Why won't we see Tomahawks in our skies?
Now it's time to talk on our pages about the "Tomahawks" that our friend Donald promised his "Volodimera." You know, some might think we're way behind the times, but back in July, we took that "Axe" apart, down to its smallest nuts and bolts, and then... And then things weren't so clear-cut.
For almost a week now, the internet has been heatedly discussing the "Axes" themselves, discussing the possibility of their transfer to Kyiv, and methods of neutralizing them. Moreover, the so-called "experts" are seriously drawing circles on maps, discussing areas that could be "targeted." Without a smile, and completely seriously.
So what exactly will they transfer, and how will they launch it? Let's first quickly run through the "Axes," and then try to really understand what the US might actually transfer to Ukraine.
Air basing
Yes, I read with my own eyes, on several Russian websites, some seriously speculated that the F-16s transferred to Kyiv could be modified to carry Tomahawks. They said the Topor missile could be adapted for the F-16, and the Sokol missile should be able to carry them.
There's just one problem: the F-16 doesn't know who it owes this to. And overall, the launcher situation is more than amusing. The first air-launched missile, the AGM-109 TALCM (Tomahawk Air-Launched Cruise Missile), never went into production, losing out to another. rocket, the AGM-86 ALCM, which also never went into production. And the B-52 and B-2 were intended as carriers for both these six-meter monsters. And there was no talk of any F-15 or F-16.
What's the problem? Doesn't the MiG-31 carry the 9-A-7660 "Dagger"?
An old man flies a seven-meter-tall, three-ton aircraft. How are the Americans any worse? Especially since the Tomahawk is half the weight? True, but the difference lies in the engines. A MiG-31K with a Kinzhal is powered by two engines producing 15,500 kgf each in afterburner. And what about the little F-16? 12,900 kgf? Got it? 31,000 versus 13,000. Curtain call. And yes, weight distribution hasn't been abolished either. Basically, the F-16 isn't suited for hauling long and heavy objects. More precisely, very long and heavy ones.
Next came the second coming of the air-launched Tomahawk, the AGM-109K MRASM (Medium-Range Air-to-Surface Missile). This was a project to convert the Navy Tomahawk into an air-launched version, but the results failed to interest anyone in either the Air Force or the US Marine Corps. Ultimately, all work begun in 1980 was curtailed and closed in 1984.
Even if the US were to rush to produce some of these designs in metal, it's highly doubtful the US Air Force would be willing to part with one of its precious B-2s, of which it only has 19, to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The B-52s are a distant memory, and the crews would have to be American, which seems absurd.
So, Kyiv can't count on airborne Tomahawks due to their complete absence. The matter is closed.
Ground-based complexes
Yes, there were some. And the plural is no accident. First, there were the BGM-109G Gryphon systems. The system was mounted on a two-axle semitrailer with a MAN AG 8x8 tractor. One launcher carried four missiles, and a battery had four launchers. That means one battery contained 16 Tomahawks. Batteries were combined into "wings" (analogous to our divisions), with one "wing" containing 28 batteries. The vast majority of these Tomahawks were deployed in Europe between 1982 and 1988, along with Pershing II ballistic missiles.
However, in 1987, such a significant event occurred as the INF Treaty, which had recently gone into effect. history, and within the framework of this agreement, the Pershings (1 and 2) and Tomahawks were cut down.
One could, of course, fantasize about how “not everything was cut up,” but it’s worth simply remembering that the destruction of our missiles was strictly controlled by the Americans, while the American ones were controlled by Soviet specialists.
So the Griffins are definitely history, and the Axes were destroyed. But, you say, who's going to stop production from being resumed if necessary? I agree, no one will stop it, and they'll even allow it and fork out the money. If necessary.
This is how the Typhon/MRC (Mid-Range Capability) mobile missile system came into being. The Typhon (yes, I clarified – "Typhon" and "Typhoon" are spelled and pronounced the same, but in our case, "Typhon" is the same mythical creature as a griffin, hinting at a certain continuity) is a new development; since the INF Treaty's collapse, it's the first thing the US has come up with in this type of weaponry.
But the Typhon is different from the Griffon; they simply took a Mark.41 launcher and placed it in a shipping container. They needed to do it quickly, so the Americans didn't try anything original, but used a naval launcher and a sea-launched cruise missile.
In general, all of this was planned for the SM-6, the newest interceptor missile, but if the old and proven "Axe" can be shoved into the launcher, why not?
