(#30-1) October 31 2014. The Aeromobil flying car is flying

MY AVIATION OBSESSION

INCLUDES FLYING CARS—ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ACTUALLY FLY. THE AEROMOBIL IS NOW IN FLIGHT TESTING

SLOVAK AIRCRAFT DESIGNER STEFAN KLEIN IN HIS AWARD WINNING THREE WHEELED ELECTRIC SCOOTER (WHICH HE USES TO COMMUTE IN)

HIS FLYING CAR IS AT THE FLIGHT TESTING STAGE

HIS FLYING CAR IN ROAD MODE. NOTE THE INGENIOUS WAY THE WINGS FOLD BACK

If ever I get gloomy about the human condition—and the news, with its focus on disasters would certainly encourage such a viewpoint—www.gizmag.com  cheers me up. It is a truly excellent website whose daily coverage of man’s creative talents—both technological and aesthetic—just plain lifts the soul—and it features some wonderful writing. It is also a useful reminder—just in case we creative types feel arrogant—that creativity is not confined to the arts.

It is allowed freer reign in the arts. elsewhere, it is often suppressed, and almost always opposed—but it is innate to the human condition.

In that spirit, let me observe that one of the many joys of writing is that it emerges in the most unexpected places. You don’t have to go to literature to find it.

The following commendable piece was written by Francis X Govers III

There is a saying in flying: “If it looks good, it will fly well.” Stefan Klein, a designer from the Slovak Republic, has announced the first flight of his Aeromobil Version 2.5, a flying car prototype he has been developing over the last 20 years. This vehicle is a strikingly beautiful design with folding wings and a propeller in the tail. But will its flight capabilities match its looks?

The Aeromobil V2.5 is a propeller-driven aircraft that also functions as an automobile – or you can think of it it a car with lofty aspirations. The aviation aspects seem to be prominent in the design, with a streamlined cockpit, super light weight, and sleek tail fins in the back. Propulsion is provided by a 100 hp Rotax 912 water cooled engine mounted behind the seats, with drive shafts leading both aft to the propeller and forward to the two front wheels for driving.

This project is not the only flying car around. There is also the US-based Terrafugia, which folds up its wings vertically on the sides of the vehicle. There is also a Dutch design called the PAL-V, where the ground vehicle is a three wheeled tilting motorcycle that turns into a gyrocopter at the airport.

When the Automobil is a car, the wings are folded straight back along the fuselage and the engine drives the front wheels, while the small back wheels support the tail. There seems to be very little structure, and the entire vehicle weighs just 980 lb (450 kg) empty of fuel and passengers. There is room for two people in the very snug cockpit, and there are two steering wheels, mounted one inside the other in front of the driver/pilot. The larger wheel is for driving on the ground, and the smaller wheel is used for flying.

As shown in the video below, when the Aeromobil gets to the airport, the driver/pilot pushes a button and the wings fold out for a wingspan of 8.2 m (27 ft), which is comparable to other light sport aircraft of similar weight and power. The large flaps (moveable surfaces on the trailing edge of the wing) in this prototype flip over the wing and hang down to add lift for takeoff with the entire wing also tilting up a few degrees to assume the proper angle to the wind for takeoff.

The driver switches the gearbox to send power back to the propeller that is mounted at the very end of the vehicle between the two vertical tails. The Aeromobil then takes to the runway and accelerates for takeoff. In the video the airplane stays near the runway, as you would expect with a first flight. The airplane mode of the Aeromobil would have a top speed of 200 kph (124 mph) and a range of over 700 km (430 miles).

Klein says that in car mode the Aeromobil fits into a standard parking space and can be refueled at the same gas station as all the other cars – in other words, it does not require special aviation fuel like most aircraft. The flying car is extremely lightweight, coming in at less than half the weight of a compact car like the Ford Fiesta, which weighs 1,041 kg (2295 lbs). The structure is a steel tube frame with a carbon fiber composite shell, a configuration familiar to fans of racing cars.

The Aeromobil is a prototype intended to demonstrate to investors that the concept is viable. Klein is now shopping this striking flying vehicle to potential manufacturers and investors in order to make it a reality. Once such a deal is struck, he estimates that it would take two additional years to get certification for the Aeromobil to go into production, presumably under the existing Light Sport Aircraft rules.

Over the twenty year gestation of this flying car concept, Klien has created four different versions of his dream. The first version did not have folding wings at all, but was a boxy canard (tail first) design with tall wheels. The next versions featured the signature folding wings, but different tail configurations. Version 2.0 had an inverted V-shaped tail and this last version 2.5 was the first with two vertical tail fins enclosing the wheels. His web site shows drawings for Version 3.0.

Klein has a very interesting background, with degrees both in mechanical engineering, and in fine arts. He originally wanted to be a sculptor, but received his engineering degree first. He later studied design at the Academy of Fine Arts in Bratislava, the Slovak Republic and became the head of the Department of Transport Design at that school. As a professional, he worked on car designs for Audi, BMW, and Volkswagen, and won a national design award for a three-wheeled electric scooter, which he still drives to work each day.

Flying is in the Klein family, however, and his grandfather, father and brother are all pilots. He started flying as a teenager with his brother, and today flies both powered aircraft and gliders. For the Aeromobil, he is also the chief test pilot, which in unusual in these days of large aerospace companies.

Klein calls his Aeromobil flying car “the intersection of technology and art.” You can judge this for yourself by checking out the following video in which Klein demonstrates the road driving characteristics and then shows the first flight of the Aeromobil flying car.

VOR words –127

Total words – 1,024

---

(#29-2) October 30 2014. Want fangs? Buy this book!

PERSONAL NEWS

SUPPORT THIS AUTHOR—AND SHE WILL HELP YOU GROW FANGS. THEY ARE EXTREMELY USEFUL IN THE BOOK WORLD—THOUGH SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR AGENTS & PUBLISHERS.

New authors need all the help they can get (actually, all authors do—but we’ll leave that wider theme for the moment).

Anyway, Cassandra Scearce contacted me recently via LinkedIn looking for an endorsement—and it was my pleasure to oblige.

The fact that she is rather attractive has, of course, nothing to do it.

That front cover certainly as my attention.

Readers—buy this book.

Cassandra—keep writing.

94 words

---

(#29-1) October30 2014 The Big (but short) Sleep

PERSONAL NEWS

TO LIE IN, OR NOT TO LIE IN—THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE THE QUESTION

Another 16 hour workday yesterday—or it would have been 16 hours if I had stopped at midnight. I should have, because I was stupidly tired—but being stupidly tired, with all that such implies, I worked on. At least I had the good sense not to try and do anything complex or to write (I guess here I am repeating myself—the day writing isn’t complex, flying saucers will have landed).

I finally made it to bed around 2.00 am and swore after I got up to to go the bathroom at daybreak, I would go back to bed for another 30 minutes. I love just lying there, half-dozing, listening to the radio.

Did I do anything of the sort? No. I almost never do except at the weekend. I’m dying to get to work. Very strange—because some of the things I have to do right now do not involve writing, but involve matters I used to run a mile from.

But, I harbor the notion that a little character improvement might be in order—and I lost a great deal of time after my April injury.

