China and Russia are working hard to develop cutting-edge missiles, potentially lowering the global nuclear stability in their favor, as the US struggles with difficulties and cost overruns with its Sentinel missile system.
According to a report released this month by Defense One, the US Air Force has halted work on key parts of its Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) program to reduce rising costs and restructure its acquisition strategy.
The US$ 141 billion program—81 % over its first budget—is intended to replace the aging 1970s-era Minuteman III ICBMs, which may have reached the end of their company life and advancement possible.
Northrop Grumman, the agency’s excellent company, was directed to end design, testing, and design work for the Command and Launch Segment at different features, including Vandenberg Space Force Base in California and Hill Air Force Base in Utah. Additionally, work on security systems and training equipment has been halted.
Following a restructuring announcement from July 2024, where alternative programs were ruled out by US Department of Defense ( DOD ) officials because of rising costs. Kathy Warden, the CEO of Northrop, acknowledged the labor delay in January and said the reform may take up to 24 months.
Despite the setback, Northrop still managed to meet goals under the contract for engineering and developing development ( EMD).
In order to lower costs, the US Air Force is considering opening some of its surface system to competition. The Sentinel program is crucial for modernizing the US nuclear triad, which includes the Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine ( SSBN ) and B-21 bomber, despite the uncertainty surrounding the timeline and scope of the restructuring.
According to a report released in November 2024 by the US Congressional Research Service ( CRS ), Sentinel is designed to address both current and future threats while being more affordable, modular, and maintain the industrial base. By 2029, the US Air Force intends to change the Minuteman III weapons with Sentinel.
While Sentinel’s compact style promises cost-effective maintenance and future upgrades, these advantages are overshadowed by soaring prices and timeline slip, possibly reducing the preparation of the US land-based atomic army.
In stark contrast, the US DOD’s 2024 China Military Power report highlights China’s rapid expansion and modernization of its ICBM capabilities. According to the report, China has about 400 operational missiles, including fixed and mobile launchers that can launch unitary or multiple warheads.
China’s strategic missile forces include silo-launched and road-mobile ICBMs. It has recently completed three new solid-propellant ICBM fields housing at least 300 silos, with development consistent with the US and Russia’s launch-on-warning ( LOW) systems.
Further, the report adds that China is developing advanced nuclear delivery methods that can bypass US missile defenses, such as hypersonic glide vehicles ( HGVs ) and fractional orbital bombardment ( FOB ) systems.
Meanwhile, Russia is also upgrading its strategic missile forces. Russia is replacing Soviet-era ICBMs with advanced systems like the RS-24 Yars, which can carry four multiple independent targetable reentry vehicles ( MIRVs ) in a March 2024 report by Hans Kristensen and others for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
According to Kristensen and his co-authors, Russia is gradually phasing out the RS-20V Voevoda and introducing the RS-28 Sarmat, a missile with a range that can carry up to ten warheads with an extended range, including over the North and South Poles. By 2030, new systems like the Yars-M and Kedr are anticipated to replace the old ones, focusing on greater mobility and stealth.
The delays that are preventing the Sentinel program may make it more difficult for the US to rely on the aging Minuteman III than originally anticipated. Keeping those missiles operational poses a significant challenge, especially since some important upgrade guides and component manufacturers no longer exist.
However, Matt Korda argues in a March 2021 Federation of American Scientists ( FAS ) report that life-extending the Minuteman III is a more cost-effective and safer option than Sentinel, whose projected life-cycle cost of US$ 264 billion could severely strain the US defense budget.
He highlights that a 2000s-era Minuteman III life extension program effectively turned 450 decades-old missiles into nearly new ones—except for their steel shells—at a cost of just$ 7 billion.
Korda points out that many crucial Minuteman III subsystems remain extremely reliable, and that cutting-edge non-destructive testing techniques could ensure their longevity without sacrificing operational readiness. He contends that modernizing Minuteman III would put resources at risk for more pressing security issues by putting them on hold for decades.
His proposal gains more weight when taken into account the significant budget constraints posed by modernizing the US nuclear triad’s three legs. Although the B-21 bomber program is estimated to cost$ 203 billion for 100 aircraft, it could face severe scrutiny given the US budget deficit that is growing to close to$ 2 trillion annually, according to Caleb Larson in a recent article from 1945.
Similarly, a September 2024 US Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) report highlights significant cost overruns and delays in the Columbia-class SSBN program. The lead submarine could be delivered 12 to 16 months late, between October 2028 and February 2029, according to the report, putting off anticipated operational readiness in 2030.
Persistent issues such as late materials, incomplete design products, and inexperienced staff undermine construction performance. The US Navy and shipbuilder estimates cost overruns of hundreds of millions of dollars, far exceeding their optimistic estimates. Additionally, the report criticizes the US Navy for inadequate cost and schedule analysis, limiting effective risk management and corrective actions.
When the US is confronted with renewed great power competition and potential nuclear brinksmanship, these difficulties are crucial. By 2030, the US will be facing two major nuclear powers, China and Russia, for the first time in history, as potential adversaries and strategic rivals, according to the US 2022 Nuclear Posture Review.
In light of that growing difficulty, Philip Sheers and others assert in a May 2024 article for the Center for a New American Security ( CNAS ) that the US can take specific steps to mitigate the effects, even if it cannot prevent China and Russia from joining it as world’s leading nuclear powers.
In a more complex, multipolar world, they stress the value of maintaining the US’s nuclear arsenal while developing novel deterrence strategies. By doing so, the US can maintain its strategic advantage and adapt to the changing security environment.