1. TRITON: Cost Model based Network Design Ship Warfare Systems Integration (SWSI) Panel Project
Presented by:
John Mazurowski
March 12, 2019
Charleston SC
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release.

2. Outline Participants Motivation Technical Approach
Architecture / Topology
Business Case
Roadmap

3. Participants

4. Participants John Walks (PTR) Ingalls Shipbuilding John Mazurowski
Penn State Applied Research Laboratory
Dr. Sarry Habiby
Perspecta Labs
Jason Farmer
Angel Salinas
CACI
Nilo Maniquis
PEO IWS
Jim House
ATI
Acknowledgement: Lockheed-Martin, Moorestown NJ

5. Overall Goals SOLVE the issue of cable weight and complexity
ASSESS optical networks’ ability (cost / performance) to achieve functional goals using subsystem examples
REDUCE COST of shipboard cabling acquisition and ownership
Courtesy: Lockheed-Martin

6. FROM TO
Present ship cabling is “build-to-print” based on supplier equipment designs and interconnect requirements. Cabling then becomes a major part of the shipbuilding process, especially for ships that contain large numbers of combat systems. The consequence is expensive, heavy, complex, and costly cabling. Substantial equipment manufacturer involvement is needed to deploy and maintain the systems.
We considered cabling designs for several subsystems and are optimizing a common network architecture that enables more efficient use by shipbuilders and system manufacturers. The cabling system will be useful over the lifetime of the ship with much less weight and complexity. Equipment upgrades cost much less because the necessary cabling is already in place.

7. User Needs
Data available at any compartment that would need it; to a user, the network would appear to be a cloud.
Comply with requirements for system isolation and recovery from damage.
Comply with NAVSEA system design, installation, and maintenance requirements. Supply ecosystem supports the technology.
Reduce upgrade cost significantly from the pattern of complete removal and replacement.

8. Benefits
Standard optical network backbone infrastructure, installed at the shipyard, that remains useful over the lifetime of the ship.
Standard interfaces for furnished equipment that facilitate low cost upgrades and quick adjustments from mission to mission.
Future-proof network capacity provided through use of multiplexed optical signals transmitted through single mode fiber.
Use of NAVSEA approved cabling components throughout the optical network backbone.

9. Optical Networks Provide
CAPACITY: Ability to keep pace with increasing need for bandwidth
ACCESSIBILITY: Access to data and systems from any compartment
RESILIENCE: Use mesh topology / control for quick damage recovery
LIFE CYCLE SUPPORT: Shipyard installs optical backbone infrastructure that functions over the ship lifetime
ADAPTATION ELEMENTS between the backbone and client equipment, used for mission changes and upgrades

10. Risks
High network capacity puts emphasis on impairment-free fiber interconnections.
Network management and control is now owned by the ship and must be administered properly.
Equipment upgrades that require significant physical reconstruction could possibly affect the backbone network.

11. Technical Approach
There is a hierarchy of optimization steps used that can reduce life cycle cost while complying with the described user needs.

12. A) Transmission using optical fiber
System
OEO
Electrical
Optical
(2 X OEO + Optical Cable) < Electrical Cable

13. B) Single mode fiber MULTIMODE FIBER SINGLE MODE FIBER ADVANTAGES
Large core size- easier alignment
Use direct modulated VCSELs
No modal dispersion
Over 200 standard WDM channels
Maximum bandwidth  100 GHz
Aggregate bandwidth  15 THz
DISADVANTAGES
Maximum bandwidth  10 GHz
Modal dispersion
Eye safety < 1 m wavelength
One wavelength per fiber
Challenging alignment tolerance

14. C) Wavelength Division Multiplexing
System
MUX
DEMUX
(2 X MUX + WDM Fiber) < Individual Fibers

15. D) Use WDM-LAN hierarchy
Client
Adaptation
Element
(CAE)
Optical
Network
(ONE)
Backbone Network Interface (BNI)-
Transparent Fiber Interconnect
(to other ONEs)
Client Access Interface (CAI)- Electrical Interface to Client
Network Management
and Control
(NM&C)
Network Access Interface (NAI)- Fiber Interface at Add / Drop Level
Client or Application
From SAE: AS5659

16. D (cont) Use WDM-LAN hierarchy
From: Kobrinski, Perspecta Labs

17. E) Accommodate backbone and local capacity
OTM-1
OTM-2
(p)
(w)
Connectors / splices
Media Converter
Electrical
1Gb/s
2Gb/s
2.5Gb/s
10Gb/s
Optical
1x2 Star OR
1x2 switch
WDM link
Electrical: 100Mb/s or 1Gb/s Ethernet, RS-232, …
(w): WDM working path (p): WDM protection path
Short reach local WDM links
may also save space and cost.

18. F) Optimize interconnections
Multi-Fiber Connector
Fusion Splicing (preferred)
From: TE Connectivity
From: Corning Incorporated
Risk of optical transmission
impairments must be mitigated.

19. Project statement of work
Task 1: Identify architectures, technology, applications, and associated interface protocols and required adaptation (Ingalls Shipbuilding, Penn State ARL, and Perspecta Labs).
Task 2: Construct cost model for selected variants (Penn State ARL and Perspecta Labs).
Task 3: Optimize interconnect methods considering single mode fiber and fusion splicing technologies for key interfaces (Ingalls Shipbuilding, Penn State ARL and Perspecta Labs).
Task 4: Develop a technology implementation roadmap identifying steps needed for future USN implementation, including outline of WDM testbed using existing facilities (Ingalls Shipbuilding, Penn State ARL and Perspecta Labs).

20. Other architectures / topologies considered:
Ring: added loss after 1 or 2 hops could
result in extensive need for amplifiers;
not suited for hub-type demand
Full (physical) mesh – requires more fiber
and WDM systems than switched approach

21. Selected subsystems A- heavy computing data load
B- mixed traffic to outboard systems
C- low bandwidth multi-channel traffic
D- mixture of local and backbone traffic
E- mixture of video, analog, digital
Selected subsystems had been identified as
compatible with optical networks.

22. System architecture example

23. WDM architecture implementation

24. Typical component costs
Costs used were estimates based on public data.

25. Cost model results Subsystem cost model results predict:
Acquisition cost reduced by > 50%
Upgrade cost at a single node reduced > 80%

26. TRITON Roadmap

27. Acknowledgements
The cost model was developed under the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP) Panel Project Number “Paradigm for Optical Networks”
Connection methods (fusion splicing) were analyzed under the National Shipbuilding Research Program (NSRP) Panel Project Number ”Alternatives to Fiber Optic Connectors”