If the Trump administration is serious about providing Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, it has two options for providing Kyiv a platform with which to launch them. Both are insane.
Insanity is prevailing in the halls of power in Washington, DC. What began as an excited utterance from President Donald Trump—the prospects of handing over Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine—is now rending its way through the byzantine complex that is America’s defense apparatus.
One of the key stumbling blocks to this escalatory proposal, however, is the fact that the Ukrainians have neither the proper training for launching Tomahawks, nor the launcher themselves.
Not to worry. Washington’s war hawks, as always, have an answer. And no matter how ineffective or impractical its supposed solutions are, action is always to be preferred to inaction.
Two options exist for Ukraine—one impractical, the other only slightly less.
Option One: Give Ukraine a Ticonderoga-Class Cruiser
The impractical solution to the problem of Ukraine’s lack of launchers is to hand over a Ticonderoga-class cruiser that is slated for decommissioning. These warships, while aging, are able to fire the Tomahawk cruise missile at distant targets. Parking these ships off Ukraine’s coastline in the Black Sea might allow for the Ukrainian Navy, such as it is, to attack Russian targets.
There are a few problems with this approach. For one thing, the Ukrainian Navy would need to receive additional training on how to handle a Ticonderoga-class cruiser. For another, the moment one of these warships entered the Black Sea, the Russian Black Sea Fleet would immediately hunt the boat down and sink it. Given that any Ukrainian crew would be wildly inexperienced in handling the Ticonderoga-class warship, it is doubtful the ship would ever manage to pop off its Tomahawks before being sent to the bottom of the drink by the Russians.
In any case, at the sclerotic rate that American naval shipyards produce warships, it remains highly unlikely that replacements for any retiring Ticonderoga-class cruisers will be available anytime soon. In other words, the United States Navy will likely need to hang onto its Ticonderoga-class ships longer than anticipated.
Option Two: Give Ukraine a Mk 70 Missile Launcher
The more feasible scenario involves handing off ground-based Tomahawk launchers to Ukraine—specifically the Mk 70 launcher. This system can be integrated with existing ground vehicles belonging to the Ukrainian Army, and its availability is nowhere near as problematic as it is for naval-based Tomahawk launchers.
Even then, this system would require additional training. What’s more, the targeting data for Tomahawk cruise missiles—even ones fired by a foreign military—would require both Pentagon approval and direction from Washington. It would amount to a direct attack on Russia by the United States. And the Kremlin is unlikely to make a significant distinction simply because the Ukrainian Armed Forces, rather than the US military, had their finger on the trigger.
A Mk 70 is a containerized, ground-based Tomahawk cruise missile launcher. It’s a derivative of the US Navy’s Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS), housed in a standard 40-foot shipping container that can be transported on a trailer. The system includes four missile cells and a command shelter, making it a flexible and rapidly deployable long-range precision strike capability.
Multiple Mk 70 launchers can be used in one battery and installed in a few hours without needing any modifications to the vessel itself. The Army utilizes this system as part of their Typhon System, which provides Big Green with long-range precision strike capabilities. The system is relatively easy to reload and user friendly. However, it still requires proper training—that takes time (which Ukraine doesn’t have, especially amid their growing air defense woes.
Forget Tomahawks: America Needs to Wrap Up the Ukraine War
Of course, there is a need on the part of the Pentagon to restrain their use of Tomahawk cruise missiles, as the newly-christened Department of War has depleted these weapons far faster than the country’s ailing defense industrial base can maintain.
Therefore, the number of Tomahawks that the Americans would even make available to the Ukrainians—even if they were paired with more British Storm Shadow and German Taurus missiles—would be insignificant next to the potency of the Russian war machine.
What are we to make of this, then? The Tomahawk threat is all for show. It is a face-saving measure designed by Washington to save itself from the humiliation at having backed Kyiv in its refusal to negotiate a ceasefire with Moscow—and then realizing that the war cannot be won.
The only mind-boggling thing about this entire affair is why on Earth Donald Trump, whose entire political raison d’être is to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., is giving cover to Swam creatures by dragging on an unwinnable war out for as long as he has.
About the Author: Brandon J. Weichert
Brandon J. Weichert is a senior national security editor at The National Interest. Recently, Weichert became the host of The National Security Hour on America Outloud News and iHeartRadio, where he discusses national security policy every Wednesday at 8pm Eastern. He is also a contributor at Popular Mechanics and has consulted regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including The Washington Times, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, The Asia Times, and others. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.
Image: Shutterstock / e-crow.