Is this work madness paying off? In the short term it certainly is because I’m getting stuff done I would never get around to normally—which means I’m more on top of things, can find the information I need faster (as opposed to being unable to find it at all, in many cases)—and thus execute faster.

As I read recently—not that I agree completely—ideas are two a penny. It’s the execution that matters. Well, really great ideas are not that common, but I know what the author meant.

The above beautiful photo, by the way, is by my much loved sister, Lucy. I am lost in admiration over her work.

Not many people know this—since my thrillers are scarcely peaceful—but I have my sensitive side!

Probably.

327 words.

---

--

(#28) October 29 2014.

PERSONAL NEWS

EVERY AUTHOR NEEDS A CHAMPION—AND IT IS BEST IF SHE IS A WOMAN

I have never forgotten how tough it was to learn to write—and then to sell my first book. After several false starts—I committed totally in 1986—but it wasn’t until December 1990 that GAMES OF THE HANGMAN sold.

It wasn’t bought by a major publisher. It was accepted by Grove Press, a relatively small publishing house, which—in those days—was more associated with pushing the boundaries of censorship than anything else. Perhaps the fairly graphic sex in my book resonated… Perhaps I scraped through by a single orgasm. 

Which reminds me—there is a back-story to all this—involving an assistant to my agent—I keep on forgetting. It was really only thanks to her that I got my break. Something about my writing turned her on. Perhaps there is more truth to my orgasm quip than I realize.

Everyone needs a champion—and sex is a great motivator.

Grove were established in 1951 and, over the years, published a whole string of highly regarded avant-garde authors. They included: Jean Jenet; Jack Kerouac; William Burroughs; Allen Ginsberg, Malcolm X, Henry Miller; D.H. Lawrence (LADY’S CHATERLEY’S LOVER) and the Marquis de Sade.

I was a natural fit, now I think about it.

Five long years had gone by—a long time as most people count it. My sense of time is rather different. I will tend to spend as long on a project as it takes—and am more interested in the outcome than how long it takes.

Does that mean I’m slow—perhaps extremely slow?

It means I tend to do difficult things, which initially—almost invariably—are beyond my capabilities.

Of course, I’m still learning to write—and still struggling to sell my books—but when you have never done it before, it seems to an impossible task—and, statistically—in those pre-Amazon days—it pretty much was. Self-publishing was not really a viable option then, so your fate was in the hands of agents and traditional publishers.

God help you—because, mostly, they will not. You have been warned.

In truth, getting published by a traditional publisher is something of a Faustian bargain. On the one hand, you are almost certainly achieving your life’s ambition. On the other hand, if you have spoken to other published authors, you will know that you are largely dealing with people who cause the Devil to check that his tail is still there when he encounters them. He keeps them in a special ultra-high security section of Hell, with the heat turned up just a little higher. Agents and publishers—as you would expect—all go to Hell.

Authors, of course, never go to Hell. Since , by definition, our life is Purgatory, we go straight to Heaven. In fact, since our role in life is to illuminate the human condition—I guess we are really angels.

Never quite thought of it that way before. Makes me feel kind of warm and feathery.

488 words

---

(#27) October 28 2014.

I CONFESS! I HAVE A WEAKNESS FOR AVIATION

TRUE, IT’S A WEAPONS OF WAR—WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO BREAK THINGS AND KILL PEOPLE—BUT IT’S A TRULY BEAUTIFUL AIRCRAFT.

IT’S THE SAAB GRIPPEN, HOW CAN TINY SWEDEN AFFORD TO BUILD SUCH A SOPHISTICATED AIRCRAFT? YET THE SWEDES DO—AND BRAZIL AND ARGENTINA ARE ABOUT TO BUY A BUNCH.

The Grippen you see here is a two-seater version in Brazilian Air Force markings. It is less than half the cost of an F-35 and eminently capable of doing most of what we need operationally. It also has a much lower cost per flying hour.

Is the U.S. military concerned with cost? Largely, it would appear not.

So, given the extraordinary resources we expend upon military matters—vastly more than any other nation—do we win all our wars?

Largely, it would appear not. Instead, we have a disconcerting habit of winning the battles, losing the wars—and making the underlying situation a great deal worse.

Can we really say:

• Our invasion of Iraq was justified?
• We have left the Middle East better off?

Considerations of cost effectiveness apart—and if we had any sense at all, we should consider such things—despite its lower cost, and deadly purpose, the Gripen is a beautifully designed creation.

Sweden, as a whole, is worth a close look. They have evolved a way of life which most of us would envy—if only we knew about it.

Mostly, we don’t. Our media largely avoid international comparisons. Just as well. Whatever be the issue—whether it be healthcare, food quality, the environment, longevity,vacation time, or worker rights—we rarely come out well these days.

And we are continuing to lose ground.

Worth pondering.

268 words.

---

(#26) October 27 2014

WHEN WILL WE WAKE UP?

THE BOTTOM 90 PERCENT OF AMERICANS ARE POORER TODAY THAT THEY/WE WERE IN 1987

THAT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE MOST OF OUR COMPETITION IS CONCERNED. THEY HAVE BEEN GETTING BETTER OFF. WE HAVE BEEN LOSING GROUND. WE CONTINUE TO DO SO.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

You know, although I wear an economics hat, primarily I’m a thriller writer with strong military interests and connections—so I don’t particularly like dwelling upon this Great Country’s decline. That said, I’m somewhat shaken by the fact that the Mid-Terms are upon up us, yet no one still seems to be making an issue of the dire state of most of the U.S. population (at least as far as the economy is concerned). Instead, the media are rabbiting about Ebola—with a side dish of ISIS—and are ignoring the painful fact that most of us are getting poorer at quite a rapid rate.

All is not well in the land of the (legally) drugged, and the home of the free (but heavily indebted). And I wouldn’t be too sure about the ‘free’ bit. Try forming a union tomorrow—or complaining about chemical pollution, and see where that gets you. Powerful people will do their best to wreck your way of life—and I wouldn’t count on the Supreme Court helping you out (unless you are rich).

Good people! I’ve got news for you. The state of our economy—as far as most of us are concerned—constitutes a CLASS A crisis which should have our pulses racing and sweat beading upon out foreheads to such an extent that the entire nation—well 90 percent of us—will have to be quarantined!

The deep blue line is us and you will notice that it is going DOWN! The light blue line is the top 1 percent (the ultra rich) getting ever richer—which is why it is going UP!

The ultra rich can afford to pay whatever and whoever in order to rig the system in their favor—and that is exactly what they do.

So much for democracy. We are now a plutocracy—a country governed by the rich for their own benefit—where less affluent mortals are scarcely listened to. Formal academic research backs up that finding, by the way. Most of us really are irrelevant when it comes to policies.

Here is what Wonkblog says.

It started in the 1980s when the top 1 percent awoke from their long postwar slumber, thanks to the combination of lower taxes, financial deregulation, and new technology. It wasn't a total disaster for the bottom 90 percent. Even as most Americans saved much less, accumulating far less wealth, stock markets and housing prices continued to rise. Until they didn't, coming crash down in 2007 and 2008.

