Pentagon Plans 300 MW Floating Nuclear Power Plant for U.S. Military Base by 2028.

The Pentagon is evaluating a 300 megawatt floating nuclear power plant concept, potentially developed with UK-based Core Power, for deployment at a U.S. military base as early as 2028, according to The Telegraph. The initiative aims to strengthen energy resilience, support AI-driven infrastructure, and accelerate advanced reactor fielding under Defense Department authority.

The Pentagon is exploring a floating nuclear power plant concept that could give U.S. military bases a rapid, high-output source of electricity to sustain AI-era operations when civilian grids are strained, disrupted, or targeted. The proposal under discussion would place a reactor aboard a ship-like platform moored at a waterside installation, then connect it to the base and local grid, potentially shortening fielding timelines by using Defense Department authorities rather than the civilian licensing pathway. The prospect points to a widening defense problem: power is becoming a limiting factor for command-and-control, sensor networks, cyber operations, and the compute-heavy infrastructure required to train and run military AI tools. The effort centers on talks with UK-based Core Power and an initial deployment window as early as 2028.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

Pentagon officials are considering deploying a 300 MW floating nuclear power plant at a U.S. military base by 2028 to strengthen energy resilience, support AI-driven infrastructure, and accelerate advanced reactor fielding under Defense Department authority (Picture source: Core Power).

If realized, the capability jump would be defined less by novelty than by scale and speed. Core Power’s concept is described as a floating plant delivering roughly 300 megawatts of capacity, a figure that moves the discussion beyond the “microreactor” category and into territory that can support a major installation, large maintenance and depot activity, and data centers operating at sustained high loads. In operational terms, a 300 MW-class source could backstop critical missions during prolonged grid outages and reduce exposure to fuel supply disruptions that constrain generators during crises. It also supports a growing Pentagon priority: powering digital infrastructure without competing with civilian demand during peak conditions, when utilities often face constraints in generation and transmission.

The broader context is an AI-driven surge in U.S. electricity demand and a policy push to accelerate advanced nuclear options on military sites. An executive order has instructed Pentagon leaders to examine deploying advanced nuclear technologies at military locations and to aim for the first reactor in place by September 2028, a timeline viewed as ambitious by industry participants. The initiative fits a wider trend in U.S. defense planning: installations are increasingly treated as contested nodes that must keep operating amid cyberattacks, sabotage, or wide-area disruption, not simply as safe rear-area infrastructure.

The most consequential detail is the intended licensing and oversight model. A reactor placed on a military base could avoid the standard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approvals process used for civil nuclear projects, instead being handled by specialist officials inside the Defense Department who already manage naval nuclear propulsion and nuclear weapons-related responsibilities. If that approach holds, it would represent a structural shift in how the United States could field new nuclear power capacity: faster decision cycles, defense-oriented risk acceptance, and security-driven siting, paired with the need to reassure local communities and state authorities that safety and emergency planning are not being diluted. For the Army in particular, which operates some of the largest U.S. bases and power-hungry training and depot ecosystems, the ability to contract for resilient generation at installation scale is operationally relevant even if the first deployment lands at a joint or Navy site.

The platform concept also has practical implications that do not exist for land-based plants. Floating reactors are attractive because they can be built in factories, moved to different waterside locations, and plugged in without conventional planning permission constraints that slow fixed sites. That mobility can be read two ways. In peacetime, it is a logistics and schedule advantage: build the hull in an industrial shipyard, outfit and integrate the reactor in a controlled environment, and deliver the finished system to a prepared berth. In a crisis, mobility creates options for rapid redistribution of generation capacity between installations with port access, including to reinforce a theater logistics hub supporting surge deployments.

Core Power’s reported industrial plan underlines why the Pentagon might pay attention. The company is partnering with Japanese and Korean shipbuilders and working with France’s Orano, while also linking to U.S. nuclear startup Terrapower, although the first demonstrator is not expected to use a Terrapower reactor and would rely on a proven pressurized water reactor type. Choosing a pressurized water reactor is strategically important because it leans on decades of naval and civil experience, which reduces technical uncertainty compared with more experimental designs. It also suggests the Pentagon may be prioritizing fielding speed and predictable performance over maximum innovation for an initial deployment, a familiar pattern in military acquisition when the operational requirement is urgent.

From a force protection standpoint, a floating nuclear plant introduces new defense planning burdens. A moored reactor becomes a high-value asset with unique vulnerabilities: it is exposed to maritime approaches, requires layered physical security, and must be integrated into installation air and missile defense planning if deployed at strategically sensitive locations. Even without assuming a wartime deployment, the security architecture must account for insider threats, sabotage, and unmanned systems, alongside standard nuclear safety concerns. The same mobility that accelerates deployment also demands standardized shore connections, protected transmission links, and resilient microgrid controls so that the power source does not become a single point of failure.

The strongest near-term argument for the concept is not powering AI in the abstract, but sustaining mission assurance under stress. Modern bases depend on continuous electricity for data centers, communications, radar, air defense support equipment, maintenance tooling, medical services, water pumping, and housing. During extended grid outages, diesel generators can keep a narrow slice of critical loads alive, but they are limited by fuel logistics and maintenance cycles. A persistent, high-output source changes the endurance equation. It also enables more aggressive electrification of base vehicle fleets and support equipment, which reduces dependence on liquid fuels that are themselves vulnerable in contested logistics.

Strategically, the proposal also signals an industrial competition logic. U.S. naval nuclear experience provides a starting advantage, but rivals such as China are advancing rapidly in maritime nuclear technology, and first-mover advantage could shape future standards, safety regimes, insurance requirements, port rules, and export controls. The Defense Department’s involvement would therefore be about more than electricity. It would be a lever over an emerging maritime nuclear ecosystem with potential defense logistics relevance.

At the same time, the project would face credibility tests that cannot be bypassed by jurisdictional maneuvering. Floating reactor concepts have been criticized in some policy circles due to perceived novel risks, a factor that could influence host-community acceptance. A Defense Department-led pathway may accelerate timelines, but it does not remove the hard requirements: demonstrable safety case, robust emergency response planning, transparent environmental review where applicable, and a political strategy for domestic acceptance.

The outlook is therefore a race between electricity demand, acquisition urgency, and the reality of nuclear engineering and governance. The 2028 target, combined with a 300 MW-class plant, implies a search for an installation-scale solution rather than a small pilot that powers a handful of buildings. If the concept progresses, the next indicators to watch will be concrete contracting actions, identification of a candidate base with suitable waterfront infrastructure, and evidence of how the Defense Department intends to validate safety and security without the civilian regulator’s full process. Whether or not Core Power ultimately delivers the first system, the fact that the Pentagon is considering floating nuclear generation at the base level marks a shift: energy is moving from a support function to a frontline enabler of military readiness, digital dominance, and sustained operations in an era where power availability can decide operational tempo.