Can America get its troubled new NUKES back on track?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 окт 2024
- Go to ground.news/Sa... to stay fully informed on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link right now for 40% off their Vantage Plan, which is what I use everyday.
-- BREAK --
If replacing America's Minuteman III nuclear ICBMs was supposed to be the budget-friendly solution, it appears to have backfired, with the effort now projected to go at least 2 years behind schedule and at least 81% over budget.
But despite these historic cost overruns, the Pentagon has re-certified the new Sentinel ICBM program to continue, calling the effort essential to American national security.
So, let's talk about where these budget-busting costs are coming from, and the plan to overcome these challenges.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollings. .
TikTok: www.tiktok.com...
Citations:
news.usni.org/...
www.rand.org/p...
fas.org/initia...
www.defense.go...
www.whirlpool.....
www.tti.com/co...
www.nytimes.co....
www.topspeed.c...
crsreports.con...
www.rand.org/p...
warontherocks....
apps.dtic.mil/...
uploads.fas.or...
www.militaryae...
www.hudson.org...
www.airforce-t...
breakingdefens...
www.defenseone...
www.politico.c...
www.defensenew....
www.stripes.co...
crsreports.con....
apnews.com/art...
breakingdefens...
www.afnwc.af.m...
www.defenseone...
Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to stay fully informed on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link right now for 40% off their Vantage Plan, which is what I use everyday.
😂😂😂😂😂
I would say that a costly deterent that never sees light is worse than doing nothing, like bids on airplanes I think smaller projects to more companies will create layers of redundancy, similar to instead of buying 100 f22's if they had tried to order 50 or 25 f-22's and 25 type Yf-23's
And by winning you mean killing 99 percent of the population via radiation poisoning and starvation followed by nuclear winter. That makes total sense. Fucking idiots sound like kindergarten children. I’m a former Marine so I’m all about completing the mission. But that’s just stupid. And at the cost of what?
Have you ever done a story about neutron bomb or war heads??
$200B for replacement of 1/3 of the nuclear triad which has kept us safe for 70 years sounds cheap --- just do it right.
Meanwhile NASA has to scrap a completely built, ready to fly, $433 million dollar Moon rover because the mission that it was hitching a ride on has taken longer to build and so the $84 Million dollars that it would cost to maintain it until it is launched will put it over the same limit the LGM-35 just blew through several times over.
Oh, and by the way, the money that is being spent on Sentinel could have set up 20 permanent bases on the Moon.
@@BabyMakR
What would the point of 20 moon bases be?
@@ruthnoya8424 What would be the point of several hundred rockets that can only hit the Earth that you never intend to launch that will have to be replaced in a couple of decades?
@@BabyMakR
If you don’t have these rockets, you'll end up as radioactive dust for sure, courtesy our russian/chinese friends.
If you have them, you might survive and you might get your 20 moon bases later. If you don't survive there is a good chance the rockets will be used.
@@BabyMakRhe went over that if you watched his last video on the subject it’s imperative for our safety
The Sentinel project should've happened at least 20 years ago.
Can't happen when the Democrats keep getting elected and killing the military programs.
It's expensive to kick the can down the road. Build it.
While America is kicking cans, Our enemy's are building far better missiles at a much faster rate, and might i add. much cheaper.
Best tax dollars spent.
And kicking the can down the road, by Administrations of both parties for the last 40 years, is why things are how they are. Better to build out the replacement, and learn the lesson.
@@rudolphpyatt4833 well whose fault do we have to blame? The people that put us into the wars of fighting terrorism for 20 years. Now we’ve allowed enemies like China to catch up and not only catch up but catch up and pass us in many categories. But also the aging defense contractors who are building absolute crap equipment just so they can get contracts. Don’t believe me look at the striker shorad.. lol yikes Compared to what Russia and China have. Now I understand America operates with air superiority so short range of defense in their eyes might not be necessary, but when we’re fighting a peer to peer like we are definitely not going to have air superiority superiority.
@@rudolphpyatt4833 There's definitely a poorly hidden pile of consequences that has been accumulating for the past few decades: Everyone wants to live under the safe umbrella of American military dominance, but no one wants to pay for it.
The audio levels in this video are WILD
I am Alex Hollings and this is tinnitus 😵💫
Thought it was just me 😂
Add Alex's loud nature of the voice to it.
I don't think he checks audio levels at all.
The problem is a few defence giants monopolising the contracts. Competition is absolutely crucial.
That monopolization came from the end of the Cold War, where the US Government specifically warned about a lack of need going forward and encouraged acquisition over liquidation.
Mr. Hollings. You asked for opinions. Here's mine. I'm a died in the wool hard core liberal. And hate that we need these planet killing weapons. But need them we do. Despite the enormous cost of these weapons systems. The Sentinel program is vital to our nuclear triad. Congress must increase taxes across the board for defense and non defense needs. "Whatever it takes!" Is the mantra I believe is necessary to continue a world order of freedom and democracy that the US and our allies have established and maintained since the end of WW2. I'm old enough to know and understand what a world run by Communism and fascism would look like. Freedom has no price tag.
