As Militär Aktuell already reported in August, Ukraine is increasingly targeting Russian refineries. So far, at least 16 of 38 facilities have been hit, some of them several times. These attacks have led to petrol shortages, rationing and petrol station closures in parts of Russia. They also forced Moscow to reduce diesel exports. According to The Telegraph, oil processing fell by up to 20 percent on some days as a result.
The attacks are mainly carried out using long-range drones, which can evade Russian air defense systems thanks to US information support – but these are not the focus here. New in the Ukrainian arsenal is the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missilewhich was used for the first time on August 30 against FSB targets near Armyansk in Crimea.
Is the “puffy” Neptune coming?
The feminine article “the” is – both for “Flamingo” and for the new “Neptune” version – colloquially common, but grammatically incorrect, as these are not missiles, but cruise missiles launched with boosters. While the Flamingo has a range of up to 3,000 kilometers and a payload of around 1.1 tons, the update of the R-360 Neptune is a system with a significantly shorter range.
On October 7, Ukrainian Defense Minister Denys Shmyhal presented the following at the stand of the state arms portal Zbroya NATO-delegations, for example from the Baltic states, a new version of the Neptune cruise missile (РК-360МЦ “Нептун”) from the Kiev-based manufacturer Luch Design Bureau. This missile, originally designed as a sea-targeting missile, was destroyed in 2022 by the the sinking of the Russian cruiser “Moskva” and has been used around 50 times to date.
The new variant – so far without an official designation, but possibly R-360M – was nicknamed “Chubby Neptune” or “Puffy Neptune” due to two bubble-shaped fuselage extensions on the sides. In all probability, these are conformal fuel tanks which, similar to the F-16 or F-15E, increase the fuel capacity without significantly changing the flight performance or the fuselage.
The design makes the weapon appear “thicker”, but it remains around 4.5 meters long, has a diameter of 38 centimetres (without protrusions) and an estimated launch mass of 900 to 950 kilograms. For comparison: the basic version has a range of 280 to 300 kilometers with a 150-kilogram warhead. The “Long Neptune” RK360L, which was tested in March 2025, achieves a range of 1,000 kilometers with a 260-kilogram explosive charge. The new variant is intended to close a tactical gap in order to attack medium-range targets.
Its design suggests a balance between range and warhead weight, with variable fuel allocation for different operational scenarios: with standard warhead at up to 500 kilometers range, or with heavier 200-kilogram warhead at standard range.
According to Schmyhal, modern AI technologies and advanced guidance and control systems have also been integrated without the need to redesign or modify the launch vehicles (TEL).
Cruise missiles are used in the Ukrainian offensive (-> Latest news from the war in Ukraine) against Russian high-value targets, as lighter systems – such as drones modified from small aircraft – may trigger fires but rarely cause lasting destruction. With Western support, the new Neptune versions could therefore become a kind of “low-cost Storm Shadow” and significantly strengthen Kiev’s military-technological position.
Europe’s most powerful long-range weapon?
Oleh Katkov, editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian specialist portal “Defense Express”, draws parallels between the largest Neptune version RK360L “Long Neptune” and the only comparable European cruise missile, the MdCN from MBDA. Both have a range of around 1,000 kilometers. According to various sources, the warhead of the MdCN weighs 250 to 300 kilograms, roughly the same as that of the “Long Neptune”.
The MdCN is based on the Storm Shadow/Scalp-EG and uses its navigation and targeting systems. However, Katkow points out a crucial difference: “The Neptunes are weapons that are launched from ground-based launchers. The MdCN, on the other hand, is fired from the vertical launch cells of warships. The French will probably need until 2028 to be able to use it on land. Ukraine is clearly ahead of the game here.”
Katkov even sees advantages for Ukraine in terms of costs and production cycles. According to open sources, France has produced around 200 MdCNs in around ten years – with a significantly longer production time than the Neptune. “That’s why it seems obvious to me that Ukraine has developed a better missile than anything Europe is currently producing in the long-range category.”
Built with and in Europe?
This is probably one of the reasons why the Ukrainian defense minister explicitly presented the new missile as a signal project in terms of armaments policy. He described it as an “important step forward, well suited for the ‘Build with Ukraine’ program, which envisages joint, expanded production with European partners.” The “puffy” Neptune could therefore serve as a springboard for technology exports and involve partners such as Lithuania and Poland.
However, as with the FP-5 Flamingo, only test shots and field reports will show whether the new version delivers what it promises.
Trump disappointed by Putin – “Tomahawk” under discussion
The USA has been providing Ukraine with targeted support for attacks on Russian energy infrastructure for some time. According to a report in the Telegraph, American agencies have been sharing intelligence with Kiev for months – as confirmed by both US and Ukrainian officials. It is true that Ukraine has long known exactly where Russian refineries, pipelines and substations are located and what is processed there. Nevertheless, US reconnaissance data helps to make the attacks more efficient and precise. The aim is to weaken the Russian economy and force Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin to negotiate.
IAI und L3 Harris: Sky Warden-Leichtangriffsflugzeuge für Israel
US President Donald Trump, who in his own words is “very disappointed with Putin”, has taken a much tougher line towards Moscow. In a phone call in July, he is said to have encouraged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi to intensify attacks on Russian territory. Zelenskyi explained that Trump had asked him whether Kiev could attack Moscow if the USA supplied long-range weapons.
So far, however, Washington has not made a decision on a possible delivery of such weapons – specifically the Tomahawk cruise missiles. On the flight to Israel a few days ago, Trump told journalists: “I don’t think the Russians want these things flying in their direction.”
Ground-based tomahawks: theoretically possible, practically difficult
Should a delivery actually take place, the USA would have to provide land-based versions of the Tomahawk. However, under the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) of 1987, all ground-based BGM-109Gs were decommissioned and destroyed by 1991. A resumption of production, including suitable launch vehicles, would therefore be necessary.
The current Tomahawk system is primarily ship- and air-based, which would hardly be practicable for Ukraine: Kiev has no operational warships and no heavy bombers such as the US B-52 or Russian Tu-95. One possible solution would be the Multi-Mission Autonomous Vehicle (X-MAV) recently presented at the AUSA trade fair in the USA. Multi-Mission Autonomous Vehicle (X-MAV) from the company Oshkosh – a mobile ground launch system that is also suitable for Tomahawks.
A Ukrainian delegation has according to “Newsweek” has already obtained information from several US manufacturers about corresponding options.
Rumors and conspiracy tales swirl
Numerous rumors about the possible motives behind Trump’s new course are now circulating in Russian and some Western online channels. Cynics claim that the president is by no means suddenly “pro-Ukrainian”, but is using the situation to benefit US arms companies that are politically or economically close to him through export-financed orders – paid for by European states.
On October 17, Trump received Ukrainian President Selenskyj at the White House. “The main topics will be air defense and our ability to launch long-range strikes to put pressure on Russia,” said Selensky in the run-up to the meeting.
In Russia, on the other hand, the alleged “Tomahawk plan” is seen as a deliberate staging. Channels such as “Kriegschronik” are circulating the theory that Trump and Putin secretly agreed to end the war at their meeting in Alaska. According to this theory, the war should end soon – apparently under Russian conditions. According to this theory, the “tomahawk threat” is just a tactical bluff to put Putin under pressure and then stage a “dictated peace” in which both sides can save face.
The weapons would never be delivered, Trump would emerge as a “brilliant diplomat”, Putin as the strategic winner. According to this narrative, the Ukrainians and Europeans would remain the extras in a grand geopolitical production.
Click here for more news about the Ukrainian armed forces.
