Bogdan Maftei
The Erudite Elders
June 1, 2024
The Ukrainian Armed Forces have conducted missile strikes targeting the ferry crossing and oil terminal at Port Kavkaz in the Krasnodar region of Russia. The port, located directly across from the Kerch Peninsula in Russian-occupied Crimea, has been a crucial hub for military logistics supporting the Russian invasion forces. The attack, which took place overnight on May 31st, follows a series of strikes on Russian ferries along the same route just a day earlier. The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine confirmed that several domestically-designed Neptune anti-ship missiles were used in the attack. This marks a historic moment for Ukraine, as it is the first time that their own missile weapons have been used to strike targets within the Russian federation.
The successful use of Neptune missiles to hit the oil terminal at Port Kavkaz indicates that these cruise missiles have undergone substantial modernization, possibly even an overhaul. Key upgrades likely include an increase in operational range, warhead weight, and improvements to the guidance system. Considering the distance between the nearest possible launch site in the Zaporizhzhia region of Ukraine and the target, the missiles would have had to cover a minimum of 300 km in a straight line. However, given the complex route necessary to avoid Russian-occupied territories and their air defenses, the actual flight range of the missiles may have significantly exceeded this figure. It is worth noting that the original R-360 Neptune anti-ship missile had a warhead of 150 kilograms. However, recent hints in Western media suggest that Ukrainian engineers have been working on improving the Neptune, with statements indicating attempts to increase the warhead weight to 300 kg. Furthermore, for the missiles to successfully navigate over land for the majority of their flight path to Port Kavkaz, significant improvements to the guidance system would have been necessary. The original system was designed primarily for navigation above water surfaces, and the extent of these suspected improvements remains unknown.
The attack on Port Kavkaz is not only a demonstration of Ukraine’s growing military capabilities but also a strategic move to disrupt Russian military logistics and supply lines. By targeting key infrastructure, such as ferry crossings and oil terminals, Ukraine aims to hinder Russia’s ability to sustain its forces in occupied territories and limit their offensive capabilities. This strike also sends a clear message to Russia that Ukraine possesses the means and willingness to bring the war to their doorstep. The successful modernization of the Neptune missile system is a testament to the ingenuity and resilience of the Ukrainian defense industry. Despite facing immense challenges and limitations due to the war, Ukrainian engineers have managed to enhance the capabilities of their weapons systems.
The Neptune missile strike also raises questions about Russia’s ability to protect its critical infrastructure and military assets, even within its own borders. The fact that Ukrainian missiles were able to penetrate Russian air defenses and strike targets hundreds of kilometers away exposes potential vulnerabilities in Russia’s defense systems. This may prompt Russia to reassess its strategies and invest more resources in bolstering its air defense capabilities. Moreover, the psychological impact of such strikes cannot be underestimated. By bringing the war to Russia’s doorstep, Ukraine is not only inflicting material damage but also undermining the morale of Russian forces and the Russian public. The realization that the conflict can spill over into their own territory may lead to increased domestic pressure on the Russian government to seek a resolution to the war.
In a significant policy shift, French President Emmanuel Macron has declared that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have the right to neutralize the military sites from which the missiles are fired. This statement comes as France has been supplying SCALP/Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine, enabling them to strike targets deep within Russian territory. However, the question remains: what other long-range weapons could France potentially provide to Ukraine to bolster their military capabilities? To understand the context of this decision, it is essential to recognize that the informal Missile Technology Control Regime, which limited the range of weapons supplied to Ukraine to 300 km, has been undermined by Russia’s actions. Russia’s announcement and subsequent transfer of Iskander SRBM systems to Belarus, including R-500 land-based cruise missiles (range: ~1,500 km) and 9M723 ballistic missiles (500 km), has effectively rendered the treaty obsolete.