I know the old propaganda well but the democrats do not support your idea's. Americans support America while the democrats support a global agenda. Who let the chinese buy companies and land within our borders.
Funny how lefty liberals are all war mongers these days.
What most people don’t understand is the concrete has a life expectancy. Without modern additives, it’s 50 years. With modern additives concrete life expectancy is 90 years.
There are variables, the hoover dam is expected to last 10,000 yrs. It's not fully cured yet either
Concrete strengthens for 90 years then begins to weaken over many many years. Why is roman concrete still good?
If they use the recently rediscovered Roman process it will be over 1000 years.
@@grider421Roman concrete was made with a different process and different materials. They only rediscovered that process a year or two ago. It was big news for historians.
There are different types of concrete and different things that can weaken it and even destroy it over time. Cracks that let water in and cause rust in the rebar causing more cracks and more rust and more cracks...is called concrete cancer. You see highway overpasses crumble away from this.
I always thought $77 billion for a new ICBM was a pipe dream. I just couldn't see how you could do it for less than $150 billion, and I figured that it would balloon to $200 billion. I think the DOD knew exactly what it was doing when it quoted the $77B, it's ridiculously cheap for a strategic missile and easily justifiable to Congess. They definitely took the absolute best case scenario, quoted that, and got their approval. Now it's too late to back out.
I generally assume a big number will be a more big number (regarding future government spending. Not to be conflated with assumptions regarding my future lottery winnings)
Part of the problem is self inflicted, since the government encouraged consolidation of defense contractors. So we wind up with a sole source for the solid fuel motors of the size necessary.
Not at all. Never too late to defund and abandon our national defense and surrender to global interests. I'm getting more and more convinced that some in Congress have other masters to please.
Yup, using the sunk cost fallacy to CYA.
I thought he $77 billion was the estimated cost in the 1990s.
America is just paying the cost of neglecting to replay something that should have been replaced a long time ago
YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T EVEN SPEAK THE LANGUAGE, THEREFORE YOU HAVO NO SAY IN THE MATTER, YOU BETTER SWALLOW YOUR POISON, NOBODY WANTS IT...
Reagan tried, but it never passed go.
I mean I think the dod paying $500 for washers that the faa pays only $90 for might also be a part of the problem
The boomers can sure past $240B worth of cost of living increases for social security every year but couldn’t come up with money for a child tax credit or for a credible nuclear deterrent.
They’re the only voting block that counted for the last 20 years, and as the incumbents, they don’t care about you or I.
@john_in_phoenix 50 Peacekeeper missiles were built and deployed until 2005. These were Reagan's MX missiles. We already had the replacement but signed the START II treaty with Russia. The Peacekeepers were pulled from service and scrapped. When only 10 of 50 remained, Russia tore up the treaty.
Ahhh... NOW it makes sense. The usual government bugbear... infrastructure.
Thank you Alex.🙂👍
The missile itself is not what is going to cost so much. It’s the work that must be done on the silos and all the launch facilities that must be upgraded. It’s not the missiles themselves or the re entry vehicles that is driving up the costs.
He said basically that at the end. Because I may have missed it, am I to understand that Northrup Grumman was also contracted for the silos and other facilities? It is just plain bonkers to package infrastructure work with rocket science, and expecting NG and Boeing to be efficient and capable civil engineering firms. If that's really the case, it's no wonder that would be the difficult part. Solid rocket-based ICBMs are child's play to NG and Boeing, but rebuilding 500 or more hardened bunkers and facilities with modern utilities is not aviation industry work at all.
@@VaradiioI'd bet the silos are sub contracted out to another company
Would just make more sense to produce new minutemen 3s🧐 Those things have to go point a to point b at a hypersonic speed , it’s not necessary to develop a completely new missile
@@krzysztofoleksijYou're talking about restarting an ancient product line. It'd be like producing new Model T's. There would be an obligation to do R&D because everything has changed. Factories can't be covered in asbestos or easily handle dangerous chemicals, and machine safety rules have changed as well. It's not just efficiency, but basically everything. Even the Minuteman's raw materials might be a poor choice today. All of this can mean that basically everything written about the missiles might be useful but not instructive. It's not some conspiracy when they say that making old jets etc. would cost about as much as brand new designs. There are rare examples of unbroken lines like the C-130, but they wouldn't consider making new C-130's if the factories weren't still operational.
FUCK YES ANOTHER LONG VIDEO
One of the VERY few channels that can hold me that long. I go into expanded screen 🤓
Other journalists and even teachers and professors should use Alex as a clinic on how to structure and present a topic. Alex is top-tier in this regard. The pacing, analogies, diction, cadence, format, visuals, etc…. are all so really well done.
It’s why laypeople can follow these videos and easily digest the information Alex drops on us.
Journalism schools and education schools should utilize these videos as an example on how to capture an audience and drop critical knowledge effectively.
