HD1990-C130GS

Pre-Gunship Experience

From 1955 to 1975 I worked in the Aerospace Industry for what became Autonetics division of North American Aviation which became Rockwell and later part of Boeing. The work was thrust vector Flight Control for the Navaho and Minuteman I, II & III missile series; using electronically controlled hydraulic servo actuators; also on a post boost propulsion system using 13 rocket engines for deploying warheads – I then changed fields to R&D on how to convert analog to digital electronics. When Reagan reactivated the B-1B, I was sent to the NAA division and was assigned where needed on multiple kinds of equipments and disciplines. Next on loan to Douglas to help start the C-17 cargo plane, with primary work on design of the cockpit overhead control panel. I was called back to Autonetics and assigned to help NAA on the C-130 Gunship program, then in trouble. NAA decided to have Autonetics a sister division build the Operator Consoles then reassigned the work to a sub division in Tulsa. I was kept on to help define the work to be done by Tulsa. The AF did not like the proposed interface between the five gunship operators and their respective systems and I was asked me to look into the problem. I came up with a new electronic box concept and told to proceed with the design. The design was approved, subcontracted, built and incorporated. To the best of my knowledge that system is in use on C-130 Gun ships in Iraq.

Aerospace contracts turn on and off, I’d worked on the Navaho for only a year when 4000 were laid off in one day. When out on loan, Autonetics went from over 4000 to 1000. To stay employed you must master new skills, change work sites and prove your worth over and over to strangers – I was among a fortunate few not laid off. It’s a diverse business and I reported at the C-130 site equipped for whatever.

Gun Ship Concept

The airborne gun ship concept was developed by those in the Vietnam war by mounting guns in C-47 cargo planes of pre-WW2 vintage and firing them from the left side while the pilot flew in a circle about a target. These were upgraded to a C-130 version done by Lockheed. NAA took on the contract for a more sophisticated version based on a concept promoted by Col. Ron Terry, who had flown C-47 Gunships during the Vietnam war – he was hired as a consultant by Rockwell where I met him. He had excellent relations with Air Force procurement and gunship personnel sent to design reviews.

The cargo area of the C-130 was divided into a left, right and aft areas. The left side held the guns and gun crew, the right side housed 5 operators in a “Battle Management Center” and the aft area held ammo. Firing from the left side were three guns: a single 105 mm cannon, a pair of 40 mm “Bofor” anti-aircraft guns, and a recent vintage 25 mm “Gatling” gun – which produced more recoil than any of the other guns.

The battle management area had three consoles: a forward facing dual console for the All TV and Infra Red system operators. A center facing dual console for the Fire Control Officer (FCO) and the Radar-Navigator operator. Plus an aft facing console for the Defensive Weapons Operator, who’s “weapons” were classified. It was the FCO’s task to select which sensor control to apply to which gun or guns. The FCO’s fire circuit passed through safety checks before enabled. I’m sure the navigators station has been upgraded to a Global Position Satellite system. The pilot, using a ‘heads up” display could “aim” the airplane on targets. Crew members used intercom communications in accordance with training protocol.

Several trips were made to a Delco Div. of GM in Santa Barbara CA, contractor for the gun systems, to work the details of FCO fire signal path. While there they showed us the BIG GUN used to fire materials at reentry speeds for development of reentry materials, a very impressive set up.

Organizational Structure

At the time of WW 2 and shortly there after, contracts were let to the individual companies for aircraft they designed in response to a military request for a specific kind – the winner was selected by flying the proposed design. The company was given total responsibility for their design. Following WW 2 systems became more complex and an Associate Contractor method was established beginning with the Minuteman Series. To facilitate this method the Air Force hired Technical Advisors to manage the Associate Contractor system. I hired in under the original method used for the Navaho program and experienced the growing pains of the Associated Contractor method; which by MM 3 was quite refined. As supervisor of System Requirements and Integration for MM 3 Post Boost Propulsion System I became well versed in how the system worked: drawings for items built, procurement specifications for purchased items, interface control documents (ICD) between associate contractors and Autonetics interface documents (AID) between company subdivisions plus a newly implemented System Requirements Analysis contracted task and documentation. We were held accountable during each phase of design and development via technical coordination meetings with the AF and their Technical Advisors. I was to learn that NAA & Douglas, old line aircraft companies, did not have such things as systems engineering, interface documents, system requirements analysis or independent performance oversight for their B-1B or C-17 programs. When sent to work on the C-130 program I was well aware of these operational deficiencies.

