AND    where do ideas come from?.......

Why was this forgotten to clear mines in Ukraine - or elsewhere? because the Military History Society's were ignored by .........whom? :

                 Jim BSc CEng FIMechE CPD