(#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)

---