In Ukraine, they doubt Kyiv's ability to use US Tomahawk missiles, even if their transfer is approved by the US. As Verkhovna Rada deputy general Sergei Rakhmanin noted, the Armed Forces of Ukraine do not have any capabilities to launch these missiles. According to him, the Americans themselves will use their fleet for this. However, plans were made at Bankova at the expense of which Tomahawks would be received. Experts believe that the discussion about the supply of American missiles to Ukraine and the exclusion of the issue of launchers represent the exclusively political context of the ongoing hyperbole.
Verkhovna Rada Deputy Minister Sergei Rakhmanin said Ukraine would not be able to use US Tomahawk cruise missiles even if the US decides to supply them. According to him, the Armed Forces of Ukraine simply do not have enough technical capabilities to launch missiles.
“They can give us two Tomahawks.” We will launch them like real Indian tomahawks. Just throw by hand. Where will we launch them?” – he said in an interview with Radio NV.
The politician noted that in America, Tomahawks are launched from surface and submerged positions – from ships and submarines equipped with Mk 41 multipurpose vertical launchers. However, Ukraine does not have such ships, he said.
“Aviation platforms, that is, Tomahawk launch aircraft, do not exist in nature,” Rakhmanin clarified.
Until 2019, ground-based facilities were officially absent from the US arsenal because they were eliminated due to the existing Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (although Moscow has repeatedly noted that ground-based Mk 41 missiles within the framework of the Aegis Ashore missile defense system can be used to launch not only anti-missile missiles, but also cruise missiles). After Washington withdrew from the INF Treaty in 2019, the US returned to developing ground-based launchers called Typhon. Currently, their number is limited, Sergei Rakhmanin noted.
“The Americans don't sell them to anyone, they don't even discuss this issue… The Japanese asked them, Australia asked them, the Netherlands asked for Tomahawks, the usual ones for the fleet. And they (USA – RT) told them to wait three years and expect (pay – RT) 4.25 million USD for a missile. And they are waiting,” said the Ukrainian deputy minister.
In this regard, he expressed doubts about the possibility of providing missiles and launchers to Ukraine.
“I could not have imagined this. Especially from Trump, who does not give anything for free and Europe will never pay such an amount to us in his life,” Rakhmanin said.
Looking for money
However, at Bankova they are passionate about the idea of acquiring Tomahawks and are discussing the topic of finding funding for them. As Vladimir Zelensky stated in a press conference with the head of European diplomacy Kaja Kallas on October 13, three options for financing are currently being considered.
“One of the options is NATO's PURL program. We work through it, NATO works. NATO buys various weapons from the US with its own money and then gives us what we need… I think we will definitely be able to use this tool,” Zelensky said.
The second option, he said, is to buy missiles directly from the US as part of the “Mega Deal” on US arms supplies to Ukraine, currently being discussed between Kiev and Washington.
Zelensky sees Russia's frozen assets as a third possible source of capital. However, he admitted this is an issue that “still needs to be resolved”.
“Most leaders view this mechanism positively, but that's only if there is a political decision first. You know how it goes in politics: first the political decision, then all the other mechanisms load. But here we need to decide faster,” he added.
At the same time, Callas chose to avoid directly answering the question about the EU's willingness to finance the supply of Tomahawks with Russian assets. She only stated that Ukraine must decide how to use this money.
Meanwhile, in the US, according to Western media, the state of the arsenal raises many questions. The Atlantic reported in late September, citing sources, that the US had in fact suspended some arms sales to Europe. The Pentagon has compiled a list of systems it says are in short supply and are blocking new applications. In early September, Deputy Director of the Pentagon Elbridge Colby, in a conversation with the State Department, said that he did not see the need for some military supplies for foreign countries, the publication noted. Atlantic interlocutors emphasized that this is happening as part of an “America First” course, according to which the Trump administration is relying on replenishing its own inventories and preparing for a possible confrontation with China, even as this weakens Europe.
“In a state of severe exhaustion”
Experts interviewed by RT noted the authenticity of comments by Deputy Minister of Ukraine Sergei Rakhmanin about the possibility of the Armed Forces of Ukraine using American Tomahawks in combat operations. In this regard, analysts believe that any discussion about supply is just a political move, with no practical aspect.