When has deterrence been more expensive than war? If we don't fight, if we don't send the boys, what price the lives not expended? We (The West, NATO and USA in particular) must remain so fearsome that nothing serious ever breaks out.
That’s not going to happen all great empires destroy themselves and the U.S is well on its way
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Money well spent.
And people like you are the problem. How do you miss the obvious in all of these videos? It's not that we don't want or need them, it's that the entire process from the uniforms to the halls of Congress is so utterly broken, inept, and corrupt that THIS is what always happens. It doesn't have to be like this.
Great Video. Of all the kinds of spending we can do, I personally believe that we should spend whatever it takes to keep our defensive posture high at all times, including nuclear deterrent's.
Now, witness the power of this fully operational battle station!!!!!
🙄😵🙄😮😯😅😂😆😆😆 😉 😐 😬 👽 👾 🤖
As crazy as that sounds, it's definitely on the table in terms of cold-war planning.
Go waaaaay over budget, and then if international tensions get especially bad "Oh by the way, these are already operational". So as to prevent any perceived gaps in deterrence.
I remember a problem was found with a far less vital missile system in the 80's (non-nuclear), and it was treated as absolute maximum security 'hush-hush', because there was a desire to not have a temporary operational lapse of a weapons system be publicly known.
@@kathrynck I know. I'm old enough to have witnessed the MX debates live. On one hand, how far down the rabbit hole does a country go for a weapon it can't use? On the other deterrence isn't real unless the "fear" is real. McNamara approved MIRVs as SECDEF. Yet, he felt he was wrong. Finally, the $$$ is never in the middle, it's in the CnC infrastructure. Eisenhower knew NATO couldn't afford both a large standing army and a first rate Nuclear Triad. Are we kidding ourselves today?
*missile
@@NoManClatuer-pd8ck Yeah, it's probably just as advertised. I was just saying that the theory that the development & deployment schedule may be fudged in public reports isn't a completely wild idea. I imagine stratcom doesn't like the idea of there being any "accurate" publicity about when & which silos might be disabled for retrofitting work.
Another great video, one of the few channels I watch every time all the way to the end! ❤🇺🇸
Hi Alex Hollings fully agree with you. Thank you for the analysis.
Love love love your channel. Thanks for all your great work!
You do a very good job presenting information while keeping it entertaining. My favorite is Air Power! You're very intelligent with a sense of humor as well. I dig that. I also like that this channel keeps it's focus on the tech and global relations while keeping party politics to a minimum
If US military spending was approximately 9% of GDP, as it was in 1963, the current US military budget would be about $2.3 TRILLION.
These missiles are very affordable
Wow I didn't know the US defence budget percentage was that much in days gone by! ...................amazing
@@LeonAustwait till you look up what it was two decades before that even.
@@LeonAust The cold war was an expensive time in history for military spending
the Soviet Union was a powerful alliance that easily matched the US in technology not so much now Russia is a shadow of its former self .
The cost is only every city and all it population. Damn cheap.
@@bobdillon1138 the soviet union was competitive in some select areas of tech but it was never a match for the economic output of the US. Today, China matches the size of the US economy, dramatically exceeds US manufacturing capacity, and rapidly expands its military capability across all domains. Add to that Russia and Iran and there is arguably a greater need for US military strength today than any time since WW2.
10:58 Now... I'm from Romania, and despite the fact that we are just for about 35 years back in the democracy zone, our first post-revolution president went so far as saying that he envisioned for us an "original democracy", even we have an institution called "Consiliul concurentei", The competition council, that oversees mergers and acquisitions in order to keep the market competitive, and most probably would have blocked Northrup from buying that engine company, if the competition would have taken place in Romania. It's at least surprising for me to see this happening legally, and clearly one of the major reasons why the cost for the new program ballooned so horribly high!
It's not the reason if you watched the rest. The facilities give them bigger problems than the rockets. If it was still Northrop contracted for the infrastructure, though, I agree that we needed oversight on giving an aviation firm civil engineering contracts.
@@Varadiio Ok, the facilities might take up more of the money, but wouldn't you agree that Northrup's acquisition puts them in a dominating position, and as a result the US gets a much worse deal then it would have got if the government had blocked it? The difference must be a few solid billions... And yes, Alex said that Northrup would be the principal contractor for the infrastructure part as well, and that the Pentagon is thinking on breaking that part up into smaller contracts that a greater number of construction companies could bid on...
As I understand it, Alex ( @Sandboxx ) the actual LGM-35A missile is on track and on budget, the problem is the massively outdated silos and various support infrastructures that are causing the blowout. Inside of trying to upgrade everything it would be simpler and cheaper to build new launch-silos, LCCs and their associated support infrastructures.
We already had the replacement for Minuteman III. LGM-118 Peackeeper. 50 were built and deployed until they were scrapped as part of the START II treaty. When 10 still remained, Russia pulled out of the treaty. No Peacekeeoers remain.
So why don't we just restart production of LGM-118? Why do we always reinvent the wheel? For that matter, why not just build more Minuteman III?
most likely because many of the systems that were built into that missile are far outdated/obsolete/not made anymore/the companies that made components don't exist. Same reason we can't just "restart" F22 production.