While the SCALP cruise missiles provided by France have been instrumental in targeting protected facilities such as command centers, communication nodes, and ammunition depots, they may not be the most effective solution for all types of targets. For instance, Ukraine still lacks a reliable means to disable enemy airfields, particularly those near the frontline areas where Russian tactical aircraft regularly conduct bombing missions. One well-known solution to this problem is the ATACMS missile in the cluster warhead version. However, France also possesses its own effective weapon system: the Apache cruise missile, the predecessor of the SCALP. The Apache missile is equipped with a unique cluster warhead consisting of 10 KRISS submunitions, each weighing 51 kg. These submunitions are specifically designed to destroy runways, with the ability to penetrate up to 30 cm of concrete. The delayed action fuze of the KRISS maximizes the demolition effect of the explosion, making it a potent weapon against airfield infrastructure.
The Apache missile has unfortunately a significant drawback in the current context: its relatively short attack range of approximately 140 km. This limited range poses a challenge, as many key Russian airfields are located beyond this distance from the Ukrainian border. For example, the Millerovo air base in the Rostov region is 155 km from the front, the Baltimor airfield near Voronezh is 175 km away, and Belbek near Sevastopol in occupied Crimea is 230 km from the Ukrainian border. Another issue with the Apache missile is the limited number of units produced. Out of an initially planned 500 missiles, only 100 were manufactured due to budget cuts in defense programs during the 1990s. As a result, the actual number of combat-ready Apache missiles available remains uncertain.
An unconventional solution could be to consider the latest version of the Exocet MM40 Block 3 anti-ship missile, which has the declared capability to fly over land and hit ground targets. With an operational range of 200 km and active radar homing guidance, the Exocet MM40 Block 3 could potentially be adapted for use against land-based targets. The missile carries a high-explosive warhead weighing 165 kg, making it a formidable weapon. While the Exocet series is popular among many countries, the ability to target land-based objects is a relatively new feature, introduced only in the Block 3 version. Adapting the Exocet MM40 Block 3 for land-based targets would require the development of an ersatz land-based launcher, but this should not pose a significant technical challenge given the missile’s existing capabilities.
Another option, albeit a more remote one, is the Missile de Croisière Naval (MdCN), a cruise missile developed based on the SCALP. The MdCN boasts an impressive range of 1,000 km and carries a powerful 250-kg warhead, making it essentially the French equivalent of the shipborne Tomahawk missile. However, France considers these weapons to be nearly as valuable as strategic assets, particularly given their limited inventory of approximately 200 units. The MdCN is currently deployed on Aquitaine-class frigates and Suffren-class submarines, which means that for Ukraine to potentially utilize this weapon, a land-based system with the Sylver A-70 multi-weapon launcher would need to be developed. This would be a significant technical undertaking, but not an insurmountable one, given the existing expertise and capabilities of the Ukrainian defense industry.
The recent changes in engagement policy and the provision of advanced long-range weapon systems by France and other allies could play a crucial role in shaping the outcome of the war. By enabling Ukraine to strike targets deep within Russian territory, these weapons not only have the potential to disrupt Russian military operations but also to deter further aggression. However, the decision to provide such weapons is not without its risks and challenges. There are concerns about the potential for escalation, as Russia may view the use of long-range weapons against its territory as a significant provocation. Additionally, the limited availability of some of these weapon systems, such as the Apache and MdCN missiles, means that their impact on the conflict may be somewhat constrained.
Despite these challenges, France’s willingness to allow Ukraine to strike targets in Russia represents a significant shift in the approach to the war. It demonstrates a growing recognition of Ukraine’s right to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a willingness to provide the necessary means to do so. As the war enters a new phase, with the possibility of long-range strikes against Russian targets, it is crucial that efforts to support Ukraine remain steadfast and united. Ultimately, the success of Ukraine’s efforts to defend its territory and secure its future will depend on a combination of military capabilities, support from allies, and the resilience and determination of the Ukrainian people. The use of advanced weapons systems, such as the modernized Neptune missiles and the potential provision of French long-range weapons, will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of the war and its eventual outcome.