NSRP Electrical Technologies Panel Meeting – July 23-24, 2019

1. Shipboard Fiber Optic Cables Design Enhancements2019 ELECTRICAL Panel PROJECT 2019-477Project UpdateGiovanni TomasiBillie Jo Mitchell NSRP Electrical Technologies Panel Meeting – July 23-24, 2019

2. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLESDESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS • Project Objectives • Project Team • Methodology • Schedule • Findings • Next Steps

3. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLESDESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT CHALLENGE • 10% to 20% of the fiber optic cables are damaged at installation1. • At least one of four fibers breaks when installing the 4F cable on a DDG 512. • Some runs require upwards of six (6) tries3. • New applications (lighting, power over fiber, and laser weapon systems) require highly reliable cables. • M85045 shipboard cables based on technologies from 25 years ago. OBJECTIVE TOC REDUCTION • Reduce cable damage. • Reduce the cost of installation. • Improve systems’ reliability. • Improve commonality of parts. Cable damage estimated at 10% on CVN, LHA, and LPD. 20% on all other classes. 1. Per Discussions with NSRP Electrical Panel members, July 24-25, 2018, Washington, D.C. 2. Per Discussion with BIW Engineer, October 16, 2018, Bath, ME 3. D.S. Dorfman, F. A. Strom III, “An Optimization Model for Fiber-Optic Cable Installation Aboard Navy Vessels”, Navy Postgraduate School Thesis, June 2013

4. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLESDESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT SOLUTION • Apply technical advances* and commercial best practices to make fiber optic cables more reliable. Examples: • Higher tensile strength. • Improve crush and abrasion resistance. • Improve bend/kink (1) resistance. • Identify designs suited for multiple applications: data, lighting, power over fiber, laser delivery… (*) Example: Many new Thermoplastics are surpassing the performance of the Thermoset materials typically used for shipboard cables’ outer jackets (Robert Blakley, Cable Product Manager, OFS Fitel, November 12, 2018). BENEFIT / PAYOFF • Reduce cost of FO cable installation by up to $260,000 per every 100,000 ft of cable installed. • Potential cost saving on CVN >$5 million. NOTE (1) – Cable “KINK” is experienced when the cable pulled has twist memory and kinks as more pulling force is applied, breaking the fibers.

5. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLESDESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT TEAM • Lead: RSL Fiber Systems • Giovanni Tomasi • Billie Jo Mitchell • Support: Penn State University, Applied Research Lab, Electro-Optics Ctr. • Shipyards: Austal, NNS, HII, BIW • US Navy: SUPSHIP GC, NSWCDD • Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturer: OFS Fitel • NSRP Project Manager: Nick Laney • NSRP PTR: Walt Skalniak

6. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLESDESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT METHODS AND PROCEDURES • Identify Causes of Cables’ Failure: • Evaluation of the existing M85045 cables, installation, and failure mechanisms (Visits to shipyards, observation of installations, meetings with AITs). • Identify the ideal performance parameters to minimize/eliminate cable failures. • Identify Design Enhancements: • Investigate new commercial and military cable designs, materials, constructions, and installation hardware. • Determine how they may be applied to reduce/eliminate cable breakage. • Retain/enhance critical shipboard cable characteristics: low smoke, low toxicity, zero halogen, water blocked. • Minimize Impact of Design Enhancements: • Compatibility with legacy hardware, installation and fiber termination methods, require no AITs’ re-training.

7. TASKS AND PROGRAM SCHEDULE

8. June – July 2019 Activities SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLESDESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT SHIPYARD VISITS • June 11, 2019: BIW, Bath, ME • June 26-27, 2019: HII, Pascagoula, MS and Austal USA, Mobile, AL • July 16, 2019: NNS, Newport News, VA Activities Performed by RSL and OFS Fitel personnel with shipyard personnel: • Met with AITs to understand cable installation and breakage issues; • Discussed cable installation methods and possible causes of breakage; • Discussed fiber termination challenges; • Discussed enhancements to facilitate installation and system acceptance. Special Thanks to: Greg Stevens, BIW; Jason Farmer, HII Pascagoula; Shawn Wilber, Austal; David Ellis, NNS for coordinating the visits and the meetings with technical personnel.