There's one thing that is affecting this massive price increase of the Sentinel program, and that is the abysmal state of the American civil engineering. In the last 40 years we haven't been building a world class skyscrapers, dams, airports or subways... And the things we do build are many times more expensive than the same structures built by Asian companies..
We're unefficient, slow and expensive.. And now that we have to build structures that the American engineers built in the 1960s without a problem, the price skyrockets because the consulting companies that represent an enormous overhead, and the sub par engineers that don't know how to build efficiently. I bet that the South Koreans could build the command&control system and new silos 50% cheaper than Bechtel and similar companies.
If you see the pollution and other environmental side effects in Asian cities, you'd know why we're more slow and deliberate about how to build. America is top shelf for lot of things, and among the most prime is in our agriculture and our preservation of nature.
If you are mostly talking about china and there quick and cheap infrastructure projects, do some digging into the durability of their projects. They are Not high quality levels at all. And durability is almost nonexistent. There are, now at least, a great number of people who expose the fallacies of the ccp. The ccp is ALL about saving face and just showing off to the whole world that they can do things faster than the West can. But they do it at the expense of durability and maintenance.
Just look at the Three Gorges Dam. They wanted to build a new dam. And they did. But at a severe cost to the environment. The storage pool/ portion of the project has created a big feedback loop for water evaporation and rain in the local area behind the dam face. This is causing all sorts of problems with flooding. All because of the fact that they didn't do any Environmental impact research! And then you add to the fact that they only release water from when ordered by politicians! Politicians? You ask? Yes! And then you have to add that those water releases are only done, usually, when they have a positive weather prediction for rain, just so they can say that it's this a fault of nature, and not the governments fault.
And then you have the politicians making decisions about how to do the construction. When the dam was nearing completion they decided to go for the World Record for pouring concrete. Not a big deal, except for the fact that you can only pour concrete so fast in a project that that. Otherwise you run into massive weakness issues! But it was much more important for getting the World Record than doing the job properly! At what cost?
And then we have to add that the contractors in china are notorious for taking their own share of the money from the cost of the project! It's a known fact that china and Russia have to add those costs into the whole cost to the project. How much more? It's quite a lot. Total amount is, at a guess, 20-40%.
Can you see the problem? I'm tired of seeing the cost of US infrastructure projects taking so long myself, but at least now I understand why it takes so much time to get to the actual start of the project, the actual breaking dirt ceremony.
@@doujinflip I'm sure the Chinese and Russians are very impressed by our preservation of nature while they crank their war machines into overdrive.
@@doujinflipAnd an abysmal infrastructure. Forget about China, look at South Korean shipyards or the Japanese bullet train...
When Count Binface was running for the UK Parliament, he said that he would make a public commitment to modernizing the UK nuclear missile program, and a private commitment not to. "They're secret missiles," he said. "Who's going to know they don't work?"
Which is amusing, but we have only to look at recent news stories about Chinese missile crews using solid rocket fuel to cook their evening rations to know that sooner or later, the news gets out.
Thanks!
We certainly needed to replace the Minuteman rockets themselves, and no doubt the command/control electronics in their launch facilities. But it looks to me like they were planning a heck of a lot more than that. We could have without a doubt used the existing launch facilities with minimal change other than electronics. A lot of the supporting 'extras' aren't going to change the throw weight of the rocket force, the number of targets they present or that they could hit. From a strategic deterrent point of view, simply replacing the rockets and updating the electronics would achieve the whole need and would have kept costs much more reasonable.
If they are installing an EMP resistant fiber optic network, separate and secure of existing infrastructure which is usually copper wiring, it isn't cheap. Nor the programming to get a ground up communication system of this size working. And that's just one of many ground up programs that are inevitably going to balloon in cost.
Just one is do able. But when they took on such a huge program it was inevitable that things would grow in cost. The question is, was this corruption and graft, incompetence or a learning curve that needs to be overcome no matter what you do? Or is it somewhere in between?
There was a GeoTech engineer talking about this, and based on his experience on bridge replacement, there are probably lots of bad things going on around and under these after 60 years in at least some of the facilities and possibly the majority. He's never been able to reuse bridge footings, even when it would save a huge pile of money, because the footings are just not in good enough shape after 50-100 years in the ground to pass tests.
But government...
@@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88they already have the land. What they don't need is to place them out in the middle of nowhere now. That only worked when there weren't digital images of their exact locations and when the USSR couldn't pinpoint strike them. Now they should put them at established bases with already secure infrastructure and currently owned right-of-ways.
@@wyomins Spread your assets out. Why give them two birds with one stone. Greater chances your air defenses will protect more bases, sites, locations of importance, instead of bunching everything together in one place.
