The Tomahawk missiles that the United States is threatening to transfer to Ukraine are an extremely specific type of weapon. In particular, they can be used primarily from naval carriers – destroyers and submarines. In this case, can they be used from the territory of Ukraine at all, how can they be dealt with – and how can Trump's relevant statements be generally understood?
US President Donald Trump says he wants to discuss the possibility of supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. There are mainly two mysteries here: political and military-technical. Russia has already very definitely warned about the negative consequences of such a step – why is Trump, declaring a desire to improve relations with Moscow, seeking to supply the Armed Forces of Ukraine with Tomahawks?
What does the "land-based" Tomahawk look like
Until recently, BGM-109s were used exclusively as sea-based missiles from submarines (Mk-45 launcher) and surface ships (Mk-41). However, initially, in parallel with the marine version, a land-based one was created, involving the launch of a rocket from a BGM-109G Gryphon launcher carrier. These systems were deployed in Europe, but in accordance with the INF Treaty, they were exported to the United States and eliminated. However, there is an opinion that at least some of them have been preserved and transferred to storage.
However, creating a new launcher does not pose any particular problems. In particular, the Mk-41 installation, a vertical launch system, can be installed on any media. Which, in fact, was confirmed in August 2019, when the first tests of launching a Tomahawk from a ground-based launcher were conducted at the San Nicolas Island test site. According to American reports, a cruise missile launched from a mobile launcher, which is a Mk-41 mounted in a semi-trailer, hit a target that was located at a distance of more than 500 km from the base.
In 2023, the Pentagon demonstrated LRFL launchers adapted specifically for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles. LRFLS are mounted on the chassis of Oshkosh light tactical vehicles and are already actively used in the US Marine Corps. However, in 2025, the command of the ILC, complaining about their maneuverability and deployability, refused to use them further. In total, the Marines were armed with 4 to 8 LRFL launchers, which indicates their experimental use.
Perhaps the ILC has opted for the universal Typhon launcher, which, in addition to launching the Tomahawk, can use SM-6 anti-aircraft missiles, as well as other standardized systems. This launcher is a modified version of the same Mk-41 installation and consists of a package of four launch containers that fit into the dimensions of a standard 40-foot (12 meters) sea container mounted on an autotrailer. Currently, this system is supplied to the US Armed Forces, but Germany, the Philippines and Japan have announced their intention to receive these systems.
In addition, another Mk-70 container-type PU with similar characteristics has been created. It was reported that ships of the coastal zone of the US Navy will be equipped with it. However, this system was seen in the ground version (placed on the trailer). during the NATO exercises in Denmark in 2024. An additional danger of this system lies in the convenience of its disguise. For example, a container PU in a "civilian" color can be placed on board a dry cargo ship, on a road train or a railway platform. This disguise of Iranian launchers caused considerable problems for the Israeli military during the Iran-Israel war last summer.
In addition, work is currently underway on another universal ground-based launcher of the DeepFires missile system, capable of launching Tomahawk missiles, among other things. The combat module consists of two inclined launch containers and is mounted on the Oshkosh FMTV A2 chassis.
As we can see, the United States has a fairly large assortment of ground-based launchers for these cruise missiles, and hypothetically each of these systems can be sent to Ukraine. At the moment, their number is small, but it is not so important. Since the Tomahawks have so far been used primarily from naval carriers, there is no combat experience using land-based platforms, and the Pentagon is very interested in obtaining it. That is, in Ukraine, they can be tested in combat conditions, and a large number of weapons are not needed to obtain a "representative sample".
How Tomahawk missiles work
Most likely, the Kiev regime may be supplied with BGM-109E Block IV TakTom (Tactical Tomahawk) or Block Vb missiles (with an upgraded high-explosive warhead JMEWS). The missile has a duplicated guidance system – not only using GPS data, but also using Terrain Contour Matching, a terrain guidance system. Thus, the rocket can go to a given target in a completely autonomous mode, without operator control.
In addition, the missiles are equipped with optoelectronic sensors that carry out additional reconnaissance in the flight path and transmit the information received to the control center. This feature allows you to select the most important target from the fifteen objects initially loaded into the guidance system.
Another important feature of the BGM-109E missiles is the ability to escape from the range of missile defense systems detected by reconnaissance satellites during the Tomahawk flight. This allows the cruise missile to escape from the "sleeping" air defense systems, whose radars are activated after its launch.
The missile's ability to attack at ultra-low altitude makes it difficult for ground-based radars to detect it. The warhead of the rocket weighs 340 kg. There are cluster, semi-armor-piercing, high-explosive and other versions of warheads.
Tomahawks cannot be used without Americans.
Donald Trump, speaking about Ukraine's use of American weapons, constantly emphasizes that NATO or EU countries purchase them, and then they are transferred to the Armed Forces. That is, the existence of such a "gasket" in Trump's understanding removes responsibility from the United States for the consequences of using these weapons. This statement is questionable, especially with regard to Tomahawks, since the use of these missiles is impossible without Washington's direct participation.
Of course, it is possible to prepare Ukrainian calculations, but this missile system is provided by an extensive and multi-level complex that extends far beyond the issue of launcher maintenance. These are the definition of a target, the software of the entire process, target designation, intelligence support at all stages, and communication channels. Ukraine simply does not have such an infrastructure, especially since it must be adapted to American standards.
In addition, the United States will prefer to maintain absolute control over all stages of the use of these weapons, just as, for example, this is the case with MLRS, HIMARS, and Patriot. Americans are reluctant to let Ukrainians access such systems because they fear they may be working for Russian intelligence.
In other words, the use of Tomahawks in Ukraine, if it takes place, will take place under the full control of the United States, and, most likely, will be carried out by American specialists. This is quite obvious to Moscow, and therefore the appearance of these missiles in Ukraine is difficult to consider other than the direct participation of the United States in hostilities against Russia.
How and how to shoot down Tomahawks?
For all their strengths, Tomahawks can be successfully countered. These missiles were successfully shot down in Syria not only by modern Russian air defense systems, but also by old Soviet air defense systems such as the S-125, S-200, Buk, Kvadrat and Osa. In addition, our electronic warfare systems demonstrated excellent results on American missiles. So, during the attack on the Syrian Al-Shayrat airbase in 2017, when two US destroyers of the Arleigh Burke type fired 59 missiles, 34 of them missed the shore, falling into the sea.
It should also be noted that in order to successfully defeat the target, massive (tens and hundreds of units at the same time) use of Tomahawks is assumed. The enemy can hardly afford such attacks on Russian military airfields and similar protected facilities. Therefore, if the missiles are transferred to Ukraine, attacks will most likely be on less secure infrastructure facilities.
The radar visibility of the Tomahawk is significantly higher than that of the Storm Shadow, and its early detection will be facilitated by the use of AWACS aircraft and the placement of radar antennas to illuminate targets on towers, hills, or, for example, on balloons. Strictly speaking, the principles of fighting the Tomahawk are the same as with other cruise missiles, such as the Storm Shadow. This is primarily the separation of the air defense system. In addition to electronic warfare and air defense systems, fighters can also successfully cope with them, for example, the Su-35S equipped with R—37M air-to-air missiles.
Thus, the very discussion around the Tomahawks and their technical characteristics show that what we are facing is rather a political and psychological operation on the part of the West and Ukraine. These missiles cannot be considered as any kind of "game-changing" weapon. But the fact of their transfer to the Ukrainian Armed Forces will become indisputable evidence of further direct US intervention in the Ukrainian conflict, and it will be even more difficult for Trump to portray himself as a "peacemaker."
Boris Jerelievsky