The problem was that middle class doesn't own that much in stocks, but went into debt to buy lots of housing. So the housing crash turned their biggest financial asset into an albatross, wiping out their equity but not their debt. And the housing recovery hasn't done much to fix this, since it's struggled to move beyond the "nascent" stage.

Stocks, meanwhile, collapsed during the crisis, but came back soon thereafter. The middle class, in other words, missed out on the big bull market in stocks, but not on the even bigger bear one in housing. That's why the recovery has restored so little of the wealth that the recession destroyed. In fact, the bottom 90 percent have actually kept losing net worth the past few years, in large part, due to rising student loan debt.

It's been a lost 25 years for the bottom 90 percent, but a lost 15 for the next 9 percent, too. That's right: altogether, the bottom 99 percent are worth less today than they were in 1998.

But this isn't a story about the top 1 percent running away from everybody else. It's a story about the top 0.1 — scratch that, the top 0.01 percent — doing so. You can see that in the chart below, again based on data from Saez and Zucman, of each group's share of US wealth. Indeed, since 1980, the top 0.01 percent's piece of the wealth pie has increased by 8.6 percentage points, while the next 0.09 percent's has done so by 5.4. The bottom 99 percent, meanwhile, have seen their wealth share fall an astonishing 18 percentage points.

Source: Saez and Zucman

Here's a bit of historical perspective: the top 1 percent now own over 41 percent of all the wealth in the country. That's the most since 1939. Although it's still well below the all-time high of 51 percent set in 1928.

In other words, this new Gilded Age might get even more Gilded.

Matt O'Brien is a reporter for Wonkblog covering economic affairs. He was previously a senior associate editor at The Atlantic.

(#25) October 26 2014

PERSONAL NEWS

SOMETIMES THE BEAR GETS YOU— SOMETIMES YOU GET THE BEAR—SOMETIMES YOU RUN LATE REGARDLESS OF WHO IS CHASING WHO

It’s a great feeling to work really well—which was certainly not the case when I was recovering from my mid April injury. I was out of pain by mid August, but—though I was functional—not really firing on all cylinders until about four or five weeks ago. Since then I have been at it for 16 hours a day plus—and feel wonderful.

Or else my concussion was more severe than I thought.

Will I keep on working this crazy schedule? No. I look forward to a somewhat more balanced existence, but right now I’m struggling to make up for lost time.

That’s not so easy. Writing is time-consuming enough in itself—I do research on top of that—and then being entrepreneurial is notoriously time-consuming largely because you are breaking new ground and doing things for the first time. And I would add, because there is always a great deal to learn. True, I have been involved in a number of start-ups before, but this is my first one in the U.S., and my first publishing venture. It’s really a damn fool thing to do at my age—but it’s a great adventure. Incredibly hard work though.

The good news is that —after endless delays and much frustration—things are beginning to work. On the face of it, an observer might—quite reasonably—hold a contrary opinion (I’m dealing with all sorts of problems) but I have the sense that it it is darkest before the dawn.

Work perfectly? I should be so lucky!

Better.

My next big task is to master the phone. I grew up in an era where you turned a handle to wake up an operator to make a call. She then plugged in things to make a connection and—if nothing else was on—had a good listen. The Surveillance State was in existence long before the NSA.

I regard phones with mixed feelings. There are few more effective ways of breaking a writer’s focus than with a phone call. On the other hand, once I get into the spirit of the thing, I rather like chatting on the phone—especially now that costs have come down. There was a time when a phone call had to be regarded as an investment decision.

But, today you don’t talk on a phone. You do everything but…

More on phones later.

Meanwhile, my apologies to those who feel neglected.

415 words

---

(#24) October 25 2014 War has become integral to the American Way of Life—yet our economic wellbeing (for all but a minority) continues to decline.

AUTHOR/ENTRENEPRENEUR/ADVENTURER

WE LOST THE VIETNAM WAR—BUT LEARNED A GREAT DEAL IN THE PROCESS. WE SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN MOST OF IT.

I was sent the above by the estimable Joe Galloway. He is the journalist featured in both the book and of the movie WE WERE SOLDIERS ONCE—AND YOUNG—and has distinguished himself in many other ways as well. We have never met, but we correspond from time to time.

I am not overly impressed by either the rich and powerful—or celebrities (I have met many of both over the years) but Joe is someone I admire.

On to the the focus of this piece—our disturbing habit of making war an integral part of the American Way of Life—while rarely actually declaring it. Apart from being unwise and morally wrong, such behavior directly violates the constitution. It also initiates what the CIA calls “blowback.”

Blowback may be defined as, “profoundly negative and unintended consequences.” Blowback can often be predicted in general terms—because, for instance, if we assassinate a terrorist leader with a Hellfire missile fired from a drone, it is fairly obvious that they will try and retaliate. Its dangers lie in the detail. Retaliation may come in a dangerous and unexpected form. It will almost certainly surprise us since our enemies pick the time, place, and method.

I write heavily researched action thrillers so feel like something of a hypocrite for saying this, but I would really like to see a less militaristic U.S. which was focused on re-building this nation—not on getting a vicarious thrill from our formidable military inflicting death and destruction on yet another under-developed nation.

I write this as someone with many military associations who also happen to believe that we need to be militarily strong. But the whole point of carrying a big stick is that it should not have to be used very often. It is—or should be—primarily a deterrent.

We have got into the habit of striking out with our stick as a matter of routine.

The list of countries we are bombing at will grows ever longer. Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Yemen, Afghanistan—and who knows how many nations in Africa. 

This isn’t to decry the courage of our troops at the sharp end. Generally speaking they do a magnificent job, and deserve all the support they can get—and more besides. But, I do question the system that puts them into harm’s way in the first place. All too often our policies and actions are dramatically at odds with our stated values. Again, all too often, we sow  the seeds of the very actions—like terrorism—which we later so self-righteously condemn.

Do we ever admit our guilt in such matters—and discuss the harsh reality of cause and effect—of action and reaction—and understand, and anticipate, that desperate people will eventually do desperate things? No, largely we do not.

We invade, we kill, we maim, we torture, and we destroy on an epic scale—millions of people killed—and yet we seem to think such actions won’t have consequences.

Meanwhile, the ultra rich who control the MICC (the Military Industrial Congressional Complex) get ever richer—and the economic wellbeing of most Americans is in decline.

We did great things during and after WW II. Our contribution towards the rebuilding of both Europe and Japan is something that every American has every reason to be proud of. But after the Korean War—where active hostilities ended in 1953—we seem to have lost our way.

• The Vietnam War was a horrendous mistake. We should never have become involved. It was much more about nationalism than communism. In fact, Ho Chi Minh was our ally in WW II. He wanted an independent Vietnam. The French wanted to keep it as part of their colony of Indo-China.
• Our activities in South America—nominally to contain communism—do not bear scrutiny. Where Chile was concerned, we conspired to remove a democratically elected president.
• We have interfered endlessly in the Middle East to the point, once again, of conspiring to remove a democratically elected government. Iran has good reason to fear us.
• Hunting down Al Quaeda is one thing. Occupying Afghanistan is something else entirely.
• We had absolutely no business invading Iraq in 2003—and we compounded that problem during our occupation. The Islamic State is a predictable outcome.