Im a child of the cold war and stand behind or nations military and NATO 100 percent. Im of the FIRM belief that one slip up on our part that weakens ours or NATO's capability is going to have 4 nations(you all know which ones im speaking of) come at us like hungry wolves. Im probably in a minority when I say that we need to remain the number one military in the world and no matter the cost we continue to develop better tech for the military and try to maintain close to the top in sheer amount of personnel. Basically hand DARPA a blank check and say "I dont care what it takes make sure WE have more and bigger boom than anyone else on the planet, and if anyone dare to threaten us their country is nothing but a giant hole in the ground by the next morning."
As a freeloading Canadian, I agree. If we're not going to defend our vast country, someone needs to.
I absolutely agree with the sentiment but not so with blank checks. North Korea has shown that even when the nation eats grass for lunch, resources have limits. Let alone if you wish to have such modern amenities as schools, hospitals and indoor plumbing.
So, sure. Let's get the biggest boom. But will also need to make sure we get some bang for the buck (pun intended) instead of enriching sole-source corporate owners which will gladly cash your blank checks and bail.
Same. We enjoy our freedoms and what remains of our prosperity in good part because of the hard power influence of our military.
I don't think you're a minority.
Korea, Vietnam, and others should prove how military readiness remains the only truly effective deterrent.
Couldn’t agree more. And being a fellow supporter & being in favor of NATO since alongside with our allies, as they say, “teamwork makes the dream work.” So we shouldn’t be making any MAJOR decisions that would alienate our European allies in the near future if everyone here catches my drift…???
4:40 to skip the ad
You the real mvp
gods work
That's what happens when you let a system go decades beyond their expiration date: Costs of replacing it skyrocket. Look at the B-52. It's going to be maintained for nearly a century and when it's finally retired, the USAF and Pentagon brasa hope there's enough B2s and B21s still in service when that finally happens. There will be no replacement as costs would be unsurmountable.
The problem with this program is the fact that 1. We waited to long to upgrade the missiles. 2. There's not enough competition between manufacturers and developers. 3. The DOD over spends on things like tools and parts. The same tools a civilians can buy cost the DOD twice or more.
try 17000 for a drill which costs 600$
Having 400 ICBMs force the adversary to allocate 4-800 of their fastest warheads to hit these silos in the unpopulated midwest.
That’s a high bar to reach if you aspire to compete with the US military.
What really worries me is we really don't *KNOW* if these bombs still work since we can't test them. Sure we can simulate them, but simulation always has limits.
Did you read an article where they said that they might not work anymore?
The pits lose mass to decay over time. Loose enough mass and you cannot achieve super criticality, hence the weapon duds. I do not believe we have the infrastructure anymore to produce weapons grade plutonium and/or uranium in the United States - it has all been decommissioned long ago. It would take years to rebuild that capability and that is time and money we do not have.
@@adamrutherford1704more or less to scare congress out of money I dout that.
@@adamrutherford1704 It was an article decades ago. They made reference to an early test ban treaty. They made a change to the Honest John missile and said "it should work, it was a minor change". Soviets ended the treaty, we tested, and it didn't work.
@@kennethng8346 I appreciate you man and thanks for the info and the reply.
Why was Peacekeeper retired?
Wouldn't an updated Peacekeeper be a cheaper option than a new system?
START 2 treaty. They were forced to.
You need a separate Episode on NGAD woes
140 B still seems cheap compared to the potential alternative.
With that said, I've been part of military contract projects before. Everyone views them as the juicy steak dinner among the regular menu of hotdogs and grilled cheese that make up non-military contracts. So I'm all for having these contracts reviewed with extreme prejudice.
The last Minuteman III I😮CBM's were built in 1979, the year I graduated High School.
Ok happy birthday 🎉
Words no one should ever want to hear about any Defense system.
I graduated HS in 1979 too!
Could we have fielded Midgetman again?
ICBM are known and mature technology, besides adding a new reentry vehicle.
Not something that we haven't done before.
It seems the ballooning cost is due to land acquisition and reworking of existing launch infrastructure.
If that's the case, maybe it is just easier to do it on new virgin ICBM fields in some desolated areas like Alaska/Aleutian islands.
There's a definite reasonable possibility to contract out the non-missile part like silos and launch facilities plus communication towers to another contractor.
Thinking loud here.
You keep quoting an irrationally low price for just replacing the old minuteman missiles with new-stock minuteman missiles made on a re-opened production line and that isn't very honest. All of the things that would have to be re-designed to manufacture in modern facilities and the replacements for the siles would be far more expensive than stated, and in the end we would spend as much to have a vastly inferior system, unable to be upgraded to meet new threats and we would have to replace them with something like the sentinel again. What I didn't hear was why we didn't resurrect the Peacekeeper program. Would that be more cost effective? It's far greater throw-weight would give the margins to upgrade it in the future and make it more interesting.
I'll point out that stage 2 and 3 of the Minuteman III was made by Aerojet. So I'm not sure why it would be impossible for AR to build the boosters for this missile. AR moved their SRB production to Arkansas IIRC, but this included the SRB casting equipment from Sacramento.
My guess would be that the required engines for the new missile are currently speced beyond Aero's current capabilities.
