Senior Pentagon leaders on Tuesday were pressed on the department’s ongoing review of cost overruns with the Sentinel future intercontinental ballistic missile program, which is expected to be detailed to Congress soon before findings on the path forward are announced this summer.
Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) urged Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin during a House Armed Services Committee hearing to assure the panel that DoD would conduct a “truly fulsome and critical analysis” of the Sentinel program, after the Air Force informed Congress in January of a 37 percent unit cost Nunn-McCurdy breach.
“For years, I’ve questioned the viability and premise of the Sentinel program. In [January], the Department of Defense announced that the ever-escalating cost of this Sentinel program, now estimated for at least $137 billion, had breached [the] critical Nunn-McCurdy limit and that, by law, the program must be terminated unless you, Mr. Secretary, certify that the program is, one, essential to national security, two, that there are no alternatives to the program, three, that the new cost estimates are reasonable and that, four, the program is a higher priority than programs whose funding must be reduced,” Garamendi said.
The Air Force in January noted the unit cost per missile for the Northrop Grumman [NOC]-built LGM-35A Sentinel future ICBM had increased from $118 million in 2020 to $162 million, citing unpredicted military construction costs in what will be a massive civil works project (Defense Daily, Jan. 24).
“My hope is that through the end of this process we’ll be able to fine tune the [Sentinel] program and reduce risk moving forward but that there won’t be a decision made that we can live without it,” acting Air Force Comptroller Kristyn Jones told a Center for Strategic and International Studies forum at the time. “Nuclear modernization is core to our national defense, and I believe that the vast majority of Congress also agrees with that.”
Austin assured the HASC panel that DoD is conducting a thorough analysis on Sentinel cost overruns and potential alternatives, per the review triggered by the Nunn-McCurdy breach, after Garamendi asked the secretary if he was “aware of [his] task that lies ahead” with justifying the program’s future.
“I can assure you that we will conduct a thorough analysis in accordance with the Nunn-McCurdy Act responsibilities and the responsibilities that you’ve outlined as well,” Austin said in response.
Austin’s analysis on the Sentinel cost overruns is expected to be detailed in May to the congressional defense committees, Garamendi said on Tuesday, with a decision on cost saving alternatives based on the findings to be announced this summer.
Garamendi, who has described himself as a “longtime critic of the Sentinel program,” pressed further during the hearing on the cost issue and the level of resources devoted to the future capability, set to replace the current Minuteman III ICBMs.
“Fourth grade math would indicate that, at $700 million a copy, [the] $137 billion can buy you somewhere more than 120 B-21 bombers…or, perhaps, seven Columbia-class submarines for $137 billion. There are choices to be made here,” Garamendi said.
Last month, Garamendi and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), sent a letter to Jones calling on the Air Force to “address serious concerns related to its Sentinel program and provide clarity on the Minuteman III service life extension program.”
“The Sentinel program is in deep trouble. The program has a cost overrun of at least 37%, with an estimated future cost of at least $130 billion and many years of delay. The recent Nunn-McCurdy breach demands the Air Force provide long overdue clarity on the status of the entire program, including detailed reprogramming, estimated total expenditures, alternatives, timelines, as well as what other Air Force programs must be cut to continue to pay for the Sentinel,” Garamendi and Warren wrote in their letter.
The Air Force requests $3.7 billion for the Sentinel program in its FY ‘25 budget request.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), chair of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, earlier this month stated the Air Force currently risks missing its expected 2036 fielding date for the Sentinel program (Defense Daily, April 9).
“Quite frankly, we’re running against, from my perspective, some real time issues if we’re gonna get these replaced at the three ICBM bases by 2036,” Tester said at a subcommittee hearing on the FY ‘25 Air Force and Space Force budget request.