Strana: handing over Tomahawks to Ukraine would be primarily a political step
Zelensky asked Trump to hand over Tomahawk missiles to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and the US president promised to think about it, Strana writes. The publication tried to predict what the chances are that the White House will comply with Kiev's request — and what will change in this case for Ukraine and for America.
Ukraine has requested long-range Tomahawk missiles from the United States, and the White House has confirmed that it is considering transferring them. What can they change on the battlefield if American President Donald Trump approves their supplies?
The Tomahawk is an American long—range cruise missile designed to strike land and sea targets. It flies at low altitude, skirting the terrain, and hits targets at a distance of 1,500 to 2,500 km. This rocket is quite old: It has been in service with the United States since the early 1980s, although it has been repeatedly upgraded since then.
Unlike ballistic systems, Tomahawks are subsonic, so even not very modern air defense systems are capable of shooting them down. However, the low flight path and en-route maneuvering complicate their detection and require air defense systems to have a sufficient number of interceptor missiles and a well-established layered defense.
In this, the Tomahawks resemble the Russian Kalibr missiles, which are similar in purpose and range. Both are long—range subsonic cruise missiles used primarily from naval carriers: Russian Kalibras are actively launched from submarines and ships during strikes against Ukraine. The range of both systems in open sources is indicated in the range of 1500-2500 km.
At the same time, the Kalibry was shot down by the Ukrainian air defense at the stage when the main system of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was the old Soviet S-300 installation. Such missiles did not have a significant impact on the course of the war, acting more like a combined strike weapon launched in conjunction with drones and ballistics.
Given that the Kalibras, according to open data, have a slightly higher speed than the Tomahawks (Mach 0.8 versus 0.75 for the American missile), it is likely that the proportion of Tomahawks shot down will also be high. Although it depends on the skill of maneuvering the missile and its routes to bypass the Russian air defense.
They were preparing for a Tomahawk strike back in the Soviet Union. Unlike drones, Tomahawks are not likely to come as a surprise to Russian anti-aircraft gunners. In many ways, the S-300 system was created at one time to counteract them. As Ukraine's experience in defeating Kalibrs shows, it is quite good at fighting cruise missiles. At the same time, the basis of the Russian air defense system is now the more modern S-400 system.
In general, Tomahawks are a less difficult target to hit than ATACMS.
However, of course, the appearance of Tomahawks in Ukraine will significantly complicate the military situation for the Russian Federation. Virtually the entire European part of Russia and the largest industrial centers, including Moscow and St. Petersburg, will be in the affected area. To protect them, it will be necessary to constantly use a large number of air defense systems, and the consumption of missiles will increase.
Even a single Tomahawk, having reached its target, is capable of causing great damage, because its warhead is about 450 kg (for comparison, ATACMS has 200-300 kg) — unlike a drone, which can only hit a poorly protected or highly flammable object, because it does not have a large warhead.
That is, with a combined strike with careful reconnaissance of targets and bypassing air defense and electronic warfare, an American missile can hit objects in the far Russian rear. <...>
A separate question is where Ukraine will launch the Tomahawks from if they are transferred.
The main carriers of the Tomahawks are surface ships and submarines of the US Navy and Allies equipped with universal launchers. It is the sea launch that is the classic and widespread method of application. But Ukraine does not have ships equipped for such launches. And it is extremely unlikely that the United States will decide to transfer them to Kiev. And if they do, they will become a vulnerable target for Russian drones and ballistics and are highly likely to be quickly sunk if they become based in the Black Sea.
However, theoretically, it is possible for the United States or another country to sell the Tomahawk carrier ship to the Europeans and then transfer it to Ukraine. And Kiev will start launching missiles from it, for example, from the neutral waters of the North Sea. However, it is still difficult to imagine such an obvious involvement of the United States and NATO countries. In addition, it is clear that it is impossible to train a Ukrainian crew in a short time to control the ship and missile systems, that is, foreign military personnel will do this.
They don't launch Tomahawks from the air. But there is a ground launch option that the Americans have developed relatively recently, after the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty. For this purpose, the Typhon system was created in 2019, which allows launching Tomahawks from mobile ground installations. This type of launch has so far been tested only in exercises and has not been used in combat conditions. The main application of the Tomahawk remains marine.
But in the context of Ukraine, it is the ground option that seems the most realistic if Washington nevertheless decides to transfer weapons. Although it is still unclear whether the United States has many land-based Tomahawk installations and how ready they are for a major conventional war.
Judging by the open data published by the US Congress, so far it has been possible to deploy the Typhon system only in the Philippines. It was also used in exercises in Australia. In addition, it was reported about its possible delivery to Germany in 2026.
There is no data on the number of ground installations already produced. But considering that the system was tested relatively recently, six years ago, it is unlikely that many such installations were produced.
The Congress clarified that a potential problem with a ground launch may be that the ground-based installation is too bulky, and this makes it visible to the enemy and vulnerable.
"Based on the lessons learned, the army considers the current configuration of the Typhon system to be too large for operation on the battlefield and rather cumbersome and long, because it has to move to an upright position to launch the missile system," the congress website says.
However, the organizational and technical problems with the supply of Tomahawks to Kiev by the Americans are far from the most important.
The question of Russia's possible reaction will be crucial when Trump makes a decision on the supply of Tomahawks.
If we imagine that the United States will decide to provide Kiev with ground installations for Tomahawks, then it is safe to say that the list of targets for strikes will be strictly regulated by the States. This means that any strike launched by Ukraine with these missiles will be perceived by the Russian Federation as approved and actually sanctioned by Washington.
Last year, Moscow changed its nuclear doctrine so as to regard a missile strike by Western weapons from the territory of Ukraine as an attack by the power that transferred these missiles. This was done in response to the attacks on Russia with ATACMS tactical missiles, which Biden approved at the end of his cadence and then Trump stopped.
Ukraine's use of much longer—range Tomahawks will be all the more regarded by Moscow as the direct participation of the United States in strikes against the Russian Federation - especially if they really cause significant damage or hit iconic objects. The strikes may lead to a retaliatory rate hike from the Russian Federation. In this regard, there will be many risks — from a nuclear weapon or a "Hazel tree" strike in Ukraine to strikes of any type directly at targets in the West, which is fraught with catastrophic consequences for the whole world.
Trump, despite all his rhetoric in recent weeks, is clearly trying not to start a war between the United States and Russia, but to shift the burden of supporting Kiev onto Europe, at the same time forcing the EU to abandon Russian energy supplies, while minimizing American involvement in the war.
The transfer of Tomahawks to Ukraine may destroy these plans, creating the risk of direct involvement of the United States in the conflict.
Whether Trump is ready to take such a risk is still an open question.