As I write this, U.S. troops are in over 100 other countries—and we are, in effect, aggressively dominating the world through our military. Meanwhile, the economic wellbeing of most Americans continues to decline.

This is a great country—which cries out for reform. Our pattern of behavior since the close of the Korean War has to change.

We are, I would like to think, better than this.

761 words.

---

 

 

(#23) October 24 2014. To a writer—everything (no matter how intimate) is material.

AUTHOR/ENTRENEPRENEUR/ADVENTURER

PERSONAL NEWS

Where a writer is concerned, everything is raw material—which is not the same thing as saying that writing is simply a matter of re-gurgitating one’s experiences. Values, judgment, and integrity come into the picture—as does some degree of discretion. That said, it is not unreasonable to regard us scribes with some suspicion. Even if heavily disguised, and in a different context, our experiences have a habit of ending up in our writing—down to every intimate detail. 

Do those experiences include confidences? I guess it depends upon the writer. I would like to think not—at least not in any recognizable form. But, in broad terms, we do use everything. But, we also read a great deal, and use our imaginations.

Friends of mine—particularly female friends—often think that they are  the inspiration for this character, or that—and if they content with that—I don’t disillusion them. However, normally they are wrong because the reality is that most of my characters are composites—and then they just “grow on the page.”

The best of us are remarkably aware, observant, empathetic, analytical—and, dare I say it—judgmental. A writer has to be judgmental—albeit, I would like to hope, in a tolerant way—in that it is nigh impossible to convert thought into words unless you come to some kind of conclusions. Well, you can dither, of course, but that makes for dull writing. Entertaining writing requires a degree of decisiveness. We are in the business of illuminating the human condition—and that requires a writer to commit to a viewpoint—even if in the most subtle way.

But isn’t that risky? Yes, it is—note that one of the first moves of oppressive regimes is to lock up writers (or worse) but writing is innately a business of risk. Just for starters, you are exposing your skills and thoughts to one and all—and stand the risk of becoming a laughing stock. Reviewers may cut you to ribbons.

Has that every happened to me? Yes, it has. At an early stage in my career I received a terrible review in the New York Times. It was written by a competitor who was clearly biased and out to do a hatchet job—but you don’t think of that kind of thing when you have been publicly scarified in one of the most influential newspapers in the world.

I was badly shaken—and so were my publishers (courage is not a common virtue in the publishing business). However, since then I have received so many good reviews for exactly the same book that the incident no longer resonates. Also, I’m now sufficiently battle hardened to take both the good and the bad with a pinch of salt. I have also learned that many critics are just plain ignorant—so if you write about something that is outside their limited experience, they just plain can’t cope. In fact, the CEO of one of my publishers commented that she found my work hard to classify because she couldn’t decide whether I was writing thrillers or fantasy.

Since just about everything in my books has a basis in fact, I was somewhat dumfounded by that remark—but have since learned that ignorance in traditional publishing is not in short supply.

Quite why so many people thought the U.S. was immune from terrorism in the Nineties is a question to which I have no answer—though I think it has to do with the way public opinion is manipulated—and I’m not holding my breath for a phone call from the lady in question to say: “You were right.” I just wish I hadn’t been vindicated in such a horrendous way as 9/11—and that the U.S. hadn’t over-reacted so massively (Sadly, it continues to do so).

We writers can illuminate the human condition—but it is damnably hard to counter deliberate ignorance.

If I now react to my reviewers with equanimity, I confess my fan e-mail still thrills me to bits. I just love love hearing from my readers—and many of those I have met have become friends. A book is a revealing thing—and I have found there is no finer way to bond with another than to give them a book (assuming they read it). The pattern tends to be that when you next meet, they regard you as someone they now know well (but who, maybe, has experienced life with rather too much brio).

All that sex—all that violence—all those fascinating characters… How do you know all that stuff? and have you really done such and such and so and so—and what is it like?

Yes, I have.

658 words

---

(#22) October 23 2014

ARE WE A NATION OF FROGS”

THE FRIGHTENING DECLINE OF THE U.S. MIDDLE CLASS—BY WHICH I MEAN THE BOTTOM 90 PERCENT

YOU? (ME, CERTAINLY)

ALL THE WEALTH ACCUMULATED SINCE 1940 IS GONE. WHO HAS IT NOW? THE ULTRA-RICH 0.1 PERCENT

If ever you wanted an example of the boiling frog pattern of human behavior, you would be hard pressed to find a better example than the attitude of most Americans since the early Seventies.

It was at that time that the ultra rich—and their followers—decided to reclaim their absolute dominance of the U.S. economy. They felt it had been severely challenged by the New Deal, the rise of the trade unions, the War on Poverty, and the massive demonstrations against both the Vietnam War and the system in general that characterized the Sixties—and 1968 specifically. A massive factor—though rarely discussed openly—was—and remains—profound hostility towards the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The poisonous effects of racism are ever a factor in American life.

American capitalism’s extraordinary hostility towards its own workers—unique among developed nations—is heavily intertwined with racism.

This counter-attack by the ultra-rich—seemingly unnoticed by most Americans has been entirely successful—as the above chart shows.

Time to remind you of the frog story.

If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will of course frantically try to clamber out. But if you place it gently in a pot of tepid water and turn the heat on low, it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor, exactly like one of us in a hot bath, and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death.

Version of the story from Daniel Quinn's The Story of B

What is the source of this information? A a new study by economists Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics.

Let me quote from a Huffington Post story of October 20 2014.

Debt has been the big force driving net wealth lower for the middle class, according to Saez and Zucman. Brief bubbles in stock and home prices in the 1990s and 2000s only temporarily offset the steady, depressing rise in mortgage, student-loan, credit-card and other debts for the bottom 90 percent.

"Many middle class families own homes and have pensions, but too many of these families also have much higher mortgages to repay and much higher consumer credit and student loans to service than before," Saez and Zucman wrote.

Another important factor has been that incomes have stagnated for most Americans over the past few decades, once adjusted for inflation. Along with rising debt levels, stagnant wages have made it impossible for most families to save very much money.

And who has been the beneficiary of this middle-class misery? The top 0.1 percent of Americans, whose incomes have just kept rising, and whose share of wealth has soared to levels not seen since Jay Gatsby was still staring at the blinking green light at the end of Daisy Buchanan's dock:

In fact, the middle class is not alone in suffering from shrinking wealth. The rest of the top 10 percent of Americans below the 0.1 percent -- the "merely rich," Saez and Zucman call them -- have also suffered from falling household wealth over the past four decades.

This rising inequality of wealth can only lead to more inequality of income and wealth in the future, Saez and Zucman warned, echoing French economist Thomas Piketty. The very rich will just keep getting richer by living on the returns from their wealth, while the rest of us will keep falling behind.

Are we doing anything about this? No.

Is it a major issue in the Mid-Terms? No.

Are the media making an issue of it? No.

Does it mean that the U.S. is in rapid economic decline? Yes (as far as most of us are concerned).

Is this decline inevitable? No—it’s actually quite unnecessary—but it is inevitable if we don’t change the current American Business Model (which is rigged in numerous ways—and is certainly not free market capitalism).

666 words.

