The problems of logistics, maintenance and reliability, as imposed by automation on users of military electronics, are presented. It is reminded that military is very careful to avoid telling industry how to build equipment, and therefore, in theory, automation should be only of military academic interest. On other hand, with cost of military electronics sometimes reaching staggering proportions, and with economic status of country as important as its military prowess, it is pointed out that armed services have had a definite and active interest in automatic assembly equipment. The characteristics of Naval shipboard equipment are enumerated as embracing MIL standard component parts, and a relatively small number of non-interchangeable units repairable on shipboard at component-parts level. Describing Bureau's policy as leaning toward a broad production base with small business participation, it is noted that machines for automatic production are costly. Naval automation objectives compatible with these basic conditions are listed as including use of conventional MIL component parts to build a wide variety of units, by means of low cost machinery which is capable of flexible programming. Emphasized is need for selling new concept to field personnel, and for expediting general specification changes in order to keep pace with technological progress. Automation is credited with a considerable contribution to reliability. It is suggested that, through use of interchangeable subassemblies or modules, advantages are gained; yet it is indicated that Navy would still want to maintain ability (when chips are down) to repair the throw-away subassemblies. It is concluded that there should be no insurmountable difficulties in making changes to present logistics and maintenance methods, in order to realize full benefits of automatic assembly.