U.S. Military Should Reassess the Value of Advanced Energetics Beyond the Price Tag
As the United States ramps up weapons procurement and ammunition stockpiling, experts are calling for a broader assessment of energetics—including explosives and propellants—that weighs both performance and cost. Tyler Hacker of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) said comparing only the unit price of a round and its fill can understate the operational and force-wide benefits of advanced energetics.
In an analysis released July 24, 2026, Hacker argued that energetics should be evaluated not as standalone components but as part of the broader operational chain, from target detection through engagement.
Why Energetics Are Critical to Weapon Performance
Energetics encompass explosives used in warheads, propellants for SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) and rockets, and materials used in some chemical and signaling equipment. Because they directly affect a munition’s range, speed, explosive effect and payload capacity, they are considered a key factor in determining a weapon system’s real-world performance.
According to the CSBA analysis, newer materials such as CL-20 could offer greater energy density and explosive power than existing energetics. More efficient propellants could allow a weapon of the same size to fly farther or create room for a larger warhead, sensor or other component at the same range.
Why Comparing Ammunition Unit Costs Is Not Enough
Operational Effects Must Be Weighed Alongside Integration Costs
New energetics may require more time and money than existing materials for testing, certification and the construction of production facilities. But the CSBA said those costs should not be judged solely by the price of the munition itself. The analysis should also account for the number of rounds and follow-on strikes required to achieve the same objective.
A larger explosive effect can increase the likelihood of neutralizing a target with a single strike, reducing the ammunition needed for additional attacks. Given that many of the United States’ major precision-guided missiles cost more than $1 million each, the argument is that the cost of integrating new materials should be compared with the expense of buying and stockpiling a larger number of munitions.
Implications for Platform Survivability and Logistical Demands
More efficient propellants could enable aircraft, ships and ground launchers to strike from farther outside an adversary’s air-defense network. Reducing the number of platforms assigned to a mission or shortening the time they remain exposed to enemy threats could also lower equipment losses, casualties and the burden on supply networks.
Cost analysis for energetics therefore needs to go beyond the procurement costs of materials and munitions to include launch platforms, inventory levels, transportation systems and the cost of replacing combat losses.
Congress Also Backs CL-20 Demonstrations and a Shift in Energetics
The U.S. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 required a demonstration program to apply CL-20 as the primary warhead fill or propellant in three weapons systems under development for ground-launched precision-strike weapons. The program is intended to validate the costs, schedule and lethality benefits of integrating CL-20 into actual weapon systems.
The law requires the integration of CL-20 to move forward within three years of its enactment. It also requires evaluations of new munitions to account for the lethality and system-level operational benefits that could result from changing the energetics.
The U.S. Army’s Fiscal Year 2026 research and development budget materials likewise include plans for CL-20-based warhead designs and performance testing. The documents call for advancing high-performance explosive formulations, optimizing related warhead designs and pursuing a Hellfire warhead demonstration program in fiscal 2026.
The Challenge for U.S. Defense Policy: Redesigning Cost-Effectiveness
The CSBA’s April 2026 research report, ‘Choosing Less Bang for Buck’, recommended that the United States expand the production base and application of new energetics. The report found that next-generation explosives and propellants could increase a weapon’s range and destructive power while helping offset limited ammunition production capacity.
Rather than applying new materials across every weapon, the Defense Department is likely to prioritize testing in areas where range and explosive effects have a direct impact on operational outcomes. Potential candidates include warheads for small uncrewed systems, specialized munitions for penetrating or destroying underground facilities, and hypersonic weapons, where maximizing performance is particularly important.
Ultimately, the issue is not simply about reducing the unit cost of energetics. Even if upfront integration costs are high, a new material may reduce overall force-management costs and long-term ammunition demand. Defense investment and acquisition decisions therefore need an evaluation framework that captures those broader benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What are energetics?
Energetics are materials used in weapons to release energy rapidly or generate propulsion. Common examples include explosives for warheads and propellants for missiles and rockets.
Why are advanced energetics important?
The performance of energetics affects a munition’s explosive effect, range, speed and payload capacity. Even with the same weapon design, the choice of material can significantly change its operational effectiveness.
What is CL-20?
CL-20 is a candidate next-generation high-energy explosive. Researchers are studying its potential to provide greater energy density and explosive power than conventional explosives.
Why is it difficult to adopt new energetics immediately?
New materials require not only performance validation but also safety testing, certification, production-process development and assessments of long-term storage stability. These steps can generate higher upfront costs than existing materials.
Is the United States applying CL-20 to operational weapons?
The U.S. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 established a demonstration program to apply CL-20 to three weapons systems under development. U.S. Army budget materials also outline plans related to CL-20-based warheads and a Hellfire warhead demonstration program.
How should the cost of energetics be evaluated?
Assessment should include more than the unit cost of the material and munition. It should also account for the number of rounds required, reductions in follow-on strikes, platform survivability, logistical demands and the cost of replenishing inventories.