---

(#21) October 22 2014

AUTHOR/ENTREPRENEUR/ADVENTURER

MOST BOOK AUTHORS ARE ENTREPRENEURS—WHETHER WE KNOW IT OR NOT—AND EVERY BOOK IS A STARTUP

After I committed to writing back in 1986, the last thing I wanted to know about was business. Instead, I determined to focus solely on writing and creativity—and somehow to try and bring that elusive story, GAMES OF THE HANGMAN (inspired by actual events) to maturity.

Though fortunately I didn’t know the true scale of what I was up against, the odds against me were were colossal. What I was trying to do was virtually statistically impossible. I had never written anything of significance other than business reports before. I had no formal qualifications in book writing (though I have a Masters in Economics, English, and History). I had neither network nor mentor, and I had no training in technique.

Those minor details apart—although I didn’t fully understand it then—I was entering one of the most competitive markets in the world where the competition—carefully selected and invested in massively by major publishers over the decades—could (and did) crush anyone fool enough to challenge their hegemony over the book market.  I would be up against authors I loved like Nelson De Mille, Tom Clancy, Frederick Forsyth, John Le Carre and other luminaries of that caliber.

I hadn’t a hope in hell.

Evidently, Hell is survivable (occasionally).

In 1991, I was on the New York Times Bestseller List close to James Mitchener. A little later, I was featured in an international advertising campaign for CNN along with Hilary Clinton, Nelson Mendela—and the Dalai Lama. This scarcely happened overnight. It took five long years.

Subsequently,  I was offered $1 million to write two books. My reaction? I laughed.

Everything didn’t work out the way I would have liked after that—such is the publishing business-but I still did pretty well. And, I did get my million (rather more, in fact).

When my fan mail started to arrive in volume—thanks to the wonders of e-mail—I was on cloud nine (and still haven’t entirely come down). I owe a great deal to my fans—thousands and thousands of you. They/You gave me the strength to keep going.

My real success and joy came—slowly and painfully over the years—from learning how to write well—if not as well as I would like. That was, and remains, my goal. Everything else is nice—but secondary. 

Now, nearly 30 years later, my world has gone full circle. I am now re-entering business—starting up a new publishing company in fact—while remaining a writer.

Neat, wouldn’t you say?

Am I nervous?

Nothing is certain in business—except stress, treachery, death, and taxes—and a lot of fun if you do it right—but my primary concern remains writing to an ever higher standard.

That said, Mark Cuban’s rules make a great deal of sense to me—especially the first and the fifth. The fifth is a polite way of saying: “Know your limitations.”

We all need help and none of us excel across the board. I certainly don’t.

502 words

---

(#20) October 21 2014

PERSONAL NEWS

THE THOUGHTS OF A PROJECT-DRIVEN MAN

Writing starts with thinking—so I spend a great deal of time thinking (whether I want to or not). But what initiates thinking—given that a book writer normally works alone so has to be proactive?

Between you, me, and the gatepost—I have long thought that way too much of human existence is reactive—responding to stimuli, whether in work, politically, or socially, which others create. At a certain point, given enough conditioning, our reactions become almost entirely predicable—which means, in essence, that we are being manipulated. Is that any way to spend one’s life. I think not—which is why I’m a writer.

That’s a difficult question to answer—because, to be quite frank—and I say this with deep regret—I have very little idea how my mind works (or anyone else’s for that matter). Cognition remains a mystery to me. Yes, I know that great advances are currently being made in understanding how the mind works, but I confess that fascinated though I am, I have other priorities—so am far from I’m up to date on current medical literature on the subject (and am far from sure I would understand it, if I was).

Back to the question—“What initiates thinking?”

• Intellectual curiosity. I claim no credit. I seem to have been born with it. “Why” was my favorite word while while a child. Now I realize that the answer—in many situations—is: “Because they can.”
• One’s environment. This is partly a matter of circumstance but is greatly influenced by one’s own choices. For instance, a writer could choose to live in monastic isolation intellectually—or, alternatively—whatever be one’s physical situation—opt for contemplating the great issues of life and dwell in a state of intellectual ferment. Since my name isn’t Plato—or Goethe, for that matter—I have opted for a compromise. The day I focus on seeking the meaning of life, is the day I shall need medical attention. I am quite satisfied that I shall never know—as long as I’m alive (and am far from sure I’ll be informed by Saint Peter when I’m dead—or that I’m in that much of a hurry to find out).
• People and one’s relationship with them. This area is about as all encompassing as you want to make it. I have no idea what the right balance is—and doubt I ever will. To make matters worse, a fiction writer like myself  (I also write non-fiction) not only has to contend with real people, but with my characters—who are equally demanding. Oy vey! I confess I do like (most) women—and would probably think about them a great deal more if it wasn’t for my writing. Where women are concerned, I tend towards the view that thinking should be followed by action—but I digress.
• One’s current project. For better or worse, I now accept that I am project driven—and that most of my thinking stems from trying to clarify exactly what it is that I want to achieve—and how to get there. This doesn’t mean that I don’t think about family, friends—and the fact that the Greeks have a funny alphabet, and the other great mysteries of life. It is more that my primary focus tends to be on the one major task I have set myself. That helps me—at least to some extent—to de-clutter my mind. Or such is my delusion!

I suspect I latched onto the concept of always having one dominant project as an antidote to an overactive mind. Either way, it has been the pattern of my life to determine a goal which:

• Is, on the face of it, beyond my current capabilities.
• Where I have less than adequate experience.
• Will take a ridiculous length of time.
• Will be extremely difficult to achieve.
• Will not necessarily improve my circumstances in any material way.
• Will stretch me from my gullet to my zatch (no, I don’t know what a zatch is).
• May well be guided by a higher motive (Save lives; create jobs; improve the human condition in some way—impractical motives in the scheme of things).

This sounds crazy, on the face of it, but I don’t think it is any more dramatic than the fact that I respond to challenge—and would like to feel that, in some areas—like the economy or the military—I have made a difference (albeit, perhaps, in a small way). Have I succeeded at all? More than you might think—though I have had failures too. But, though it is something of a cliché to say so, you do tend to learn more from your failures than your successes.

You might think that if I knew nothing else, I would at least understand my current project with precision—and sometimes I do—but the strange thing is that it normally arrives like a story. You start off with little more than a concept—which then gets fleshed out over time.

How much time? Months or years—as long as it takes. Creativity doesn’t punch a time-clock. It doesn’t even punch critics.

Strangely enough, my current project—probably the last major project of my life (though don’t count on it) makes a great deal of practical and commercial sense—as well as satisfying the altruistic side of my nature. Perhaps, at the age of 70, I have finally grown up (though I wouldn’t be entirely sure of that either). But:

• It’s playing to my strengths and experience—and directly at that.
• If successful, it will significantly improve my circumstances in material as well as other terms.
• As a side benefit—in that I will be able to publish socially concerned works in addition to my mass market thrillers—it  it will satisfy the altruistic side of my nature.

Given that, all in all, it is a good thing—why is it taking so long to implement? Am I dragging my feet because of fear of failure—or what?

Managing my fears certainly comes into it—and I’m not as good as I’d like to be in this area—but I think the primary reasons lie elsewhere.

