{"id":52378,"date":"2021-05-19T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-05-19T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/uncategorized\/2021\/05\/19\/the-debate-on-the-icbm-fleet-just-got-a-whole-lot-easier\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T22:14:36","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T22:14:36","slug":"the-debate-on-the-icbm-fleet-just-got-a-whole-lot-easier","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/commentary\/2021\/05\/19\/the-debate-on-the-icbm-fleet-just-got-a-whole-lot-easier\/","title":{"rendered":"The debate on the ICBM fleet just got a whole lot easier"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The debate<\/a> over whether to stick with the half-century-old Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile or replace it with the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program just got a whole lot easier. On May 12, Gen. Timothy Ray, commander of U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, confirmed<\/a> that extending the Minuteman III through 2075 would actually cost $38 billion more than developing the GBSD<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With this new information, how can anyone still argue for keeping a missile mired in 1960s-era technology over building a new one that\u2019s 28 percent cheaper?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With a price tag of about $95 billion, the GBSD program has long been criticized as too costly. The critics argue that money would be better spent on other priorities, like combating climate change<\/a>. Meanwhile, they say, the Minuteman III can ensure the nation\u2019s security for a while longer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But sustaining missiles built before there was even an internet is no cheap task. Adm. Charles Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, recently testified<\/a> that some parts of the Minuteman III system are so old that contractors no longer know how to make them. And trying to retrofit cyber-secure software into a system built before cyber existed will certainly be expensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Air Force initially estimated that extending the Minuteman III would cost only $1.1 billion<\/a> more than GBSD. But that cost difference has now skyrocketed to $38 billion because the earlier estimate assumed that programs to update key missile parts \u2014 like the propulsion system, missile guidance set and rocket engines \u2014 would get underway in 2015 or 2016. Since the Air Force selected GBSD as the better option for the nation, those decision points have long passed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, switching course and starting those programs this much closer to the Minuteman III\u2019s planned retirement at the end of the decade would cost billions more. That\u2019s what Gen. Ray meant when he said<\/a>: \u201cWe\u2019re out of time\u201d with respect to extending the Minuteman III.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case closed on the Minuteman III debate<\/a>? Not so fast.<\/p>\n\n\n\t