@@benb6274 It's inherently a problem if your only have one source for these.
AJR joined the NGC team on GBSD in 2019 and is providing upper stage motors and post boost propulsion systems for Sentinel.
Basically we kicked this can as far as it will go. Any more kicks and it’s just air.
Same with the bombers. The duct tape wrapping on those B-52H's is getting pretty thick.
We had LGM118 Peacekeeper in the 1990s and it was advanced but we scraped our newest ICBMs by 2006 so we rely on 1975 Minuteman 3s that dont even carry the 3 maximum warheads downgraded to one. Insanity
Q: How do you get unplanned for unbudgeted extra funds for your black project contracts?
A: Cost overuns on your publically disclosed ones.
Pass the copium dude.
I'd rather us have a modern, capable, functional deterrent that we never need than to not have one and wish we did. The Raptor has never seen its imagined combat scenarios unfold, and one can argue that it's also because it's just such a scary weapon that no one wants to come out to play. It sucks, but I get the theory -- if you produce a weapon that is so horrifying that no one in the world wants to use it, and it keeps everyone in a firm stalemate, then that beats being on the team caught with their pants down. God alone knows how many wars have been averted because everyone knows we would steamroll over them, but as long as the theory holds water and wars between major powers remain a thing of the past, I think it's worth the cost.
What happen to the MX missle I built, Alex?
Scrapped after a treaty with the lines long closed out. If Peacekeeper had fully, instead of partially, replaced Minuteman we wouldn't be having this discussion for a few years due to that being a newer missile.
Keith and those guys in Newark were all forced to take other government jobs in other states. All the test equipment and most of the flight computers and Northrop navigation systems were boxed up and warehoused on base. It was all gone and worthless by the 90s. Old man Bush was brutal to Peacekeeper.
I understand the concerns of cost overruns, but the real problem here is with the initial review and approval of the original contract proposal from M-D. There is no way you can blame a 2x budget increase on anything but an incompetent procurement process. I agree with the Air Force. Upgrades at this point are not optional. We need a new system. This is work that must be performed. Bottom line, do you really want your nuclear assets to be developed and built by the lowest bidder?
Enjoyed the video, thank you.
Another infirmative video. Thank you, Alex!
Why can't they just make decoy silos with a decoy missile, specifically for the "shield" purpose, with ~100 real missiles
This concept was explored at length when Reagan tried to build a replacement. Really, you should Google it and see, it was quite interesting at the time.
They probably already do as some would always be non operational
due to maintenance.
DoD has done numerous studies over the years and decided that decoy silos weren't worth it.
@@FoxtrotYouniform "DoD has done numerous studies over the years and decided that decoy silos weren't worth it."
They just gave a green light to a program 80% over budget. I do not trust DOD number crunchers.
Because it’s not worth it convincing decoys would be nearly as expensive
I'm surprised by the fact that the Sentinels aren't modern supersonic didn't come up. Having that fast, yet predicable, trajectory was a big counter-argument before.
Of course they can, its just a matter of will and management. They have kicked that can down the road for decades and it cant be put off much longer without putting the "deterrent" at risk of not doing that. As crazy as it seems on its face MAD has kept world peace for close to 70 years, the world needs America's deterrent.
Ah yes, the, "you just have to want it," strategy.
I still don’t understand why the USAF didn’t dust off the LGM118 specs and re-deploy that. They already had a future Missiles R&D done and previously deployed.
So replace a 60 year old missile with a 40 year old missile?
You would still basically be designing a new missile with all the other components of the Sentinel system as the drawings and blueprint are decades out of date the Silos and associated hardware would also be obsolete.
It's not hard to find out what happened to the Peacekeepers. Try google. Maybe Bing. You would quickly find out why you aren't even an amateur.
With what rockets and what warheads would you equip the 2 or 3 panels worth of Peacekeeper remnants?
Maybe the LGM-118 Peacekeepers should not have been withdrawn from service 🤷🏻♂️
I never really understood, why don't they just silo the tridents?
If I remember correctly, range.
@@ebonspike the public numbers between D5 and Minutemen 3 only differ by 500km and you could use the extra headspace easily for another stage. But given the latest failures the British had with their tridents, it might be good to have a degree of redundancy
@@flixri726it's about time, Icbms launched from the US takes about 30 minutes. Sub launched cuts that in half or more depending on the launch trajectory.
@@MrDJAK777 yes,but this feature is inherent to the delivery platform not the missile itself. If you would put Minutemen 3 on a Ohio, somehow, it would also be faster at its target if you drive it at its shores
It's about doctrine I think or I may be wrong. Minuteman III is the smallest and lightest ICBM meant for a quick response 1st strike deterrence. Same will go for Sentinel. Trident II D5LE on the other hand is the 2nd strike SLBM meant for mutual destruction. Though US did had a land base Trident II equivalent back in the 90s with LGM-118 Peacekeeper.
I’m not an engineer, but isn’t digital engineering supposed to streamline projects and allow a better process throughout? Many of these projects are still ridiculously over budget and over scheduled estimated time. Given that it’s the government I’m not the least bit surprised, but as a taxpayer it’s infuriating.
