As Russia continues to bombard Ukraine with drone attacks, President Volodymyr Zelensky has made repeated and increasingly urgent calls for Kyiv to have access to more powerful and expansive weapons.
The US-made Tomahawk could be the answer to his problems. A long-range missile with huge potential for precision strikes deep in enemy territory, access to the weapon would provide Ukraine with a new kind of military might – and it may not be as far away as it once was.
Donald Trump has threatened to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine in a renewed push to get Vladimir Putin to end the war. With Zelensky set to visit Washington on Friday, the leaders have said the provision of the weapons will be a major topic to be discussed.
If Trump follows through on his threats, Ukraine could significantly expand its strike capabilities, enabling it to hit targets deep inside Russian territory, including military bases, logistics hubs, airfields and command centres that are currently beyond reach.
But experts have warned the impact of the missile shouldn’t be overstated, with Trump’s threats more likely to see diplomatic shifts than game-changing military movements.
What is a Tomahawk missile?
The Tomahawk missile is a US-made long-range cruise missile typically launched from sea to attack targets in deep-strike missions.
First used in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, the missiles have evolved considerably over the last 30 years. According to manufacturer Raytheon, the most recent version, called the Block IV Tactical Tomahawk, or TACTOM, can switch targets while in flight, loiter for hours and change course instantly on command.
Its most recent use came in 2024, when the US and UK Navies launched Tomahawk missiles at Houthi rebel sites in Yemen.
What is the range on a Tomahawk missile?
The precision-guided weapon can strike targets from 1,000 miles (1,600 km) away, even in heavily defended airspace. Measuring 20 feet (6.1 meters) long with an 8.5-foot wingspan and weighing in at about 3,330 pounds (1,510 kg).
But it doesn’t come cheap. The missiles have an average cost of $1.3 million, according to Reuters news agency, making it a valuable – but costly – military acquisition.
Speaking to The Independent, Dr Sidharth Kaushal, Senior Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said the Tomahawk is guided to its target by a combination of digital scene mapping area correlation and GPS, giving it a “comparatively high survivability” and precision when compared with other missiles, such as the Ukrainian Flamingo.
“In conjunction with a lower radar cross section, these features make the Tomahawk a far more lethal capability against targets situated at strategic depth than the Flamingo which is likely to be employable primarily against relatively soft targets associated with Russia’s hydrocarbon sector,” he explained.
But Dr Kaushal warned the effectiveness of Tomahawks “must not be overstated”.
“Russia has spent decades optimizing its air defence network against threats such as subsonic cruise missiles and many of the systems it operates including ground-based SAMs and interceptors like the MIG-31BM were built partially with a view to managing the risk posed by Tomahawk,” he continued.
“As we have seen in the context of Russia’s attacks on Ukraine, missiles comparable to the Tomahawk like the KH-101 and Kalibr can be intercepted in relatively large numbers by a dense air defence network.”
What would it mean for Russia?
Moscow has expressed “extreme concern” over the US potentially providing Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. Previously, Putin himself has suggested that such a move would seriously damage relations between Moscow and Washington.
Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev responded to the threat in a statement on Telegram, where he said it is impossible to distinguish between Tomahawk missiles carrying nuclear warheads and conventional ones after they are launched.
“How should Russia respond? Exactly!” Medvedev said on Telegram on Monday, appearing to hint that Moscow’s response would be nuclear.
Medvedev wrote: “One can only hope that this is another empty threat… Like sending nuclear submarines closer to Russia.”
He was referencing Trump’s statement in August that he had ordered two nuclear subs to move closer to Russia in response to what he called “highly provocative” comments from Medvedev about the risk of war.
How could it affect the Ukraine-Russia war?
Experts have said the use of the missiles could force Russia to relocate air defence systems and reprioritise their assets. But they warned that despite Trump’s rhetoric, the use of the missiles was unlikely to make a seismic shift on the front line.
“The Tomahawk’s ability to strike targets in depth can be both militarily and economically disruptive but ultimately will not fundamentally alter the situation at the front line,” Dr Kausal said. This is because there are a “limited number” of ground-based launchers for Tomahawk missiles and that the US, which produces 50-70 a year and has expended hundreds in the Middle East, would likely have to limit the number provided to Ukraine.
But he warned the impact of Tomahawks on Russian strategy depends to a “great extent” on what they are aimed at, and how effectively.
Dr Kaushal said even fairly major strategic setbacks had failed to greatly alter Russia’s overall strategy in the past.
“If the targets are high value military assets the Russians will likely have to rethink the allocation of air defence assets and, where possible, disperse or relocate some military capabilities but the fundamental strategy will be unchanged,” he explained.
He added any strikes on politically significant targets such as Moscow could drive an “intensification” of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine – and potentially escalate its activities in Nato countries, as recently seen in Poland.
“In addition, if Russia views the use of Tomahawk as being in effect a US attack because it judges that the capability needs US support for target development, it might adopt a more escalatory approach to its sub-threshold attacks in NATO territory,” he continued. “The pattern of sabotage, arson, damage to critical infrastructure and cyberattacks might escalate in tempo and risk acceptance as the Russians try to reassert their red lines.”
How providing the missiles is ‘risky’ for Trump
The provision of missiles carries a risk for the US president, who has made no secret of his desire for a good relationship with Russia. Putin has made clear he would consider any such move to be a major escalation in the opposite direction to Trump’s ambitions.
After Trump’s efforts to negotiate peace with Putin stalled following the high-stakes summit in Alaska in August, the US president has repeatedly encouraged Putin to end the war, but has met with little success. As a result, their relations have soured, with Trump recently labelling Putin a “paper tiger”.
Dr Kaushal any decision to send Tomahawks to Ukraine could spell “the end of the détente with Russia which Trump seemed to be pursuing” in the short-term, but added it was unlikely to fundamentally change relations between the two countries in the long-term.
However, Dr Kaushal believes the acquisition could shift Moscow’s broader strategy diplomatically.
“If Russia views Ukrainian possession of Tomahawk not through the lens of the war in Ukraine per se but rather through the prism of the wider strategic balance, they may have an altogether different significance since Russia would view them not as a small Ukrainian arsenal but as a forward deployed element of a much larger US strike capability,” he said.
“As such, the bet seems to be that Russia’s tendency to view US allies’ capabilities as extensions of the US military, and its aversion to having US missiles in locations which enable strikes to be conducted with minimal early warning, will act as an incentive to negotiate more seriously.”
