The U.S. Air Force's project for a new generation of land-based intercontinental ballistic missile, Sentinel, (LGM-35A), is experiencing a major setback in recent days, and risks canceling the project due to technical difficulties, cost overruns and political controversy, which will have a serious impact on the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
The Sentinel missile is an important part of the modernization of the U.S. nuclear forces and is designed to replace the Minuteman-3 (LGM-30G) missiles currently in service and improve the U.S. nuclear strike capability and survivability. The project was officially launched in September 2020 with Northrop Grumman as the main contract and is expected to take 8In 5 years, the total amount reached 13.3 billion US dollars. The US Air Force plans to purchase 642 new missiles, of which 400 will be used for combat deployment, and another 242 for test launches or as a backup. The missile is expected to enter service in 2029 and complete deployment in 2036.
However, the project encountered multiple difficulties in its implementation, resulting in schedule delays and budget overruns. According to the United States**, one of the main technical difficulties of the project is the guidance system of the missile, which needs to have high precision, high reliability and high anti-jamming to cope with the complex battlefield environment in the future. However, due to the lack of the relevant industrial base and talent pool, Northrop Grumman encountered significant challenges in the design and production of the system, which led to repeated delays in testing and validation of the system, affecting the overall project schedule.
In addition, the cost of the project has also caused widespread questioning and controversy. Some congressmen and think tank experts believe that the cost of the project is too high, the benefits are unclear, and it is not in line with the strategic interests and financial situation of the United States. They point out that the current U.S. nuclear forces are strong enough that instead of investing heavily in the development of new intercontinental missiles, the limited resources should be devoted to other, more pressing areas such as conventional**, cybersecurity, and space defense. They also believe that land-based intercontinental missiles are an outdated **, easy to be detected and attacked by the enemy, do not have sufficient survivability and flexibility, and may lead to miscalculation and misfire in times of crisis, increasing the risk of nuclear war.
As a result, some parliamentarians and experts opposed to the project proposed several alternatives, including further extending the service life of the Minuteman-3 missiles, or reducing the number of land-based ICBMs, or abandoning land-based ICBMs altogether in favor of SLBMs and strategic bombers as the main pillars of nuclear deterrence. They believe that these options could save a lot of money while maintaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent capability and credibility.
However, the top echelons of the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense are adamantly opposed to these programs, and the list of high-quality authors argues that the Sentinel missile is an important component of the U.S. nuclear triad and is indispensable. They believe that the Minuteman-3 missiles are aging and cannot meet future deterrence needs, and that continued life extension will bring higher costs and risks. They also believe that the Sentinel missile will have higher accuracy, penetration and adaptability to meet future threats and challenges, while reducing the cost of operation and maintenance. They also believe that abandoning or reducing land-based ICBMs will weaken the US nuclear deterrent and affect the United States' *** and international standing.
At the moment, the fate of the project is uncertain and will depend on the decisions of Congress and the White House. It is reported that Biden is cautious about the project and has not yet made a clear statement. Some analysts believe that Biden may review and adjust the program to balance the U.S. nuclear forces and finances, while taking into account the U.S. strategic relationship with Russia and China.