Peace and deterrence are priceless
A missile silo is always vulnerable to a first strike, a cheaper and more survivable version is a mobile launcher, put a command control and communications system in a truck despite of its modular design, all nuke triad will be mobile hence flexibility and survivability is a must
Knowing Northrop Grumman, they probably had their space station division building the new silos
Maybe a dumb question but why not go with fewer misslies and just put MIRVs back on them? It's not like the Russians are honoring the current nuclear treaties anyway.
mirv payload is incredibly smaller compared to conventional nukes, it has it's uses, but you need both.
Clears throat, and attempts the most smarmy used car salesman voice possible: "Economies of scale. Sure we can put a few more warheads on each missile, but the fewer missiles there are, the higher the price tag per missile. See what you want to do is hit this number here, at that point it actually becomes cheaper than what you are paying now and you get more!" If the F-35 programs has proven anything, it's that, while normally a true thing, it is not in a world where basically monopolies run all the things.
I find the argument made here that the Minuteman must be replaced uncompelling. We routinely test them, thus we have been manufacturing new ones. Just make more new ones. They won't though- too much money to be made.
I knew it was likely going to be hugely expensive and encounter budget oversight issues. But the main concern I have is with the value we are getting for the money in the design. The current design seems to be only a mild upgrade from Minuteman. It appears to be much less capable than Peacemaker, closer to Minuteman.
For the cost it seems like building a somewhat larger missile, just a bit narrower than Peacemaker would be a better option. That could potentially eliminate the issues that Peacemaker had with only just barely fitting in silos and perhaps not require the same mitigation measures that increased costs.
We should also be forward looking at the possibility of reducing numbers of warheads while increasing warhead mass and yields to keep a strong deterrent even if warhead numbers are greatly reduced by multinational treaties.
Real combat readiness comes from a continual effort to improve and upgrade. They are struggling with this now because they allowed the land-based deterrent to lapse into obsolescence, while simultaneously allowing the industrial wherewithal to build these weapons to fade.
Thanks ALEX🇺🇸
Sounds like a massive money grab by all these politicians.
Not to always be the nitpicker but... One of the terms imposed upon Northrop Grumman in their purchase of Orbital-ATK was that for GBSD, that division would be firewalled from the rest of Northrop Grumman. That means, in theory, Northrop Grumman and Boeing would have the same cost for the solid rocket motors. Obviously. Northrop Grumman would make more on the back end so it still wasn't a level playing field. However, Boeing never presented any evidence to support their claims that it was an unfair competition and the Air Force didn't find any fault with Northrop Grumman in their dealings with Boeing. Since it was a cost plus competition, all the numbers would have been visible to the Air Force if Boeing had made a bid. The initial cost projections for GBSD were low and cost growth was inevitable. Given Boeing's recent track record on firm fixed price and cost plus programs, there's little reason to believe their bid would have been any better and would have yielded less cost growth and a lower overall program cost.
Good point. Everyone is making out Northrop to be the bad guy.
I mean, it's hard to see how it could be a level playing field with Northrop Grumman owning Orbital-ATK but Boeing never proved anything. Boeing also could have worked with Aerojet Rocketdyne to produce the motors but they pulled the plug instead, probably because neither company wanted to make the needed investments.
Uncontested major programs should have peer oversight. If Lockheed bows out it should still have a seat at the advisor table to help add competitive insights to the sponsor.
If they let Boeing touch it the nukes will self disassemble during launch.
Is there any impression as to how much of the over-run is legitimate costs incurred on a technically difficult development program and how much is naked price gouging by Northrop -Grumman knowing that if the program was cancelled national security would be critically damaged?
Its quite alright, we still have our Trident II D5s by the thousands waiting deep down in the depths for the call if needed.
Yes we are doing it
Let just hope it has an actual MIRV capability for that price
Semper Fi
In N.G.'s comercial...what is that plane immediately to the left when she opens door to hangar?
Very interested in that.
Why not adapt the Trident D5 for land launch? It has twice the range @12k km, is super accurate to 90m, carries the more powerful W88 (vs W87) warhead and carries up to 8 of them vs a single warhead as compared to the Sentinel. Plus it is already tested and deployed. The Trident D5 is superior in every metric.
I'm a simple man. I see a Sandboxx video and I press play.
On a total life-cycle cost per warhead, they are a bargain for day-to-day deterrence as well as the only system that can take out targets in the opening minutes of war.
Typical of everything government touches. So much for so-called Affordable Housing, not in the Budget.
If you ask me, what’s the department of defense should do to build their silos and stuff as they should hire regular civilian third-party companies to do their construction work for them instead of having big corporations do it because they potentially save millions maybe even billions by doing it that way because the third-party construction companies would have already paid for their own equipment so they wouldn’t need new equipment just to build the silos and tear down the old ones. A single excavator cost somewhere in the neighborhood of around $500,000. And if you do the mass of all the equipment, including those excavators, that’s where a lot of that money is going. But if they hired a third-party company like a civilian contractor, they could not only save money, but benefits a contractors because they would get a huge boost. And that would also require more jobs for more people which would affect the economy. In a positive way..