9. June – July 2019 Findings • Fiber Optic Cable Breakage • Installers training is very important to minimize breakage. • Fiber optic cables are installed by hand using no mechanical pulling devices by a team of AITs. • Kellems style grips are used at times. • A turntable is used a times to help with installation (cable coils placed on turntable) • Some cables are pulled in multi-cable bundles. • Cables are run parallel to each other. Very rare that cables are pulled perpendicular. Power and signal are segregated and fiber runs down the middle of the tray. • Breakage at installation was given from “negligible” to 30%. • Some cable breakage occurs at the metal cable ties. Ties have a rubber grommet but it may fall out during re-work. Over-tightening crushes cables. • Sharp cable bends around corners may cause breakage. • Cable breakage is due primarily to over bending. • Stacking limits were implemented on some ships to eliminate cable crushing.

10. June – July 2019 Findings • Fiber Optic Cable Breakage • Some fiber breakage occurs where the OFCC leaves the outer jacket and the buffer leaves the OFCC jacket. • A flexible OFCC is preferred. • Armored cable already installed in trays at times gouges and damages fiber cables as they are being installed. • OTDR is used to test cable lengths and identify points of high losses. • Some breakage may occur as additional work is performed around the cables. • Breakage may be higher for ships during maintenance, repair, overhaul and conversion (MROC). • BOF tubes are challenging to install due to kinking and crush issues. • Average cable pull lengths: • LCS: 180 ft MM, 300 ft SM (SM for ship to shore communication); • DDG 51 F-IIA: 186 ft • LPD / LHA: 300 ft avg, 475 ft longest. • CVN: 152 ft fiber avg, 200 ft BOF Avg.

11. June – July 2019 Findings • Fiber Cable Terminations • On ship termination of one end of 4F cable takes about 1.5 hrs. Set up time may be longer based on where terminations are made. • Some yards use machine polishers, others use hand polishing. • Highest fiber failure is generated by SM terminations performed on board. • Dusty environment contaminates fibers. Very easy to contaminate 8.7 µm core. • Some multi-channel MIL-C-28876 SM connectors w/MIL-T-29504 termini may take up to 3 times to re-pin to pass. • M85045 SM cables require 2 ship sets of pins for one ship. • Even if 1 pin is bad, all have to be cut back. • Delphi MIL-T-29504 pins are preferred over FSI due to the pre-radius tip. • The ideal backshell for MIL-C-28876 connectors would incorporate space for fusion splices so that the MIL-T-29504 could be pre-terminated in a clean environment. • Fusion splicing is allowed on some applications. Would like to see it allowed on all applications. • Fusion splicing is used in termination boxes. • A semi-loose buffer is preferred for fusion splicing.

12. June – July 2019 Findings • Other Findings • 4F (MIL-PRF-85045/18) is most used, then 8F (MIL-PRF-85045/17) then 36F (MIL-PRF-85045/20). • Use of SM fiber is increasing. • The change from RF to fiber will double the amount of fiber used on most ships. • All yards visited indicted that fusion splicing would eliminate much of the fiber rework at installation. This is especially important as more SM fiber is used. • One shipyard indicated that cables supplied as GFE have higher losses than cables terminated at the yard. This is verified when testing the system end to end. • Server racks come with LC connectors. LC are more break prone than ST. • Some cables are installed with one end pre-terminated. • From DDG 116 on, MIL-PRF-85045/22 with 9 MM and 9 SM is used on the mast. The cable is enclosed in a flexible conduit. • On some installations, COTS “blue cable” was used.

13. June – July 2019 Findings KEY POINTS • AITs training is critical. • Much rework is caused by terminating fibers on the ship. • The rework issue is much greater with SM fibers. • Use of fiber is anticipated to increase, especially SM. • Fusion splicing can drastically reduce rework. • Some cable design improvements can facilitate fusion splicing. • More flexible cable components may reduce fiber breakage. • Cable breakage is from negligible to 10% when installed by the shipyards’ AITs. • More breakage can occur as other activities take place around the cables.

14. SHIPBOARD FIBER OPTIC CABLESDESIGN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT NEXT STEPS • Visit Shipyards to identify causes of failure (Completed – Report Pending). • Option: Contact MROC yard to obtain cable breakage data (cables broken in service and during overhaul activities). • Identify Design Enhancements (Complete by Oct 31, 2019). • Insure compatibility of enhancements with other system components (Complete by Nov 30, 2019). • Determine cost of qualifying cable with design enhancements (Complete by Feb 28, 2020) • Final Report (Due March 31, 2020)