• This is a vastly more complex project than it seems, with a huge amount of detail to master—something I did not appreciate adequately when I started my research (which is why one does research). I stopped counting the web sites I had visited at 4,000 and that was a couple of years ago.
• I have spent a truly ridiculous amount of time both on desk research generally and on monitoring the book market and social media specifically. 
• It is not just complex. It is difficult—both inherently and because it involves a wide variety of different skills with associated learning curves.  It is not impossibly difficult—with effort, I have been able to master each individual task (so far)—it is the sheer number which raises the bar.
• I have been working with very limited resources. I’m embarrassed to say how limited (so I won’t).
• I have been seeking to improve my productivity in parallel in order to gain the time to both do the work associated with publishing—and still have time to write. This has actually cost me serious time in the short term as I have evaluated one unsuccessful methodology after another, but overall is proving out. I will finish the five years I have allocated to this quest by having changed my way of working quite dramatically—and being at least twice as productive (I hope for more). The cost has been at least a year. Worth it? Well, it depends how long I live. I’m going to feel damn foolish if I die tomorrow.
• As is the nature of life, I have been distracted by deaths (all too many—18 or so including family, illness and an accident (serious and entirely my own fault).
• I have taken time both to learn to blog—and, after a learning curve, to blog every day. Has this been worth it? Absolutely—and in ways I find it hard to express. It will also be a key element in my marketing program. But, all this has taken significant time. How much? Out of the last four and a half years, probably nine months to a year. I hated the task when I started—and for some time thereafter.
• Blogging and research apart, I have continued to write—though not as much as I would have liked. Still, it has led to 2.5 new books—plus a website draft the length of a long novel. And, in addition, I have written a screenplay. That little lot totals a book a year—or equivalent—which is the minimum creative target I have set myself.
• I have continued to carry out my daily media troll—focused heavily on military matters, the economy, international affairs, and matters of social concern. It could be argued that I should have dropped all this to focus on my publishing venture, but keeping myself well informed just feels right to me—and the results are put to good to use in my blog and virtually everything I write. But, I won’t deny that this ongoing effort takes time.

If I worked a five day 40 hour week, my workload would be impossible—and I haven’t even mentioned the time-consuming volume of e-mails and other administrative matters. However, I typical work in, or around, twice as many hours so manage to cope. Will I continue this ridiculous schedule indefinitely? Probably not. I would like—and need—a social life. But, it has been relevant during this particular period. And on one meal a day at that! Call it a long overdue exercise in self-discipline.

But, I still haven’t really answered my own question—even though I might have appeared to do so—as to why has Digital Blue is taking so long.

The issues I have mentioned apart, I don’t think I knew the answer myself until recently. But, the core issue has been that although I knew I had a good plan intellectually—and felt strongly that it would work—I didn’t feel entirely comfortable with it. Somehow, it was missing an ingredient that would put it over the top.

Recently, thanks to some hard work, testing, and some truly amazing developments, at last I feel like a sniper who—even before he squeezes the trigger-knows he will have a hit.

If every you have shot seriously, you will understand. Though self-doubt is part of the human condition, and a healthy antidote to arrogance, sometimes you just know you’ve got it right.

Now, I feel ready to move ahead at full speed.

1, 7401 words (not exactly my target, but this was important).

---

 

 

 

 

 

#19 October 20 2014.

ON WRITING

WRITERS DO SOME OF THEIR BEST WRITING WHEN WRITING ABOUT THAT VERY SUBJECT. PERHAPS, THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE. WE LOVE IT SO.

The following is taken from Maria Popova’s quite remarkable www.brainpickings.org web site. I know of no other person than Maria Popova who both understands and communicates the essence of creativity so well. The woman is downright uncanny. I am an unabashed admirer.

"Learning how to be a good reader is what makes you a writer," the magnificent Zadie Smith told the audience at the 15th annual New Yorker Festival on a late Friday night, echoing Susan Sontag's assertion that fruitful writing is born out of fruitful reading, out of a "book-drunken life." This osmotic relationship between reading and writing has been extolled in forms as piercingly poetic as Kafka's letter on the purpose of books and as scientifically grounded as the work of Harvard psycholinguist Steven Pinker, but hardly anyone has expressed it more lyrically and with more shimmering aliveness than another of our era's greatest essayists,Rebecca Solnit, in The Faraway Nearby(public library) – the equally, if differently, rewarding follow-up to her spectacular essay collection A Field Guide to Getting Lost.

In the fourth of the book's thirteen extraordinary essays, titled "Flight," Solnit writes:

“Like many others who turned into writers, I disappeared into books when I was very young, disappeared into them like someone running into the woods. What surprised and still surprises me is that there was another side to the forest of stories and the solitude, that I came out that other side and met people there. Writers are solitaries by vocation and necessity. I sometimes think the test is not so much talent, which is not as rare as people think, but purpose or vocation, which manifests in part as the ability to endure a lot of solitude and keep working. Before writers are writers they are readers, living in books, through books, in the lives of others that are also the heads of others, in that act that is so intimate and yet so alone.

“Writing is saying to no one and to everyone the things it is not possible to say to someone. Or rather writing is saying to the no one who may eventually be the reader those things one has no someone to whom to say them. Matters that are so subtle, so personal, so obscure that I ordinarily can’t imagine saying them to the people to whom I’m closest. Every once in a while I try to say them aloud and find that what turns to mush in my mouth or falls short of their ears can be written down for total strangers. Said to total strangers in the silence of writing that is recuperated and heard in the solitude of reading. Is it the shared solitude of writing, is it that separately we all reside in a place deeper than society, even the society of two? Is it that the tongue fails where the fingers succeed, in telling truths so lengthy and nuanced that they are almost impossible aloud?”

511 words

---

#18 October 19 2014

PERSONAL NEWS

THE STRANGE CASE OF THE AMAZINGLY APPEALING PHOTOGRAPH (YES, THIS ONE). WHO IS THIS GUY?

I find it truly ironic that book writers—who tend towards the solitary and introverted—now have to market themselves actively and effectively (to the extent of building up a substantial following) before an agent, let alone a publisher, will even look at them.

But what about the writing?

Frankly, in our current culture, one’s writing is irrelevant if not pre-determined—as validated by social media—to have significant sales appeal.

Do Facebook ‘likes’ in fact equate to sales? Well, that’s a whole other can of worms, but they do validate an agent’s argument when he is pushing your work—and, similarly, they justify a publisher’s acquisition committee’s decision to purchase and publish.

Yes, now that the large traditional publishers have been condensed into five corporatized bemoths (an oligopoly), committees are how it’s done these days (so don’t try and be too original). 

But, on that basis—if the author has to do all the work—why have an agent and publisher?  Well, to be fair, there is a great deal more to publishing a book than marketing—although marketing is the dominant requirement—but many of us are currently asking exactly that question (especially given that many writers are treated less than optimally by such middlemen). Furthermore, more than a few of us who have undertaken the task of self-publishing professionally—and with adequate resources—have done impressively well (though there is much debate about the actual figures).

Personally, I have chosen the self-publishing route—better known these days as ‘indie publishing’—and it was in furtherance of that goal that late last March, and early April, that I initiated a series of tests to try and resolve the positioning issue. I have long regarded that question as the hardest to answer. It’s more art than science.

