Should or will the United States supply Tomahawk cruise missile systems to Ukraine?

Should or will the United States supply Tomahawk cruise missile systems to Ukraine? https://bit.ly/47surrz 

Donald Harvey Marks 

Physician scientist and 3rd generation veteran 

One could easily ask why President Zelesky of Ukraine is pressing the USA for Tomahawk cruise missiles, even as Ukraine develops its own long-range systems like the "Flamingo." IMO, this request is driven by several key factors related to capability, scale, and strategic messaging.

​In short, Tomahawks offer a proven, high-volume, and deeply-penetrating cruise missile capability that Ukraine's domestic programs, while promising, cannot match today.

​Here are the main reasons Ukraine seeks the USA Tomahawk long-range missile system:

​1. Superior, Proven, and Scalable Capability

​Tomahawks offer a level of proven operational excellence that is hard for any newly-developed system to instantly replicate:

• ​Range and Depth of Penetration: Tomahawk variants (like the Block IV/Tactical Tomahawk) have a range of up to 1,000 miles (1,600 km) or more. While Ukraine's new "Flamingo" missile 

is reported to have a comparable range, the Tomahawk's capability is tested, verified, and ready for immediate, high-stakes combat.

• ​Stealth and Guidance: The Tomahawk is a sophisticated cruise missile designed to fly at extremely low altitudes (around 100 feet) using terrain-contour matching, making it very difficult for Russian air defenses (like the S-400) to detect and intercept. This is a crucial survivability advantage.

• ​Massive Warhead: Tomahawk missiles carry a large warhead (up to 1,000 lbs), providing a much greater destructive force than most of Ukraine's long-range drones and even larger than some of its domestic missiles.

• ​Salvo Firepower: Experts emphasize that Tomahawks are most effective when launched in large coordinated groups ("salvos") to overwhelm enemy air defenses. Ukraine is seeking a large number of these missiles to conduct such large-scale strikes on strategic targets.

​2. Filling Operational Gaps

​The Tomahawk would immediately fill critical gaps in Ukraine's arsenal:

• ​Strike Deep into Russia: The extended range would put major military targets, command centers, logistics hubs, and war production facilities deep inside Russia, including those near Moscow, under threat. This greatly complicates Russia's logistics and defense planning.

• ​Operational Availability: While Ukraine's domestic programs (like Flamingo and Neptune) are impressive, they are in the early stages of production. Tomahawks are already manufactured in the US and could theoretically be supplied in larger numbers more quickly than Ukraine can produce its own advanced systems at scale.

​3. Strategic and Diplomatic Leverage

​The request is also a powerful tool in foreign relations and deterrence:

• ​"Trump's Ace Card": President Zelensky understands that the Tomahawk is seen by US leaders as a major escalation and a significant source of leverage against Russian President Putin. By pushing for the missiles, he is forcing a high-stakes discussion that pressures Russia to consider negotiations more seriously.

• ​Symbol of Western Commitment: Receiving the Tomahawk—one of the US's most iconic and powerful conventional weapons—would be the ultimate symbol of commitment from the US, signaling that Washington is willing to provide "whatever it takes" to ensure Ukraine's defense.

England and France have provided long-range missiles and have recently lifted use limitations, but these missiles still differ significantly from the US Tomahawk. This explains why President Zelensky still pushes for the American system.

Here is a breakdown of the differences and the current status:

1. England and French Missiles Provided

England and France have provided the Storm Shadow (UK) and the functionally identical SCALP-EG (France).

The crucial difference is the maximum range. The Storm Shadow/SCALP, in the version supplied to Ukraine, is designed to strike targets deep behind the front lines in occupied Ukraine, including Crimea, but its range is limited compared to the Tomahawk.

2. Status on Use Limitations (The Recent Shift)

The restrictions on using these missiles have been significantly loosened or entirely removed.

 * Initial Restriction: When England and France first provided these missiles, there was an understanding, and in some cases an explicit rule, that they should only be used to strike military targets on Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory (including Crimea).

 * The Change: Following a shift in policy by the US and other allies, Western powers—including England and France—have publicly indicated or confirmed that Ukraine is now permitted to use these long-range weapons to strike military targets on internationally recognized Russian territory.

This lifting a restrictions is a major strategic development that allows Ukraine to use the Storm Shadow/SCALP to target military assets just over the border.

3. Why Tomahawk is Still Desired

Even with the Storm Shadow/SCALP and the relaxed rules, the Tomahawk offers specific advantages that Ukraine needs:

 * Deeper Penetration: The Tomahawk's \approx 1,600\text{ km} range would allow Ukraine to hit high-value targets much further away from the current front lines than the \approx 300\text{ km} range of the Storm Shadow/SCALP. This would put Russia's main military logistics, command, and production centers, potentially including areas near Moscow, directly at risk.

 * Volume and Industrial Scale: The US has thousands of Tomahawks in its arsenal. While a limited number would likely be supplied, the potential scale of a US transfer is much larger than what England and France can sustainably provide, given the limited stocks of Storm Shadow/SCALP.

 * Launch Versatility: While Tomahawks are traditionally sea-launched, the US is developing a new land-based system (like the Typhon launcher) that could theoretically be adapted for Ukraine, providing a ground-launched cruise missile capability superior to the modified Soviet aircraft currently used for the Storm Shadow.

 * Political Signal: Acquiring the Tomahawk sends the loudest possible political signal of US commitment, which is considered a powerful lever against Russian escalation.

Given the continued flow of money into Ukraine, the development of technology inside Ukraine and the interest of foreign governments in Ukraine developed missile technology, I see the gap between Ukraine systems and US systems like the Tomahawk to narrow in the near future.