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?
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.
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”.