The U.S. Air Force’s LGM-35 Sentinel, the program in development that has promised a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) to support nuclear deterrence, has already exceeded cost projections so significantly that it will have to undergo a Pentagon review.
The price tag on the Sentinelwhich, according to the government, will reportedly ” recapitalize or modernize ” 400 missiles, 450 silos, and over 600 facilitieshas jumped from $96 billion to about $131.5 billion, a 37 percent increase that qualifies as a “critical breach” of the Nunn-McCurdy Act, legally obligating the secretary of defense to justify the increase or terminate the program.
Also known as Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), the Sentinel was initially scheduled to start operating in 2029 with a $13.3 billion contract given to Northrop Grumman, one of the world’s largest defense technology corporations. Compounding the stratospheric increase in cost are protracted scheduling delays and concerns about the program’s utility altogether.
When Northrop Grumman was awarded the contract on September 8, 2020, the cost per unit was slated to be $118 million. New estimates demand $162 million per unit. In January, the Air Force also predicted an operational delay of two years.
“Sentinel is behind schedule due to staffing shortfalls, delays with clearance processing, and classified information technology infrastructure challenges,” a June 2023 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said. “Additionally, the program is experiencing supply chain disruptions, leading to further schedule delays.”
The red flags raise a few questions for taxpayers. Most notably, if the Sentinel passes the mandatory review, set in motion by the Nunn-McCurdy Act, will the programwhich is expected to cost $264 billion until the end of its life cycle in 2075stick to the total allotted budget or run rampant with reckless spending? Skeptics will likely take little comfort in the fact that the estimated budget for the Sentinel in 2015 was about $62 billion. It is now more than double that.
In the modern nuclear world, a defense budget emphasizing deterrence is a valid strategic initiative. After all, the U.S. currently has only one functioning ICBM, in comparison to Russia’s six, China’s four, and North Korea’s five.
With LGM-30 Minuteman IIIthe U.S.’s lone ICBM in serviceapproaching the end of its life cycle, it’s understandable that U.S. defense leaders want to be up to date and prepared for the worst. But notwithstanding its unsustainable cost projections, it’s not at all clear the Sentinel program is even the optimal way to address these concerns.
According to critics , land-based ICBMs are the weakest and least useful of the nuclear triad, with submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and strategic bombers being far superior. The SLBM, along with the 14 operational ballistic missile submarines, are particularly effective because of their ability to stay undetected underwater. ICBMs, in contrast, are vulnerable to easy attacks.
William J. Houston, the director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, said in 2022 , “[Ballistic missile submarines are] the one portion of our deterrent that will always be available if needed.” He also referred to the submarines as “the most powerful force in the world right now.” In that vein, the Pentagon review should, at a minimum, thoroughly consider alternatives that are not only cheaper but also more effective.
Special interest supporters of the Sentinel will likely not go down without a fight.
Along with Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics are only some of the well-known corporations who have lobbied hard in favor of the program. A bipartisan coalition has also formed in the U.S. Senate, which includes Sens. Mitt Romney (RUtah) and Jon Tester (DMont.), two major beneficiaries of contributions from ICBM contractors. Many detractors, however, contest the need for land-based ICBMs altogether when considering submarine-launched ballistic missiles essentially render them obsolete.
Public opinion is on their side. A 2021 report by ReThink Media for the Federation of American Scientists found that 60 percent of respondents supported alternatives to the GBSD. Sixty-four percent supported delaying and reviewing the program and favored extension of the LGM-30 Minuteman III.
A mere 8 percent said they felt safer with increased government defense spending. Of course, many in the public are not experts on defense needs and capabilities. But with the cost and complications of the Sentinel continuing to rise dramatically, it would serve taxpayers well to consider smarter options at a less offensive price.
