Washington and Kyiv are engaged in detailed talks about the possible provision of long range cruise missiles to Ukraine that, depending on variant, would be capable of striking deep inside Russian territory, senior Ukrainian officials said.
The discussions follow repeated Ukrainian requests for the weapons and come after a fresh wave of Russian strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, officials and public statements show.
Ukraine’s foreign ministry said the two sides were in “a very detailed and active discussion about the possibility of providing these missiles,” a ministry spokesman, Heorhii Tykhyi, was quoted as saying.
President Volodymyr Zelensky said he had spoken to U.S. President Donald Trump and described the call as “very positive and productive.” “We discussed opportunities to bolster our air defense, as well as concrete agreements that we are working on to ensure this,” Zelensky wrote on X, according to a public post.
Moscow has reacted strongly to the possibility of Tomahawk transfers. Russian President Vladimir Putin labelled a potential deployment of the missiles as “monstrous” and warned it would damage his relationship with Mr Trump, Russian state media reported.
The Tomahawk is a jet powered subsonic cruise missile designed for long range, all weather strikes. Different Tomahawk blocks have published ranges from roughly 700 nautical miles up to more than 1,300 nautical miles, and a recent Block V family has further range and capability enhancements, according to publicly available technical summaries.
The missiles typically use a mix of inertial navigation, GPS and terrain matching for guidance.
If supplied, the missiles could offer Ukraine a huge change in reach. Such weapons would allow precision strikes on rear area targets including logistics hubs, airfields, and energy infrastructure that are currently out of reach for many Ukrainian systems. Ukrainian officials and others have argued that expanding Kyiv’s ability to hold distant targets at risk is a way to blunt further strikes on critical infrastructure and to degrade Russian operational depth.
Could they hit Iran?
Erm are you asking if Ukraine can use them to hit Iran ?
They would struggle to hit most of Iran from Ukraine given the Tomahawks Range but I would guess It’s possible.
Logistics and training? Launch method? Or political posturing?
Launching is going to be the biggest problem. It is too large to sling from an F-16. Ground launchers are in very limited prototype numbers (the previous Cold War ones were destroyed due to SALT agreements).
Ukraine will have to field some sort of monkey model mobile TEL MK-41 VLS derivative pulled off a ship most likely.
The plus side is the Americans can program extremely ornate TERCOM flight paths to bypass Russian air defense. The Tomahawk can fly at tree top level for incredible distances and NO RF emissions or GPS guidance requirements, which is why it is hard to detect.
Honestly I don’t think the US will give Ukraine this missile, I hope I’m supposed, it shows very little will in the area of foreign policy anymore. It will posture and bluff but when it comes up against a nation that shows resolve and looks like it is willing to go toe to toe with it the US will after a bit back off. We saw this with China in their short trade war.
The Aussies are happy to supply Boomarangs
But they want them back.
Earth to Jonathan. President Trump just slapped an additional 100% tariff on top of the 30% tariff in effect on all Chinese imports to the US effective Nov 1st. In addition he imposed a $50 per net ton fee on all Chinese flagged, owned, or built ships entering US ports with an additional $30 per ton each year until 2028. That means any Chines owned or built vessel will pay $3-$4 million fee each time it visits a US port. It seems the trade war is in full swing.
You might better spend your time explaining why the British Government refuses to label Communist China a national security threat so that Brits spying for China can’t be prosecuted. Time to end Five Eyes.
‘Spying’ has to be defined in terms of offences; laws which have been broken by the accused. Labelling a country as a national security threat is not evidence in a prosecution, which needs to be relevant to acts committed under the legislation which obtained in 2023 when the alleged offence was committed. Also, unlike the US, the UK Judiciary is constitutionally independent of government. The accused are benefitting from these protections. As I understand it, they are not civil servants and so cannot be prosecuted under the (more comprehensive ) Official Secrets Act. The 2023 legislation has recently been updated so as to define wider set of offences which might have had met the threshold for prosecution, had they been in place in 2023. Hope this helps.
No it doesn’t. The UK is selling out to communist china in a big way.
What we are not selling out is the rule of law which makes us who we are. That’s exactly what autocratic regimes and politicians would like us to do.
That’s fine, China will ‘legally’ buy you out, down to the dirt. No more UK.
No worries. The Empire will strike back 😉
Accurate and comprehensive response. 👏🏻
Legalistic mambo jumbo.
I can see you are a follower of that great Irish philosopher Terry Wogan…..I think therefore I am…….confused.
Earth to PK in that last round of tariffs trump blinked first.. in May when he threatened to go to 100%.. china ramped up and instead of going to 100% Trump backed away..and the new round of trade war strikes was precipitated by chine. yes the 100% may or may not restart on the 1 Nov, but in May he backed off and Xi saw that as weakness… Trump did not back of the EU until he got exactly what he wanted.. china saw it could win
Now it’s not been trump who has been ramping up ready the new trade talks, China struck unilaterally as a precursor to the new trade talks and it hit in the place it can most damage the U.S. strategically.. strait in the supply of raw Materials to its arms and tec industries.