Fixed Price Contracts

It had become Politically Correct for congress to authorized fixed price contracts only. Thus the C-130 Gunship was a fixed price contract before it’s configuration was resolved let alone designed. NAA personnel were in no position to change the long standing methods used by their division. Fixed price contracts tended to freeze a design on the premise that changes cost money – almost prohibiting essential changes to make things work. (I knew from previous experience that the best way to save money was to fix things fast before building them wrong.) When the B-1B was cancelled by Carter the NAA division collapsed with only a few remaining – when I arrived there was an excellent technical library – an empty room – abandon as if a scene from Star Trek. Douglas too had been barely surviving prior to the C-17 go ahead.

No Systems Engineering or Technical Oversight

The most fundamental problems were lack of systems engineering and independent systems oversight. B-1B “systems design” consisted of DDM’s (Design Data Manuals) prepared by each sub section describing what they had done -- with no definition of what was to be done. This was workable for the B-1B as the task was to build what had been designed. In the case of the C-17 there were no Design Data Manuals. The department heads would meet and coordinate what they needed of each other and tell the others what they were doing. Seasoned company command pilots reviewed what they were doing with veto authority – I was unaware of any AF oversight though I’m sure there was. The overhead control panel I worked on interfaced with all the systems and I went to each person responsible for a sub system to find out what their system would need. C-17 systems became modifications of a prior MD-11 systems. C-17 avionics was less complicated than the B-1B as it did not include redundant systems, which complicate automatic checkout. The B-1B has 200 boxes of electronics ranging from very complex to simple. (I was lead engineer specifying requirements and selecting the contractor for Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) for those boxes.)

The C-130 program and been on going for some three years when I arrived and reported to the supervisor responsible for preparing procurement specifications. I found those responsible for each of the subsystems had been “winging it” when writing specifications for equipments for operator consoles. Their goal was to find off the shelf items already in use. I spent the first week learning everything I could about the system and what needed to be done.

Autonetics to Build the Operator Control Consoles

I was abruptly called back to Autonetics and told NAA decided to have Autonetics, a sister division, do the operator controls consoles and I was to be the lead engineer. NAA immediately pressed Autonetics for a cost estimate. My response was how in the hell can you make a cost estimate when your don’t know what you are to build? I reassigned myself to Gary Kinsler, as I perceived Gary and Bob Cummings who worked for him, to be the most knowledgeable about the system. Bob, recruited from Human Factors, had a degree in Zoology and was exceptionally bright – more knowledgeable than most of the engineers. I set about preparing what I called NAA Interface Documents (NAID) which defined the requirements for each of the control consoles. After initial objections the NAA people became convinced they were just what was needed. Desk top computers were scarce but was told I could have the one that didn’t work – I soon had it working and used it to produce the NAID’s. In conversations with Cummings and Autonetics personnel we arranged for Autonetics to send a person skilled at modeling controls consoles for a submarine program – within a week he built full scale Styrofoam sheet models of the control consoles in an area marked off as the battle management center. This was a big hit with AF, and others, for the first time they could see what the new system would look like. It was also a tremendous help in resolving what each control console would contain.

Multi-Functional Controls

It became apparent that operator consoles were much alike; each had two monitors, with Bessel switches on each side, each had a track handle, trackball and keyboard plus other status indicators. We realized that in the event of damage any station could be software switched to perform as any other console. For the first time we could nail down what was to be built.

Autonetics personnel came to realize they were being used for cost proposal comparison with the NAA Tulsa sub-division who needed work to remain operational. Once we had things back on track they took us out of the loop -- I was kept on to continue defining the requirements.

