Origanalist
09-07-2016, 10:51 AM
Soaring Estimates Still Believed an Underestimate
by Jason Ditz, September 06, 2016
Part of a massive multi-decade scheme of “modernization,” the US Air Force is planning a new ICBM nuclear weapons program to replace the Minuteman III. The Pentagon’s latest projections are that this will cost “at least” $85 billion.
That’s a huge increase, some 36% over the previous estimate they’d offered, but even this is being referred to by Pentagon officials as the “low end” of the potential cost, primarily there as a placeholder for the overall program’s soaring estimates.
Several major arms makers are bidding on the scheme, but analysts are warning that the growing cost estimates may have some in Congress finally balking at a plan which many have been warning could be a budget buster for decades to come.
The rising costs, and the growing admissions that even the estimates are probably too low, seem like they’d be a wake-up call for a modernization plan that many are believing will extend into the trillions of dollars over the next few decades. Though many officials continue to insist the expense is “necessary,” there is no clear visibility on where the money is going to come from.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/09/06/pentagons-new-icbm-nuke-to-cost-at-least-85-billion/
America's New Nuclear-Armed Missile Could Cost $85 Billion
The U.S. Air Force’s program to develop and field a new intercontinental ballistic missile to replace the aging Minuteman III in the nuclear arsenal is now projected to cost at least $85 billion, about 36 percent more than a preliminary estimate by the service.
Even the $85 billion calculated by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office is a placeholder number that’s at the low end of potential costs, according to an Aug. 23 memo from Pentagon weapons buyer Frank Kendall to Air Force Secretary Deborah James. It includes $22.6 billion for research and development, $61.5 billion for procurement and $718 million for related military construction.
Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. are all competing to build the new ICBMs. But the latest estimate may add to debate about the cost and need for the planned modernization of all three legs of the U.S. nuclear triad of land, air and sea weapons. The nuclear modernization plan contributes to what defense analysts call a gathering “bow wave” of spending in the coming decade on major weapons that the next presidents will face.
At this stage of the ICBM program “there is significant uncertainty about program costs” because “the historical data is limited and there has been a long gap since the last” such development program, Kendall wrote.
The $85 billion estimate must be revised no later than March 2018 once missile designs are more advanced, technical risks are reduced and the service has a better understanding of overall costs, Kendall said in the memo.
Nonetheless, Kendall approved proceeding with early development and efforts to reduce technology risks of the new ICBM. He directed the service to move toward buying 642 missiles at an average cost of $66.4 million each to support a deployed force of 400 weapons and to budget at least $1.25 billion annually from 2036 to 2040 for operations and support costs.
The Pentagon’s ability to estimate the cost of the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent was limited by the “incompleteness and significant age of” the “data for comparable ICBM and submarine launched ballistic missiles dating back to the 1960s through the early 1990s,” Kendall wrote.
More..http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-06/new-nuclear-armed-missile-seen-costing-u-s-85-billion-up-36
by Jason Ditz, September 06, 2016
Part of a massive multi-decade scheme of “modernization,” the US Air Force is planning a new ICBM nuclear weapons program to replace the Minuteman III. The Pentagon’s latest projections are that this will cost “at least” $85 billion.
That’s a huge increase, some 36% over the previous estimate they’d offered, but even this is being referred to by Pentagon officials as the “low end” of the potential cost, primarily there as a placeholder for the overall program’s soaring estimates.
Several major arms makers are bidding on the scheme, but analysts are warning that the growing cost estimates may have some in Congress finally balking at a plan which many have been warning could be a budget buster for decades to come.
The rising costs, and the growing admissions that even the estimates are probably too low, seem like they’d be a wake-up call for a modernization plan that many are believing will extend into the trillions of dollars over the next few decades. Though many officials continue to insist the expense is “necessary,” there is no clear visibility on where the money is going to come from.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/09/06/pentagons-new-icbm-nuke-to-cost-at-least-85-billion/
America's New Nuclear-Armed Missile Could Cost $85 Billion
The U.S. Air Force’s program to develop and field a new intercontinental ballistic missile to replace the aging Minuteman III in the nuclear arsenal is now projected to cost at least $85 billion, about 36 percent more than a preliminary estimate by the service.
Even the $85 billion calculated by the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office is a placeholder number that’s at the low end of potential costs, according to an Aug. 23 memo from Pentagon weapons buyer Frank Kendall to Air Force Secretary Deborah James. It includes $22.6 billion for research and development, $61.5 billion for procurement and $718 million for related military construction.
Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. are all competing to build the new ICBMs. But the latest estimate may add to debate about the cost and need for the planned modernization of all three legs of the U.S. nuclear triad of land, air and sea weapons. The nuclear modernization plan contributes to what defense analysts call a gathering “bow wave” of spending in the coming decade on major weapons that the next presidents will face.
At this stage of the ICBM program “there is significant uncertainty about program costs” because “the historical data is limited and there has been a long gap since the last” such development program, Kendall wrote.
The $85 billion estimate must be revised no later than March 2018 once missile designs are more advanced, technical risks are reduced and the service has a better understanding of overall costs, Kendall said in the memo.
Nonetheless, Kendall approved proceeding with early development and efforts to reduce technology risks of the new ICBM. He directed the service to move toward buying 642 missiles at an average cost of $66.4 million each to support a deployed force of 400 weapons and to budget at least $1.25 billion annually from 2036 to 2040 for operations and support costs.
The Pentagon’s ability to estimate the cost of the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent was limited by the “incompleteness and significant age of” the “data for comparable ICBM and submarine launched ballistic missiles dating back to the 1960s through the early 1990s,” Kendall wrote.
More..http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-06/new-nuclear-armed-missile-seen-costing-u-s-85-billion-up-36