Positioning, in essence, is how you represent your brand to the marketplace in order to maximize your sales appeal. Marketing probably has a formal definition, but that is how I see it.

To that end, I issued the above photo—somewhat reluctantly since I have never particularly liked my appearance, and have certainly never considered myself a good-looking man. In terms of ego, I’m proud of my brain—despite its eccentricities—but, in the absence of an alternative, have never more that tolerated my appearance.

As far as the photo is concerned, others would disagree. The response has been mind-boggling to the point of extraordinary.

And it is continuing.

Who is this affable looking adventurer with the laughter lines around his eyes? Does my life, as I remember it, equate to that physical appearance? I look, indeed, like a man who has had a good and interesting life—and is continuing to do so.

I have no explanation.

I can but chuckle.

467 words.

---

# 17 October 18 204. There are (very) faint signs that some major corporations are beginning to realize that depressing the wages of the Middle Class is bad for business—because people with no money don’t buy things. Low demand results in low growth. What do they teach in business schools that this basic fact seems to have eluded them for so long? So are they raising wages at last? No.

THE BIG SQUEEZE ON THE AMERICAN WORKER

IS HAVING BIG & BAD CONSEQUENCES AS FAR AS THE U.S ECONOMY IS CONCERNED. THAT SHOULDN’T REALLY COME AS A SURPRISE.

On numerous occasions in the past, I have pointed out that the current American Business Model is not only broken, but unsustainable—not to mention grossly unfair as far as the majority of Americans is concerned.

On the other hand, the media, and those they like to interview, are—generally speaking—putting out the notion that since unemployment is dropping, the stock market is fairly healthy, and corporate profits are at or near an all-time high, we’re getting back to normal—and all is nearly well again.

This is pure drivel, media manipulation, and the kind of behavior which makes people regard the media with such suspicion (a great pity because there is some fine journalism out there)—which many people seem to be accepting—largely, I suspect, because it is more palatable that facing the facts. And I guess ignorance is making no small contribution.

Let me turn to Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz for some moral support. The following is an extract only.

NEW YORK -- Two new studies show, once again, the magnitude of the inequality problem plaguing the United States. The first, the U.S. Census Bureau's annual income and poverty report, shows that, despite the economy's supposed recovery from the Great Recession, ordinary Americans' incomes continue to stagnate. Median household income, adjusted for inflation, remains below its level a quarter century ago.

It used to be thought that America's greatest strength was not its military power, but an economic system that was the envy of the world. But why would others seek to emulate an economic model by which a large proportion -- even a majority -- of the population has seen their income stagnate while incomes at the top have soared?

The recent economic downturn eviscerated the wealth of many. In the U.S., even after the stock market recovery, median wealth fell more than 40 percent from 2007 to 2013. That means that many of the elderly and those approaching retirement worry about their standards of living. Millions of Americans have lost their homes; millions more face the insecurity of knowing that they may lose theirs in the future.

These insecurities are in addition to those that have long confronted Americans. In the country's inner cities, millions of young Hispanics and African Americans face the insecurity of a dysfunctional and unfair police and judicial system; crossing the path of a policeman who has had a bad night may lead to an unwarranted prison sentence -- or worse.

The report by the International Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (which I chaired) emphasized that GDP is not a good measure of how well an economy is performing. The U.S. Census and UNDP reports remind us of the importance of this insight. Too much has already been sacrificed on the altar of GDP fetishism.

Regardless of how fast GDP grows, an economic system that fails to deliver gains for most of its citizens, and in which a rising share of the population faces increasing insecurity, is, in a fundamental sense, a failed economic system. And policies, like austerity, that increase insecurity and lead to lower incomes and standards of living for large proportions of the population are, in a fundamental sense, flawed policies.

531 words (old format)

---

#16 October 17 2014. Though it may not seem like it, progress towards a tighter, more personal, blog continues.

PERSONAL NEWS

KIPLING - A MAN AFTER MY OWN HEART

“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition.”

“I am by nature a dealer in words, and words are the most powerful drug known to humanity.”

RUDYARD KIPLING

I’ve been endeavoring to make this blog more personal—and shorter (300 words is my not-set-in-stone target)—but a backlog of blogs I had written ahead, and now want to use, has rather confused the issue in the short term. Nonetheless, my goal is clear—and the overall trend towards a tighter, more personal, blog will soon be evident.

I’m going to have to find another home for my longer pieces—my essays, for want of a better term. Separate subject-focused websites would seem to be the answer. The subjects? Here is a provisional list.

• VICTOR ON WRITING
• VICTOR ON CREATIVITY
• VICTOR ON DEFENSE
• VICTOR ON AVIATION
• VICTOR ON FINDING AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT WORKS
• VICTOR ON INNOVATION
• VICTOR ON ENTRPRENEURSHIP & STARTUPS
• VICTOR ON WOMEN
• VICTOR ON COMPUTERS
• VICTOR ON HEALTH, FOOD, DIET, & EXERCISE

Too much? Of course. But, at this stage I’m merely airing some thoughts. As always, execution is another—much more difficult—matter.

But, I do have wide interests—and like to write about them. The process seems to air the brain (thriller writer’s thought—but so does a bullet!)..

Let me close by saying that I love Kipling. I was introduced to him by my much loved grandmother, Vida Lentaigne. She used to read to me a great deal before I learned to read for myself. Sometimes, when I was very small, she would offer an extra chapter or two if I would eat something I didn’t like. And thus I ate all my artichokes—and have never eaten one since.

Listening to her read was pure joy.

302 words

---

 

#15 October 16 2014. If you have air-power, do you need artillery? Could mortars be a compromise?

LAND WARFARE

FIREPOWER—WHAT THE ARMY CALLS ‘FIRES’

A battery of field artillery is worth a thousand muskets.

William Tecumseh Sherman

Our artillery has really been sensational. For once we have enough of something and at the right time. Officers tell me they actually have more guns than they know what to do with.

Ernie Pyle

Artillery conquers and infantry occupies

J.F. C. Fuller

I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know, the artillery did

General George S. Patton

---

My first encounter with artillery was when I was five. At the time we lived in England near a village called Chalfont Saint Peter (Anne Hathaway's cottage is nearby. She was Shakespeare's significant other). It boasted a common where I liked to go and play.

What is a ‘common’? Essentially, it is a left-over from a time when much of the land was common—publicly owned—and open to all.  The Enclosure Movement of the 18th and 19th centuries put an end to much of that—it was a land grab by the rich—but some patches survived. Today, a common is little different from a park, although typically unfenced and less cultivated—at least in my experience.

I am a great fan of commons. I believe that as much of the land as possible should belong to us all.  I believe in free enterprise, but not to the point that one person ends up with all the marbles.

BRITISH 25 POUNDER ARTILLERY – NO LONGER IN USE EXCEPT FOR CEREMONIAL PURPOSES

On the day in question, there was some sort of official ceremony and a battery of six 25 pounder guns brought in to fire a salute. Being a little boy and curious, I wriggled my way to be as close as possible. I was alone. Young though I was, I was regularly sent to the village to buy cigarettes for my mother so was well used to it. She had a distinctive maternal style.

