The Rising Costs of the Sentinel Program
Earlier this year, the Air Force informed Congress that the Sentinel program, aimed at replacing all US nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and updating related infrastructure, would cost at least 37% more than previously estimated in September 2020. Subsequent reviews have now shown that the program’s costs have surged to $140.9 billion, marking an 81% increase from the 2020 estimate.
This significant cost escalation triggered the Nunn-McCurdy Act, designed to provide oversight of defense spending. When a defense program surpasses its initial cost estimates by a certain percentage, the Department of Defense must notify Congress and conduct an investigation into the factors driving the cost growth.
On July 8, the Department of Defense certified that the Sentinel program met the necessary criteria to continue. However, the analysis of the root cause behind the program’s escalating costs has not been made public, raising questions about the effectiveness of oversight under the Nunn-McCurdy Act.
Factors Driving Cost Increases in the Sentinel Program
Undersecretary of Defense William A. LaPlante acknowledged that there were reasons, but no excuses, for the soaring costs of the Sentinel program. The bulk of the cost growth has been attributed to the program’s command-and-launch segment, which involves extensive communications and control infrastructure for rapid ICBM deployment.
Mismanagement has also played a role in the program’s cost overruns. The sole-source contract awarded to Northrup Grumman in 2020 led to staffing issues, clearance processing delays, IT challenges, and supply chain disruptions, as highlighted in a 2023 Government Accountability Office report.
Critics, including Representative Adam Smith, have pointed to oversight failures by both project overseers and contractors, emphasizing the need for accountability in managing defense projects.
Implications for Defense Programs
As part of its review, the Department of Defense had to evaluate which programs would be reduced to accommodate the increased costs of the Sentinel program. While the department certified the program as a higher priority than those slated for cuts, specific details on the affected programs remain undisclosed.
Although the majority of the cost increases are projected beyond the next five fiscal years, delaying tough decisions on program cuts, the long-term implications of the Sentinel’s cost overruns on national security remain uncertain.
Consideration of Alternatives
As per the Nunn-McCurdy Act, a review of reasonable alternatives to the Sentinel program was required. However, without access to the report, the public remains unaware of the alternative solutions considered due to the program’s cost escalations.
The Air Force’s 2014 Analysis of Alternatives explored the possibility of extending the lifespan of existing ICBMs rather than a full replacement. While the report deemed a replacement as the most cost-effective option at the time, the significant surge in costs since then warrants a reassessment of alternatives.
National Security Implications
The central question remains whether the Sentinel program is truly essential for national security. Critics argue that silo-based ICBMs, like those in the Sentinel program, pose challenges due to their vulnerability and potential for destabilization in a crisis.
Advocates for the program have failed to articulate how land-based missiles enhance US security, with concerns raised about their safety and necessity. The lack of a compelling argument for the program’s strategic value raises doubts about its continuation, especially in light of escalating costs.
Given the risks associated with silo-based missiles and the absence of a clear security rationale, the cancellation of the Sentinel program should be considered, regardless of its cost implications.