The thing about the $50 ton net fee on Chinese built or owned ships.. china now builds over 50% of the worlds ships and owns 30% of them.. who do you think that $50 net fee is hurting.. people are not going go “let’s not ship goods ship on Chinese built ships” .. they are still using Chinese ships so the US public are simply paying a $50 a ton tax on imported goods… it’s not like the US can suddenly build ships.. your nation destroyed your own shipping industry as effectively as we did to ours before you…
To be utterly and brutally honest PK china is not gunning for the UK, because we are not the nation that its competing with over domination in the western pacific.. your nation is it’s focused enemy, your the nation it’s after… in the same way it’s been made clear Russia is a European problem.. China is your problem.. Now my preferred stance was always the west needs to stick together.. Russia is everyone’s enemy and china is everyone’s enemy.
Which actually means I would see the US and Europe remove all tariffs from each other, completely support each other militarily without any barriers and slap 100% tariffs on Russia due to its aggression with Europe and 100% tariffs on china.. because it’s a mercantile, communist nationalist state that is now the preeminent maritime power in the world and it wants to take over from the west as the leader of the world order… but that is not where we are.. Europe will have to manage Russia without a lot of support from the U.S. and the U.S. will have to try a claw its way back as a maritime power and Contain china without much help from Europe..
Your TDS insanity does not allow you to see reality. You are so blinded by an inchoate rage against Trump that you are living in a fantasy world. The Chinese imposition of US fees on US vessels is laughable and a futile gesture, Chinese owned and, most importantly, Chinese ships entering US ports fee will cause considerable pain to the Chines, not the US consumer. China has very alternate markets to the US and is running a trade surplus that is not sustainable.
The UK has deliberately allowed itself to become a third rate military power. Why should the US completely support it when the UK refuses to hold up its end? Why should the US bear an inordinate share of the defense burden? Why should the US continue to allow the UK to be a parasite on it? And Europe for that matter. You can take your hollow words about the US and the UK/EU doing their fair share and swallow them because they cut no ice.
The UK takes every opportunity to stab the US in the back. Take the Middle East. Trump is working on a peace deal and Starmer and Macro, like stupid idiots, come out with a recognition of a Palestinian state. What happened? Hamas backed off a deal and Trump had to work extra hard to finally get a deal. As far as Communist China goes, the UK is going to allow them to build a gigantic espionage listening post on Uk soil. The reality is that the UK has become an albatross around the US’s neck. It’s time to end the alliance. The US doesn’t need the UK despite what you think. In fact, it’s become a liability.
PKC you are either 1) a polical warfare officer for china/russia/Iran 2) a radical nationalist whose idiocy will help doom the west 3) just a bit ill educated and fully believe what either 1 or 2 are saying
Wow PK has managed to find his way on here! For all interested on here he goes back a very long way on a number of sites, is always acting in a provocative and anti western way, and gets very grumpy when challenged. To be fair to him, he is one of the more efficient trolls we come across and his handler must have banged out some serious troll time. Hey PK how’s navy lookout, warzone the drive and the other sites you troll? Good to see you as it would be fun to get your perspective on a number of issues which concern the UK. He is very good at online abuse, lets see how he develops on here.
Yes, and China’s retaliating aren’t they?? from 14th October this year China will charge US ships docking at Chinese ports, we all know what that means don’t we, just give it a few weeks and Trump will go full TACO again. I’m surprised he hasn’t done it already what with the Chinese buying all the soybeans they can from Argentina, just as Trump has thrown 20 billion dollars at the Argies, trump the stable genius lol
And compare the number of US ships docking at Chinese ports with the number of Chinese ships docking at US ports. Who comes out ahead? You people suffering from TDS are just pathetic. If you hate Trump so much, break off the alliance, go out on your own. And see what happens. Trump’s successor will be either JD Vance or Marco Rubio; neither of whom will tolerate Starmer’s nonsense like Trump is doing.
All the big shipping companies have been shuffling their fleets for the last 6 months or so since President Chump started on his “back to the 1930s” tariff shtick.
Like everything else, the impact will be less than expected.
And his initiative to promote US shipbuilding is still floating in mid-air.
Surely you aren’t suggesting he is TacoTrump? 🌮
I have to say I’ve been having a think about why the UK fast jet fleet is to small.. and I’ve come to realise that it’s less of a capital investment issue than a ongoing cost savings issue.. we don’t have to few jets because we could not afford to buy new jets.. it’s because we decided to save money and cut squadron numbers simple as.
