Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Scott Caldwell
Gijs Tuinman, the Netherlands’ State Secretary of Defence, recently challenged industry leaders to propose a domestic deep precision strike (DPS) cruise missile with a range of over 1,000 km to rival the American Tomahawk, arguing, ‘Long-range deterrence can no longer be outsourced.’
This move is unexpected from a country deeply integrated into NATO’s military structure and whose armed forces have historically relied on foreign solutions, such as with American fighter aircraft. So much so that Washington approved the sale of 200 Tomahawks to the Netherlands in April. But in June, officials announced Dutch submarines would instead be armed with the Joint Strike Missile (JSM-SL) being developed by Norwegian manufacturer Kongsberg with several European countries.
This phenomenon seems to echo France’s President Macron’s remarks at the beginning of the year when he encouraged his European and British counterparts to prioritize the EU’s Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) when selecting military equipment. He said, “When we say ‘let’s spend more for our armies,’ in many countries it means, way too often, ‘buy more American material.’”
Not everyone, however, is following this growing trend to fill DPS capabilities, as some countries are pursuing Tomahawk purchases, thus undermining the EDTIB’s ability to produce sovereign arms free of non-European influence.
Race for DPS Capabilities
Writing for RUSI, Dr. Linus Terhorst explains why modern warfare demonstrates the need for countries to be equipped with DPS capabilities, particularly ground-launched. He argues that “they have the potential to disrupt supply chains far behind enemy lines, destroy command posts, attack strategic targets, and even threaten second-strike capabilities. Launching them from the ground, instead of from ships (where they have been in use for a while), increases their potential reach, mobility, and resilience.” Such capabilities are primarily meant to deter potential aggression but also give countries options.
With an increasingly militarized China, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te recently proposed an additional $40 billion in military spending, with its defense ministry placing ‘long-range precision strike missiles’ at the top of priorities. National security editor Brandon Weichert observes, “Cruise missiles have been a staple of the arsenals of modern militaries for decades. Now, China has begun a rapid program of modernization and expansion of their cruise missile arsenal. China’s rapidly growing cruise missile arsenal is probably one of the single greatest threats to the safety of U.S. forces operating within range of the things.”
And Europe can say the same of Russia, as Moscow’s military has built up its own arsenal of ground-launched cruise missiles, including the 9M728 with a 2,500 km range. This has prompted European countries to pursue comparative DPS capabilities, with Poland, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, the UK, and the Netherlands joining forces in 2024 under the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA). A first project has not been announced, but observers argue a ground-launched cruise missile is likely given Europe currently lacks them and the EDTIP has expertise in such technology. But ELSA and a potential ‘European Tomahawk’ might be in jeopardy if countries continue to pursue American options.
The Seduction, and Downsides, of Tomahawks
Tomahawks have become a household name because of Ukraine’s fixation on procuring them over this last year, with Zelensky arguing, “Long-range weapons are not only in the United States—they’re also in some European countries, including Tomahawks… And just look how nervous Putin became when this topic came up. He understands that long-range weapons can really change the course of the war.”
The UK is currently the only foreign sea-launched Tomahawk operator, using them in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, but recent reports show Germany’s interest in procuring sea-based and ground-launched (Typhon) Tomahawk launchers, and the Dutch navy will receive Tomahawks in 2028 for air defense and command frigates.
The Tomahawk entered service in 1983 as an anti-surface naval cruise missile and has been deployed in Iraq (1991/2003), Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Syria (2018), Yemen (2024), and Iran (2025). It has undergone various upgrades, and whilst it still lacks the stealth component of modern missiles, the most recent version has a range announced at 1600 km (probably flying straight, at a high altitude, so the real operational range, undisclosed, is likely inferior), can carry a 450-kilo warhead, and can change course mid-flight. In 2023, the U.S. Army first tested the Typhon shipping container for firing ground-launched Tomahawks and currently only has two operational batteries, with one in Germany and the other in the Pacific.
This is a fundamental problem of Tomahawks for Ukraine and other European countries: there are not enough ground-based launchers available given Washington’s priorities in the Pacific. Missiles are also in short supply, as the U.S. ordered 56 for 2026, with a per-unit cost of $2.5m–$4m, and manufacturer Raytheon will prioritize this over foreign orders given its annual production rate of 55-90 per year.
The U.S. government approves orders for such systems and missiles, so foreign countries depend on the strategic interests or whims of Washington for their needs, as Zelensky has experienced. Even if Tomahawks are supplied to Europe or Ukraine, they come with American oversight. ATACMS sent to Ukraine require U.S. approval before deployment, with at least one request denied. Even for allies, relying on Washington’s approval to use long-range weapons is cumbersome, at best, and incapacitating, at worst.
A ‘European Tomahawk’
Europe’s and Ukraine’s priority should therefore be to produce DPS capabilities themselves because, as Terhorstargues, continuing to turn to American solutions is no longer viable, “as the supply of missiles and the data that makes them effective is entirely dependent on US support. Years of neglect will not be fixed by always satisfying the next immediate needs at the cost of long-term planning. This requires foresight and, above all, fiscal resolve and patience.”
The ELSA initiative might be the best short-term hope for pursuing European-made, long-range missiles. German newspaper Handelsblatt reported that pan-European MBDA’s Land Cruise Missile System (LCM) under development is a front-runner for ELSA’s first project, with test firing expected in 2027-28. It is a truck-mounted version of its Naval Cruise Missile (MdCN in French), which was “France’s answer to the U.S.-made Tomahawk” and first combat-proven against Syria in 2018. Germany and Britain also recently announced plans to co-develop a “deep precision weapon” with a 2,000 km range, which might be an option unless they decide on a more extensive/expensive project designed for highly strategic targets.
Another option is Ukraine’s just-revealed Flamingo cruise missile produced by Fire Point, based on the FP-5designed by UAE/UK manufacturer Milanion Group. With a reported 3,000 km range and 1-ton payload, the new missiles, theoretically, surpass Tomahawks, with a company representative stating, “…because Tomahawks, firstly, are outdated; secondly, they are much worse in terms of technical characteristics…” Thirdly, they are, it seems, five times more expensive, without transportation and delivery means.” However, the size of the missile, as well as the size and position of the motor, infer a lack of stealth, which greatly reduces its survivability.
The EDTIB produces many sophisticated cruise missiles and could meet the ground-launched, 1,000 km+ need. The tendency to ‘buy American’ compromises the ability for Europeans to choose sovereign industrial solutions, even though they have organized themselves for this purpose (ELSA) and are very close to having equivalent solutions. Andrius Kubilius, responsible for EU Defence and Space, stressed the importance of European defense purchases through joint procurement programs, arguing, “This will give national governments cheaper prices because of bigger contracts and will give you, industry, the big orders and long-term certainty you need.” A good starting point should be making a European tomahawk.
About the Author:
Former chief systems engineer in various companies in the defense sector (major and SMEs) for nearly 20 years. He worked on various phases of testing and integrating new-generation missile systems, particularly on the challenges posed by thermal resistance and flight maneuver precision. He remains passionate about mechanics and military engineering and has just started writing articles on the subject.