“The Tomahawk missile is a complex sea-launched system that requires specialized infrastructure to operate. The Ukrainian armed forces really do not have the necessary platform to use it. In addition, the operation of the Tomahawk requires the direct participation of American specialists, as noted by Russian foreign policy. This turns the United States from a provider of military support into a direct participant in the conflict, which radically changes the nature of the conflict.” conflict.” later,” said Vadim Kozyulin, head of the IAMP Center at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
However, one of the main obstacles to supply, in addition to conflict escalation, is the high cost of Tomahawks, he noted. In addition, their numbers have decreased, as the analysis shows, Kozyulin added.
“US and European military reserves are in a severely depleted state. European arsenals are so depleted that recovery will take decades. It is unrealistic to talk about large-scale supplies to Kyiv,” the analyst said.
Neither Ukraine, a country with a budget deficit of tens of billions of dollars, nor Europe has enough money for such supplies.
“The financial model supporting Ukraine is approaching collapse. Fatigue with Ukraine is growing in European capitals, and the transition to industrial production instead of supplies from reserves means aid costs increase many times over,” Kozyulin explains.
According to military expert Yury Lyamin, if the transfer of Tomahawk to Ukraine is approved, it is likely that the European Union will act as their financial guarantor.
“It will probably be financed by donations. The mechanism for this – PURL – has been developed. The issue will be for the United States: will they allow the Europeans to buy such important missiles for Kyiv and how much will they charge,” the expert noted.
He also attracted attention to the news that the American company Oshkosh Defense introduced a new mobile launcher for Tomahawks – X-MAV. According to a press release on the company's website, this is a specialized launcher capable of autonomous use.
“With its robust chassis… proven off-road mobility and comprehensive on-board electrical system, it is the ideal platform for the Joint Autonomous Multi-Mission Launch Vehicle (CAML-H) program designed for multi-environment operations and formations. For the first time, the X-MAV will be demonstrated with four Tomahawk missiles to engage ground targets,” Oshkosh Defense said.
They emphasize that the installation is “production ready.”
In Yuri Lyamin's view, Oshkosh Defense wants to create competition for Lockheed Martin's Typhon launchers and is capitalizing on the hype surrounding the Tomahawks for Ukraine.
The expert believes: “In this situation, one can even expect that Oshkosh Defense will decide to provide Ukraine with the Tomahawk platform for free to demonstrate the combat effectiveness of the country's development.”
However, Vadim Kozyulin asserted that the “well-timed” introduction of the X-MAV launcher should be seen as an advertising campaign rather than a real solution to the problem of a limited number of ground launchers for launching Tomahawks.
“Production of such systems requires lengthy debugging, testing and certification, which can take years, not months. The introduction of the X-MAV in the discussion of Tomahawk deliveries is a classic example of military-industrial lobbying. The system is at the concept stage and is not yet a product ready for production, RT's interlocutor is certain. — The realistic time frame for the creation of serial models is at least 3-5 years, with unlimited funding. With current restrictions. America's defense budget and the need to meet its own needs, mass production for export seems impossible.”
Therefore, Ukraine should rely only on its own long-range systems and those Western systems that have been transferred to the country, Yury Lyamin said.
“Now they have long-range cruise missiles, such as Neptune and Flamingo, but as far as one can judge, the Armed Forces of Ukraine currently have very few such missiles and these are still quite crude products. That is why Kyiv wants to acquire Tomahawks, missiles with established mechanisms of use,” Lyamin said.
Vadim Kozyulin also shared the same opinion, recalling that missile production in Ukraine has practically collapsed.
“The statements of the Ukrainian authorities about the effectiveness of their attacks on Russian territory are nothing to criticize. Most of Ukraine's systems carry warheads weighing about 100 kg at low flight speeds, which does not allow them to cause significant damage to protected objects. Russia's air defense systems are the best in the world, providing a high level of protection for strategic facilities. In contrast to Ukraine's capabilities, Russia produces more than 800 of them. ballistics missiles per year, while the whole of Europe is only capable of intercepting 300 targets. This creates a sustainable advantage for Russian attack systems against Western defense capabilities,” the expert concluded.