Tulsa to Build Operator Control Consoles

I was asked to attend the first meeting with the Tulsa people and was surprised to meet Bob ____ their lead engineer, Bob and I had worked together during MM 1 & 2. The NAA people were surprised to find what they perceived as competitors, smiling and conversing about what needed to be done. I went out of my way to help Bob, providing information I’d gathered that I knew would be of value to him – for which he was obviously appreciative. The NAA people were relieved and amazed at how well we got along. In response I said look, each of us own company stock through the savings plan, it’s in our personal interest to make this program work – besides it’s a pleasure to work with an old friend, especially when he’s a likable guy. (its been over 30 years and his last name eludes me, it’s like the military, friends come and go, you remember them as persons, not always by name.)

Operator Interface Rejected

Cummings left a meeting with the AF to tell me they did not like the operators console interface and asked me to look into what might be done -- I was unaware of what others presented. Existing systems, such as the Infra Red, were being specified as is and AF gunship operators sensed it had not been properly thought out – which was true. We’d been focused on what went in the consoles, not how they inner connected.

That was late Wed and by Fri I had come up with a design that would work – but it was awkward and I didn’t like it. Sunday evening a better way came to mind and I sat down at the kitchen table and made an 8.5x11 diagram of the design concept. Monday morning I showed it to Kinstlers, who liked it, and took me with him to R. Keeler the chief engineer. Keeler said that’s what we need and placed a call to the AF telling of our solution and the need for their approval. The AF, reluctant to add new electronics to their parts inventory, approved the solution and I was told to convert the concept to a design. Within a few days there were requests from others to include more functions. I told Gary and Keeler it would be necessary to incorporate a microprocessor with programming capability – Keeler was delighted, saying he always felt such a capability was needed. It had been some 8 years since I’d designed electronics but my prior R&D experience paid off. B-1B had an EMUX electronics system to gather aircraft status information – so I named this the BMUX (Battle-management MUX) a multitasking box. The design, a programmable mini-computer with multiple inputs and fast parallel output went out for bid. An Electronics firm in Seattle won the bid with a dual unit box, one per console. This BMUX box parallel connected the operators DGU (Data Generator Unit) which also served as the Mil-Std-1553 data bus terminal.

Autonetics Loanees Return

Some Autonetics personnel had transferred to the NAA division but I had not and it came time to send those on loan back to their home division. I was one of the last to return and had driven half way to the Autonetics Anaheim when I abruptly turned about and headed back to NAA Lakewood – I felt compelled to tell Kinstler of a signal latency problem that occurred to me. I don’t know why I’d missed it, my thoughts had been too focused on console mechanisms and not on the system. Prior experience was coming into play, I knew that missile attitude control signals had to be upgraded every two milliseconds. I knew that the Mil-Std-1553 “data bus” method sent 32 packets of information over a pair of wires – the operator was not directly connected to the system he was controlling. Time shared movement of data over a few wires had evolved into method standards – but it had not been designed for time sensitive data. Data bus systems were not used on missile systems but were extensively used on aircraft. The 1553 standard was considered the newest and best using a new integrated circuit to perform send/receive functions – a chip replacing complex circuit boards. I had learned about AirLink and Mil-Std data bus’s while working at Douglas. Electronic test equipment and Commodore desk top computers made use of an IEEE-488 8 bit parallel bus and all new PC’s used an RS-232 serial data link for keyboard and mouse – as did our gunship track handle, trackball and keyboard – using Universal Asynchronous Receive/Transmit (UART) chips. However, this magic of communications had it’s limitations. The 1553 “bus” had a waiting room with 32 seats holding 16 data bits each. A data packet had to wait it’s turn to be sent and received.

A 1553 data bus connected the programmable DGU (Data Generator Unit) and the system being controlled. The operators eyeball would read the DGU produced image on the monitor and command changes through his human reflexes to a track handle via a UART chip to the BMUX for signal conditioning if required, then as parallel data transferred to the DGU message hold register until it’s turn via the 1553 bus to the sensor. This was like steering a car with a lot of delay “play” in the linkage. Electronic speeds are relative, data bits can be clocked at high speed but that does not mean a fast information exchange. A track handle command would wait on the loading dock until it’s turn to be picked up and sent – with similar delays on the feedback path.

