America’s $140,000,000,000 Sentinel ICBM Program Could Be in Big Trouble

Article Summary: The U.S. Air Force’s Sentinel ICBM program faces major scrutiny after ballooning costs triggered a breach of the Nunn-McCurdy Act. Originally budgeted at $78 billion, the project has surged to $141 billion.

-Issues with construction and infrastructure have delayed the missile’s expected deployment beyond 2036.

ICBM attack diagram. Image: Creative Commons.

-Work is halted at key test facilities, forcing reliance on aging Minuteman III missiles. Lawmakers and independent analysts argue for a re-examination of the program, questioning the cost-effectiveness and strategic necessity.

-Greater oversight from the GAO and Department of Government Efficiency may be crucial to resolving issues before the Sentinel becomes a budgetary disaster.

Expensive Sentinel ICBM Program Needs More Watchdogs 

The United States has a strategic nuclear weapon problem.

The military needs a new model to replace the old Minuteman III ICBM, but this upgrade is highly expensive. The new Sentinel ICBM system will cost $141 billion compared the original estimate of $78 billion in 2020.

The Sentinel is one of 17 priorities set forth by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

However, due to the Sentinel program’s cost over-runs and schedule slips, the project has incurred a breach to a law that watches out for problematic major end items that have been excessive and wasteful.

Breach of Nunn-McCurdy Act

This rule is called the Nunn-McCurdy Act. When a program goes over budget, it must be paused to determine a better path forward that keeps the United States from allocating money and resources indiscriminately.

The Sentinel ICBM is now under review and Congress has been alerted. The cost of the Sentinel has ballooned 81 percent since 2020 estimates. 

Not Ready for Manufacturing Phase

Now the Sentinel ICBM program cannot enter the engineering and manufacturing development phase – called Milestone B. This will incur a delay of several years. Congress, the DOD, and defense contractors had eyed 2036 as the date that Sentinel would be operational.

Launch Infrastructure Lacks Modernization

Another problem with the Sentinel has been the infrastructure needed to launch it. This is going to take more money and resources to give the ICBM the wherewithal for deployment. 

“When you look at modernizing that infrastructure … it’s close to 500 facilities across an area of about 33,000 square miles, about the size of the state of South Carolina, and that’s going to be intra-netted. There’s an underground command and control network that connects all that across five states. So, when one looks at that, that’s highly complex,” said Air Force Global Strike Command Lt. Gen. Michael J. Lutton, as noted by Air & Space Forces Magazine.

Stop Work Order  

This phase of building has become so problematic that the Air Force is stopping work. Northrop Grumman has been ordered to pause construction until the service branch gets a better handle on cost and scheduling. Now Secretary Hegseth must order the design of a better construction program and personally sign off on the plan.

This includes the building of facilities for testing, evaluation, and training. “The sites covered by the order include Launch Facility-26 at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., a test and training facility. Work was also suspended at a former Peacekeeper launch facility at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and at the Physical Security Systems Test Facility (PSSTF) at Dugway, Utah, a military test site,” Air & Space Forces wrote.

The Air Force would like to field 400 Sentinel missiles that could serve into the 2070s. Now it must depend on the aging Minuteman IIIs. But during the next several decades, U.S. nuclear strategy could change. There could be arms control negotiations with China or Russia that would amend the objectives of the program. A limitation of silos and the ICBM itself could also be ordered.

Watchdogs Are Awakened

In 2014, the RAND Corporation commissioned a study that concluded the Minuteman III, despite its limitations, would be better to upgrade than to build an entirely different ICBM. In 2021, a group of Democrat lawmakers on Capitol Hill wanted new independent research to examine the program. They maintained that the Minuteman III would be the best option.

This whole program has defense skeptics alarmed. Where is the money going to come from to throw at the Sentinel? Is it too late to scrap the entire program and cancel the missile? One thing is certain: Air Force generals must come to Capitol Hill and answer these questions to explain the path forward.

The same goes for the defense contractors and Pentagon officials. The waiting game is becoming excruciating. RAND does a good job at researching this problem and is an independent source of non-partisan analysis. They could conduct more research to make recommendations.

Oreshnik ICBM from Russia. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

Plus, the U.S. Government Accountability Office may want to be more vigilant. The GAO has done an excellent job at notating the Sentinel’s progress, and they make reports on the ICBM every year. But it doesn’t seem like anyone is listening to their warnings.

The Department of Government Efficiency may also want to take a look. If this is a priority with Secretary of Defense Hegseth, then it is time to get a new set of eyes to review it. The news has been poor so far and the ICBM program could use some light shined upon it to avoid more cost over-runs and schedule slips.

Otherwise, this missile will die on arrival.  

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.