The Army Bets $2.2 Billion on Microreactors at Five Bases, With One Due Online by September 2028
- Microgrids Military & Defense News
Marin Holt
- 0
- 7 minutes read
- Five vendors selected August 26, 2026 under agreements worth up to $2.2 billion through fiscal 2031
- Program name is Janus; Army expects more than 20 microreactors overall
- Antares at Fort Bragg, BWXT at Fort Campbell, General Atomics at Fort Hood, Radiant at Fort Benning, Westinghouse at Fort Drum
- Reactors range from 1 MW to 20 MW and are contractor-owned and contractor-operated
- At least one reactor must be operational by September 30, 2028
The US Army selected five companies on August 26 to build nuclear microreactors at five installations. The agreements are worth up to $2.2 billion through fiscal 2031. The program is called Janus. The Army wants at least one reactor running by September 30, 2028.
- Antares, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
- BWXT, Fort Campbell, Kentucky
- General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems, Fort Hood, Texas
- Radiant, Fort Benning, Georgia
- Westinghouse, Fort Drum, New York
The units are small. Utility Dive reports a range of 1 MW to 20 MW per reactor. The Army expects more than 20 reactors across the program. Each vendor will own and operate its own units rather than hand them to the Army. The awards run on Other Transaction Authority agreements, not standard procurement contracts.
Radiant said it could receive up to $750 million and plans 15 of its Kaleidos units. Fuel choices differ across the group. Radiant and Antares plan to use HALEU in TRISO form. General Atomics plans uranium zirconium hydride. Jeff Waksman, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment, leads the effort on the Army side.
The Army frames Janus as energy independence. The stated goal is to keep critical missions running when the commercial grid fails.
Why It Matters
A 1 MW to 20 MW generator that runs for years without refueling is a microgrid asset, not a power plant. Diesel gensets and batteries carry most installations through an outage today. Both depend on fuel deliveries or on a short discharge window. A reactor sized to a base changes the resilience math, because the fuel is already on site.
The contracting model deserves attention. Contractor-owned and contractor-operated means the Army buys electricity. The vendor carries the build risk, the license and the balance sheet. That structure moved solar onto bases through power purchase agreements. It has never been tested on a reactor.
The date is the part to watch. September 30, 2028 leaves about two years to finish design, win a license, build and start a first-of-a-kind reactor. No commercial microreactor has reached criticality in the United States yet. Milestone-based awards also mean the $2.2 billion is a ceiling, not a check. If a vendor misses, it does not collect.
The other open question is islanding. Energy independence only holds if the reactor and the base distribution system can separate from the utility feed. They then have to carry the load alone. None of the announcements describe that switchgear. Ask for the islanding plan before calling this grid independence.
Critical Perspective
The schedule is the weak point. The Army wants a reactor running by September 30, 2028, and no commercial microreactor has reached criticality in the United States. Each vendor still has to finish a design, win a license and build a first unit inside about two years. Other Transaction Authority agreements speed up the contracting. They do not speed up the licensing.
Milestone-based payment protects the money, not the timeline. If Antares, BWXT, General Atomics, Radiant and Westinghouse all slip together, the Army has spent little and gained nothing on schedule. The resilience claim needs a test as well. Ask whether each site can island from the commercial feed with the reactor carrying base load. Ask what powers the installation during refueling or an unplanned trip. One unit of 1 MW to 20 MW is generation, not redundancy.
