Could Tomahawk missiles be a game-changer for Ukraine and could they strike Moscow?

Donald Trump is considering supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine – but what makes them different to current weapons, and could they make a difference?

Here’s what you need to know about the US-made missiles, why Ukraine wants them, and what Russia has said in response.

What exactly is a Tomahawk?

It’s a type of long-range cruise missile, propelled by a jet engine and guided by on-board GPS.

Made by American firm Raytheon, they’re used by militaries including the US, UK, Australia and the Netherlands – and cost an average of $1.3m (£973,000) each.

The 6m-long (20ft) missile has a 1,000lb warhead (approximately 450kg) and an onboard camera. The latest variants can “loiter” near a target and be reprogrammed during flight to switch targets.

“You can leave it quite late until you decide on the target,” defence analyst Professor Michael Clarke told Sky’s weekly Ukraine Q&A.

“So you can go for something that might be moving around… you can choose your target dynamically as things might alter on the ground.”

Tomahawks fly at high subsonic speeds and at low altitudes, making them difficult to detect by ground radar even in heavily guarded airspace – and they are extremely accurate.

Crucially for Ukraine, they have a range of about 1,500 miles, which would massively expand its range of possible targets within Russia.

Ukraine currently uses weapons such as the British Storm Shadow missile and the US Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). These have a range of only about 150-200 miles, limiting targets to those relatively close to Ukraine’s border.

What are Storm Shadow missiles?

Tomahawks are typically launched from a ship or submarine – but Ukraine would likely need to fire them from land.

America’s Typhon missile system has this capability; whether these would also be provided under a potential deal or if Ukraine would use another solution is unclear.

First used in the Gulf War in 1991, Tomahawks were most recently used by the UK and US navies to hit Houthi rebel targets in Yemen.

Could they change the war – and could Moscow be targeted?

It’s too early to say for certain the impact they might have, or if they could push Vladimir Putin towards meaningful negotiations.

Sky News foreign correspondent Alistair Bunkall says they would be a “very valuable weapon”, though perhaps not the “game-changer” some are hoping for.

He says the key advantage would be “massive firepower to target key Russian infrastructure deep inside Russia”.

Professor Clarke says the Tomahawks would probably be used to attack transport choke points and Russian assets just behind the frontline, so they can’t be brought forward.

Oil depots, marshalling yards, convoys of stationary vehicles – and the factories churning out the drones blighting Ukraine’s skies – would also be likely targets.

Hitting Moscow would be “pointless” and “foolish”, adds Professor Clarke, “unless they want to make a political point that might go wrong on them”.

The fact that Russia has been making regular statements about the Tomahawk speculation shows they are concerned, he says.

“Certainly, the Russians are worried about Tomahawks. They carry a reasonably heavy warhead, they’re hard to defend against, and they’re accurate.

“The Ukrainians could use them to good effect to really put a spanner in the works of this creeping offensive that the Russians have been conducting all year.”

What has Russia said?

Mr Putin‘s spokesperson said Tomahawks won’t change the frontlines in Ukraine, but admitted the issue was “of extreme concern” and would be a “serious escalation”.

“Now is really a very dramatic moment in terms of the fact that tensions are escalating from all sides,” he told Russian state TV on Sunday.

He warned that certain Tomahawk variants can also carry nuclear warheads – something Moscow would have to consider if they are fired into its territory.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said: “Just imagine: a long-range missile is launched and is flying, and we know that it could be nuclear.

“What should the Russian Federation think? Just how should Russia react? Military experts overseas should understand this.”

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev also warned of potentially dangerous consequences, saying he hoped it was “another empty threat” from the US leader.

There is speculation Mr Trump could approve the missiles as early as Friday, when Volodymyr Zelenskyy visits Washington. But the president has also given himself room to keep the threat on the shelf if he chooses.

There are concerns that it could escalate the war and significantly increase tensions between the two nuclear powers.

Speaking on Air Force One while travelling to Israel, he told reporters he was thinking about issuing an ultimatum after growing tired of Russia’s reticence to end the war.

“I might say, ‘Look: if this war is not going to get settled, I’m going to send them Tomahawks,'” the president said.

He called the Tomahawk an “incredible weapon” that Russia “does not need”.

“I might tell them that if the war is not settled – that we may very well [provide the Tomahawks].” He added: “We may not, but we may do it. I think it’s appropriate to bring up.”

Alistair Bunkall says Mr Trump signing off on the missiles would be “diplomatically huge” and follow his about-turn at the UN General Assembly, where the president suggested Ukraine could still win the war and regain all its lost territory.

Mr Zelenskyy has said getting the missiles would be “significant” and suggested he had already given the president an idea of how many of the missiles he would like.

“Frankly, I’ve already shared our vision with Trump… but some of these things are not for a phone conversation, so we’ll
meet,” he told reporters in Kyiv on Monday.

And, in what could be a sign of what’s to come, senior Ukrainian officials were in America on Wednesday and met executives from US weapons firms, including Tomahawk-maker Raytheon.