Gary greeted me with a surprised smile and before he could speak; I said, Gary I came back to tell you of a data latency problem that will make itself known when you try to operate the systems. Then with paper and pencil drew a diagram of system signal flows and associated data delays. Gary was immediately on the same page, asking how have we missed that? I said in a people system like this it’s easy. The off the shelf existing proven systems being purchase use independent dedicated systems; our system is the first to be integrated using a 1553 data bus and in accordance with Ron Terries concept of a Battle Management Center. Gary asked, any suggestions? I said you need to assign someone to find a way to give priority treatment of operator commands and feedback – other data can wait. I stood up intending to leave – then Gary said wait, will Autonetics permit you to continue if we put in a request to keep you here? By then I knew Gary quite well, we were more like friends than boss-employee. I said Gary I’m already passed normal retirement age and I have no idea if they will put me on layoff or on some special assignment. The last time I was between jobs they asked me to sit in on the presentation of a new forward looking radar. I learned the presentation was for my benefit, they wanted me to design a high speed signal processor for use in a terrain following fighter using this forward looking radar to detect power lines and command the auto pilot to pull up and miss them. Someone claimed I knew how design a high speed data processor. Before that a research guy wanted me to work with him on the design of semiconductor “saws” to extract digital data from an analog signal sent via fiber optic cable. I feel uncomfortable when people assume I can do things I know nothing about. If you ask, they will probably let me stay.

Gary arranged an NAA request for me to remain and I came up with a way to speed up data exchange between the operator and his sensor that was about 8 times faster.

Post Gunship

Following that Gary asked for me to look into how to capture data fast. The application was for a B-1B flying up canyons at night using terrain following maps developed from satellite images. Sensors would search for defensive sites along the way, and Defensive Officer would determine if a real site had been detected and launch an over the shoulder missile shot back at the target – data gathered was to be converted to missile commands pending the Defensive Officers decision to fire or not. At that time data read/write was slow, it was a challenge to move data at 10 meghz on a wired back plane, now data is moved at 800 meghz on a printed circuit motherboard.

Gary and I often discussed the concept of putting control fins on gravity bombs and use GPS info to guide them to a specific target – the military had such a system developed. Gary came up with a method of using infra red – like a remote TV control -- to reprogram bomb targets in flight. He intended to use a RS-232 serial data signal. I showed him how to change from a standard single sided driver to a push pull driver for more reliable signal exchange. After I retired Cummings mail me a copy of the company paper, showing Gary receiving the divisions Engineer of the Year award – Gary deserved it.

In Iraq B-1B’s with multiple bombs patrol over an area until receiving orders to place a single bomb on a specific target defined by those on the ground. I’ve always wondered if this used the method devised by Gary to specify bomb targets in flight.

Retire -- Make Room for Others

The military was severely cutting back on orders and my staying on was causing some young fellow with a family to be laid off or kept out of a job – I decided it was time for me to retire and did, effective Feb 1992. I had completed 37 years in the aerospace business in CA after 11 years of prior engineering work.

I was not really ready to retire and pursued ideas for high speed redundant data communication in real time – using data bus methods similar to those used on computer mother boards. I designed the concept of a potted expendable integrated circuit module I called AIM (Avionics Interface Module) to be placed in various parts of a vehicle as high speed input/output from the computers memory. It was to read single bit data as a high, low or open circuits – methods in use at the time could not sense a damaged open circuit. I was convinced it was an excellent and technically viable concept – but realized you must be a part of an organization in contact with the right people – most of my contemporaries had retired or passed on. I let go, knowing someone would come up with such a device – it’s time had arrived. I switched to compiling a history of the 19^th Bomb Group in memory of Bob Nelson my college roommate and my cousin Vince Landau both of whom were killed at the end of WW 2.