I was petrified to the point of tears when the first gun fired. It was the loudest, and most terrifying sound I had ever heard in my life. I fled home. For various reasons, I have become more accustomed to artillery over the years, but that first sound still hits me in the gut.

Artillery is terrifying, both psychologically—and in its physical effects. Even if you are not hit, there are few more fear-inducing experiences than being on the receiving end of a barrage. The noise, blast and fear of imminent death cauterize the senses. You feel insignificant and entirely vulnerable in the face of such power. The prospect of being killed by blast, or ripped apart by red-hot shards of metal, lacks appeal.

In fact, artillery is relatively survivable if you are well dug in—but that still means you cannot move—and have to await your fate. If you are caught out in the open, depending upon the terrain, it is likely that your casualties will be terrible.

BRITISH DESIGNED 155MM M777 ‘LIGHTWEIGHT’ TOWED HOWITZER NOW IN USE BY U.S. ARMY & MARINE CORPS

The kill zone of a 155mm howitzer is roughly 50 meters and the casualty radius 100 meters. The effective range is 15 miles for a conventional shell and 25 miles for an Excalibur (a guided round). The normal rate of fire is two rounds per minute—though five is possible for limited periods. 

THE LONGEST RANGE ARTILLERY SHOT THAT THE MAINES HAVE RECORDED WAS A 155MM M982 EXCALIBUR ROUND WHICH WAS FIRED FROM MORE THAN 36 K (22 MILES) ONTO TALIBAN.

Traditionally, artillery has not been particularly accurate—more an area weapon—unless in a short-range direct fire mode—but the 155mm Excalibur is a PGM (Precision Guided Munition) and in Iraq was found to be accurate to within 4 meters (13 feet) which is pretty amazing given its range of 25 miles. On the other hand, each Excalibur shell is so expensive, the quantity available is decidedly limited.

The great thing about artillery fire support is that (theoretically) it is available on a 24/7 basis. It isn’t affected by the weather, its loiter time isn’t affected by high fuel consumption (unlike air-power); and operationally, command is simplified by the fact that it is integral to its service (Army or Marines).

Artillery is called King of Battle for very good reason. It inflicted the majority of casualties in WW I and was decisive in WW II.

So what is the problem?

Everything about it is heavy. That means transporting it, and keeping it supplied, is damnably difficult.

For instance, a single ‘light’ 155mm howitzer weighs nearly 8 tons and requires a crew of 9—and each shell ways about 100 pounds. That means—if you fire two rounds (normal rate of fire) a minute for one hour (a short barrage) you need six tons of ammunition per hour. Keep up the barrage for eight hours, and that means you need 48 tons for just one gun.  For a single six gun battery, you need 288 tons.

For just one battery!

In short, artillery is a logistics nightmare—especially for a fast moving maneuver oriented unit.

Not, in truth, that we do much maneuvering at speed on land these days. IEDs are one reason; logistics is another; the third has to do with the fact that we pay more lip service to maneuver warfare than we actually do it.

For that reason, it tends to be a higher command asset so that, in reality, it is not available on demand. You have to negotiate up the chain of command. It is yet another scarce resource.

Is there an alternative—or a supplement?

There is—up to a point. Mortars.

MARINES EFSS (EXPEDITIONERY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM) 120MM RIFLED MORTAR IS TRANSPORTABLE IN THE MV-22 OSPREY TILT ROTOR, CH-53 HELICOPTER AND C-130 AIRCRAFT UPWARDS. THE SYSTEM INCLUDES THE GROWLER JEEP AND AN AMMUNITION TRAILER

For the sake of comparing apples with apples (more or less) I’m comparing the 155mm howitzer with 120mm mortar. Why so? Well, the projectiles have—more or less—the same killing zone.

A classic mortar is a relatively simple indirect fire weapon (albeit surprisingly sophisticated in detail) which sacrifices range for portability and simplicity. An added advantage is that mortars, generally speaking, have higher rates of fire—and the ammunition is lighter (roughly a third of the weight of artillery rounds). Today, thanks to computer based targeting systems, they are also extremely accurate.

In sum, the one advantage that artillery has over mortars is range. Of course, that’s an overwhelming advantage if you have no other way of ‘going deep’—your enemy can just stand off and kill you at his leisure—but what if you do have an option—air-power.

The U.S. has more air-power than any other nation in the world—and we have PGMs (Precision Guided Munitions) to go with it. That means we can bomb with relative impunity from 20,000 to 30,000 feet—and be fairly sure to hit our targets.

True, there are missiles available which can down an aircraft at that height—but they are not widely available, we have counter-measures, and the missiles themselves are vulnerable. So airpower, if not invulnerable, is relatively low risk—as matters stand.

On that basis, it would seem only commonsense that airpower could substitute for artillery.

Clearly, it already does on occasions—and fairly frequently at that, particularly where Special Forces are concerned. However, it is not quite that simple for several reasons:

• Air-power is a scarce resource and not always available.
• Most of the aircraft we have carry only a small number of bombs and have limited ‘legs.’ They cannot maintain a bombardment for hours in the steady way artillery can. Artillery is arguably still better for area denial.
• The Air Force isn’t particularly fond of the CAS (Close Air Support) mission.
• The Air Force is a separate service with a separate chain of command.

It seems to me that the time has come for the Air Force to be capable of (note my words) replacing artillery—which may require completely new aircraft tailored for the mission. It will certainly require a different mindset by the Air Force.

 

DRAGON FIRE II AUTOMATED SELF-LOADING MORTAR IS ABLE TO FIRE WITHIN 18 SECONDS OF RECEIVING TARGET DATA—AND IT IS DEADLY ACCURATE

One of the most interesting 120mm mortar systems out there is the automated Dragon Fire II. Though you have to keep its ammunition hopper fed, its system loads and fires itself—and is extremely accurate. It was developed by the Marines but, in the end, was not selected because of its weight and bulk. The limiting factor was the CV-22 Osprey tiltrotor which—to be blunt—has too small a cargo area. In fact, it was developed without the thought that it might need to carry a vehicle, let alone a mortar and ammunition trailer.

Given the cost of the Osprey, this omission is somewhat inexplicable (not an adequate word but I’m trying to be tactful) but a surprising number of weapons systems are not thought through holistically. The focus tends to be on the project rather than the operational concept.

Here are the Dragonfire II’s specs.

• Weight -  1.5 tons
• Range -  8 miles with extended range ammunition
• Rate of fire – 10 rounds per minute
• Can fire in 18 seconds from target data being entered into computer.

Personally, I think the Marines made a mistake in not selecting the Dragon Fire II though the limitations of the Osprey probably gave them no choice in the matter. But the DF II is an extraordinary weapons system. 

By the way, mortars will become even more deadly with the introduction of PERM (Precision Extended Range Munition) rounds. These have a range of 17 kliks—about 12 miles, and a CEP accuracy of 20 meters at full range.

 

 

 

THESE HIGHLY ACCURATE PERM ROUNDS WILL GIVE A 120MM RIFLED MORTAR ABOUT HALF THE RANGE OF A 155MM HOWITZER

1,611 words (old format)

---