But here's a small problem: Typhon missiles have only just begun production, and only two systems have been built so far. The system consists of four launchers and a control center. So, it's not a miniature compared to the Griffin.
But the first complex has already sailed away and is deployed in the Philippines as part of a program to deter China's missile defense, and it is doubtful that the US will remove such an expensive and useful toy from there.
The second system is still undergoing testing, but Germany and Japan are already vying for it. The system will be ready for delivery in 2026. While it will be delivered to Europe, that's only half the battle. Even longer will be spent training those who will operate it, and in the case of Ukrainian personnel, also those who will service the missiles. Basically, it's like the F-16: some things will work, some won't. But who will let them fly the system to Europe for repairs? That's the question...
Moreover, considering how our guys have learned to detect and scrap smaller Patriots and Haimars...
In any case, 2026 is the year the second complex is ready, plus time for training the crews... The promise was made quickly, but its implementation could drag on until 2027.
Moreover, geopolitics shouldn't be discounted. The fact that the Germans requested the second system is irrelevant; the loser state will be relegated to the background, and the Bundeswehr won't get it. But the second (or rather, first) contender, Japan, is more complicated. And even though a missile brigade headquarters has already been established in Wiesbaden, which will include the Typhons (and should also include SAM and ATAKAMS crews), it won't be difficult to reverse the situation.
Today, the Asia-Pacific region is a sore spot for the United States. It is where all military and political attention is focused, and it is where the United States plans to wage war. And it is there that US allies—Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—are clearly losing the missile standoff to China and North Korea. The first system deployed in the Philippines is a point of pressure specifically against China; the second, to be deployed in Japan, will allow the Japanese to feel more at ease in the face of whatever Kim Jong-un occasionally flies their way.
In general, Americans are much more interested in mastering billions by rattling weapons towards China. And it's less painful than fighting Russia. Enough Abrams missiles have already been burned and Sokolov missiles lost to draw such conclusions.
So it's highly doubtful that Kyiv will receive a second Tifon system. And when it will receive a third is a long shot.
And overall, the Typhon isn't designed for the war in Ukraine. The systems turned out to be simply enormous and, frankly, very slow with questionable maneuverability due to their sheer weight. This makes sense, since the trailer on which they mounted an entire section of a Mk.41 naval launcher with its recovery mechanisms—well, ships always had plenty of room for that sort of thing.
There are no other land-based Tomahawk carriers in existence yet, and there is no evidence that design work is being carried out in this direction.
However, it's worth mentioning... No, not the weapon, but the attempt to create one. The Long Range Fire (LRF) system was considered as a kind of alternative to the Typhon for the US Marine Corps.
It's an off-road vehicle, remotely controlled, armed with a single naval launch container for a Tomahawk or SM-6. That would have been a truly interesting idea, especially since it could be controlled remotely, but... The launch container's heavy weight ruined everything, and the off-road vehicle simply lacked basic off-road capability.
Ultimately, the LRF program was shut down precisely because the launcher was often unable to move over slightly rugged terrain.
So we will also carefully put an end to the idea of ground-based launchers for Tomahawks that might end up at the disposal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
So what's left? The only thing left is what the Axe proved itself to be a weapon on: ships.
But this raises doubts about whether this is even possible. No, if the US had carrier ships like our small missile corvettes, it would be simpler: they could gift one to Ukraine, and be done with it! And that would be a really good move. But here's the problem: Tomahawks are only deployed on large ships. Destroyers, cruisers, submarines.
So, a "friendly deal" on even the oldest Arleigh Burke is highly questionable. Crew training would take a very long time, and the Ukrainian Navy has a serious personnel shortage. And Trump wouldn't offer such a gift, and even if he did, perhaps by selling it to the Europeans for transfer to Kyiv, it would be very expensive.
The transfer of sea-launched Tomahawks mounted on carriers to Kyiv is unlikely for a number of reasons, just as the launch of Topor missiles from US carriers against targets in Russia in Ukraine's interests is unlikely. This, of course, would be a direct declaration of war, and it's premature for anyone to take such a step. But there are simply no other options for using the Tomahawk, at least for now.
It's quite possible that Trump, in his usual manner, was bluffing yet again, trying to "send two submarines" toward Russia. But in reality, the Tomahawk isn't a weapon capable of intimidating anyone on our side. More likely, it's a pretext for those who like to "go wild," and nothing more.
To be completely objective, the US has far more effective weapons than the outdated cruise missile. For example, the AGM-158 JASSM-ER, an air-launched cruise missile with considerable potential, but which, unfortunately, the US doesn't offer to anyone.
Information