It is absolutely needed, however it needs to be spread out to multiple contractors if there are cost savings.... As long as they are held to the highest of standards rather than allowed to cut corners that are extremely important 😊
I… (as a non American) think that there a great many clever/ educated/ experienced people in US/ NATO militaries/ governments …, who see the absolute need for this.., and I assert that they’re not in it for shits n giggles
The cost for the UK replacing Trident keeps getting quoted higher than Sentinel, so it sounds like a bargain to me 😄
The only sentinel program we need is the one against mutants
6:28 is that an animal just casually walking by a solid rocket booster during a full static burn? What the hell is that thing
Why reinvent the wheel. Just dust off tge plans for tge Peacemaker or Midgetman. Or, new-buikd Minuteman.
Just use the paper blueprints? 😂
12:40 cost overruns and terrible estimates are killing us.
I still say they should have upgraded the peacekeeper missiles and restarted that program
SENTINEL NEEDS TO GO AHEAD
alright!... I know that I may sound dumb!... but what about if all NATO members contribute to the renewal of the nuclear arsenal since we all use the nuclear shield for so long?... [just food for thought...] nothing brings partners together than join expenses...
So you are willing to farm out the contract for the program to other NATO members as well? If NATO countries would be expected to contribute wouldn't it justifable for a perecentage of the program to be made outside of the USA? Share the technology with other NATO members? See jobs going overseas, and US tax dollars going to other countries? Lose its Nuclear independance, If NATO countries are paying a part of the cost, then surely their Government should have equal say in its use?
There are certain advantages to things being kept in house.
Overall the program is worth it. It is very good that the Air Force is looking at breaking out the new command and control portion. Entirely different kind of Contractors can successfully built those and have no knowledge or ability to build the missile. That should have been split out in the beginning.
However, I do believe that in the end this will be a $200 Billion - $250 Billion project, or more.
As I have posted in the previous videos about this project that carbon steel reinforced concrete has a natural end of life where there is wet ground. Eventually the water get to the reinforcement and rust starts to occur. Rust takes more space and it fractures the concrete causing it to spall (this is very visible on highway bridge structures).
I estimate that at least 1/4 and perhaps as many as 1/3 of the silos will have to be replaced when they take core drillings of the base of the silos and foundations after removing the Minute Man 3 missile so they can tear out the interior fittings and rehab the silo. With lab testing it will be very easy to see the condition of the concrete through its entire thickness.
Replacing silos are going to be very expensive. I estimate about $1 Billion each.
Did anyone else play the opening scene to the movie “War Games” in their head?
Do you want to play a game of tic tac toe?
@@homebase5934 No, let’s play Global Thermonuclear War…
@@wadewilson524 ahh that's right. It's been about 20 years since i last watched that movie.
Delaying a program always results in a worse system and increased costs.
Put in the contract that Northrup Grumman has to eat 65% of cost overruns and I'm sure they will be on budget.
Why did you use a disclaimer of the non MAKO footage in the other video, but nothing in this when you are discussing Sentinel being sort of 'rocket ready', but you are using footage of the testing of SLS solid rocket boosters? Either we are stupid and need disclaimers, or we don't. JMFO....
Love your work and will continue to recommend you to those who don't have a clue what they are talking about...far too common these days...
I Wish You Well
Cancelling the MX was a freakin' stupid move.
Seems like the smart thing to have done, would have been to keep all the discussion of cost overruns inhouse, building just the number of missiles needed for actual launch, and having dummies for everything else. Russia and China would not know if any given missile is live or not.
Why don't we just dust off the Peacekeeper ICBM design and update it with a new warhead design?
11 warheads each being 15 Megatons in Yield (Ivy Mike sized) -- or even 5 megaton warheads would make an excellent deterrent...
If I'm understanding correctly, the main issue isn't cost overruns, its that the initial estimates did fully take into account all the infrastructure needs to support the new missiles. Maybe done on purpose.. but both lockmart and the pentagon to limit the type of sticker shock that would have killed the program before it ever got started.
Ugh...
Why not save some money by having a standard 6th gen fighter for both the Air Force and Navy.. similar to the F-4 Phantom. Sure.. there would be some compromises in capability.. it's the more practicable approach.
I don't think upgrading minuteman 3 is a viable option at this point. Too bad our defense industry consolidated so much.
Heh.. maybe a bunch of falcon 9's with modified dragon capsules is the answer. The booster can land anywhere and launch again for a second and third strike, lol.
William LaPlant, who is the unde SecDef, has a net worth of up to almost 4 million dollars. I don't know what his pay is, but his boss (secdef) makes about 200k a year. Please make that make sense.
Alex, one aspect your coverage needs to bring awareness to, which is the extremely low O&M costs the nation enjoys for decades to hold targets at risk with ICBMs once deployed.