Now people will say but the fast jet budget could only buy xx jets per decade… yes that is true.. so why the hell did we scrap hundreds of perfectly capable 4th generation jets with probably half their flight hours on them.. because if we had preserved the tornado fleet we would have plenty of fast jets.. that is why the RAF is where it is.. the US wanders around with a ton of old 4 generation fast jets so does France and every other nation.. its only the UK that seems to have done this act of vandalism.. on the flip side we have the poor army driving around in 50 year old armoured vehicles and the navy trying to keep its frigate fleet sailing with bluetac and spit..
Of course it is! Salami slicing at its best ongoing since FLF95, Front Line First.
A couple here, then a couple there of the GR4s and F3s.
Then Labour came in and nibbled again, more F3 and GR4 Sqns.
Then reduced the GR5/7/9 fleet and scrapped Sea Harrier FA2 entirely, and the Jaguar fleet, 6,41,54 Sqns.
Then the Tories came in, another 3 GR4 Sqns gone, and rest of Harrier fleet. While getting the blame from all the Labour supporters here over the years for cutting Harrier, even though it had virtually already gone previously under Labour.
( They are very quiet now btw, which amuses me greatly.)
GR4 force was then whittled down to 3 Sqns, which Tories cut 2019, with no replacement, and spinning the yarn of standing up 2 more Typhoon Sqns to keep Fast Jet Sqn numbers at 8, as otherwise they’d have been 6, 5 Typhoon, 1 F35.
Even though they kept the same number of Typhoons.
And people thought down to 12 in 2010 was unbelievable….
Shambolic. National vandalism, and most of the public either care not a jot, or are blissfully unaware.
Just in time for a new Cold War, and China and Russia rising.
Splendid work!
On the plus side, Typhoon is very capable, and F35 is world class, if it ever takes off from Marham or isn’t stuck on a Carrier.
“Ever decreasing Circles”.
Yes a bit here a bit there.. slowly reducing the squadron numbers until 8 is ambitious.. but eroding the numbers of jets so even 8 then becomes impossible.. personally I can see the RAF falling to 4 typhoon squadrons + Falklands flight and 3 f35 squadrons very soon, because we know how many single seat tranche 2 and 3 typhoons there are.. 96 and 96 jets will support 4 squadrons and the FI flight if your running with a 20% sustainment fleet.
As you say it’s like the escort fleet.. mid 1990s is was understood that the RN needed 32 escorts for peacetime ( 12 AAW , 10 ASW, 10 GP) the Labour government cut it to 22 and under the conservatives it went down to 13…all the while we entered a new age of competition.. I would not even call it a Cold War, as that was a locked in peace via millitary competition.. what we have now is a free fall chaotic power rebalancing..far far worse than the Cold War.
both side blames the other.. I almost think there should be set legal limits on force size.. numbers of ships built, planes ordered ect.
Ah but you forget that one T26 can do the work of 30 Leanders and a single F35 can replace squadrons of Tornado’s. On top of this, the Army are 100 times more lethal.
All these Words have been used during the long period of devastation. (Not entirely accurate but you get the gist).
Quite so. ‘The Peace Dividend’! Some dividend: eleven years of war on Continental Europe, hundreds of thousands dead, wounded, millions displaced, every prospect of war spreading across into NATO member states.
Defence of the realm being the first duty of government, everyone in Whitehall/Westminster must be out to lunch.
It would have been better to announce the release of the Tomahawks to Ukraine AFTER they were used against Russia. Why telegraph the play?
It has to be billed as a reaction, not a unilateral escalation.
My guess is to apply pressure on Putin to settle. Recent articles are commenting on the weak state of the Russian economy and the effect on the daily lives of Russians of fuel shortages- the result of Ukraine’s targeting of refineries. A handful of successful Tomahawk strikes on Russian energy infrastructure could send the economy and Putin’s popularity over the edge. The NY Times reported that Dmitri N. Kozak, a long-serving aide to President Vladimir V. Putin who told confidants that he believed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a mistake, has resigned his post. Fingers crossed a cease fire could be close.
Exactly. Why keep throwing things over the fence when 20% of your front garden has gone and all access to the Azov Sea gone? Why not more rockets and missiles to hit and diminish the Russian forces inside Ukraine’s own territory as a priority? Shouldn’t there be a bigger effort to push them back and out? Reclaim Ukraine! Keeping them out will be an ongoing issue. Strength to 🇺🇦 🇬🇧 🇦🇺
In the end fighting a war only on your own territory is a losing propositions, you need to hurt your enemies where it hurts most and that is at home.
who could blame russia for attacking the supply chain, wherever it leads
Who could blame Ukraine for attacking the supply chain where ever it lead.. and considering most Russian missiles are build with Chinese parts we can see where that would end if Russia decided to attack the tomahawk supply chain and the west did it back.