Technically speaking, the Taurus KEPD 350 is a “miracle weapon”; Kiev wants to use it to destroy the Crimean Bridge. Nevertheless, using the Taurus would not fundamentally change the war.
Taurus, Taurus, Taurus.
As often as the cruise missile is invoked, as fiercely as it is fought over, one would think that its use would radically change the balance of the war. But is that really the case?
The German-Swedish missile Taurus KEPD 350 is a counterpart to the British Storm Shadow and the largely identical French SCALP, but is much more powerful than the Storm Shadow. The main focus is on the range, which is estimated at more than 500 kilometers, which would be at least 200 kilometers more for the Storm Shadow. The Taurus is a modular weapon that can attack different targets with different warheads. To do this, she can fly different attack curves depending on the target. The focus is on the tandem warhead Mephisto (Multi-Effect Penetrator High Sophisticated and Target Optimized), which consists of two charges. The first, a shaped charge, penetrates armor with its heat spike, allowing the second, the penetrator, to penetrate the target. For example, you can break through a concrete roof and only let the penetrator detonate in the basement or ground floor. Kiev expects Mephistopheles to not only damage the Crimean Bridge, but to destroy it.
Taurus is almost impossible to intercept
In addition, there are electronics that are more powerful than the Storm Shadow. The Taurus is therefore better able to evade air defenses and is less likely to be disrupted. In addition, it can be flown very low – it is almost impossible for a ground-based defense to capture it if the course avoids the defenders’ positions. However, for flight altitudes of 50 meters and less, the terrain data must be very precise.
Storm Shadow and Taurus are not launched from the ground but are taken into the air by aircraft. In Ukraine, the converted SU-24, which belongs to the 7th brigade, takes over. The F-16 would also come into consideration later. A jet can carry two missiles at a time. The longer range of the Taurus would have two advantages for Ukraine: The jets could release the missile further away from the target and thus keep more distance from the front and the Russian air defense. On the other hand, they could also attack targets deep in the Russian hinterland. It is precisely this scenario that has so far deterred Western supporters. Once again there are fears that Russia could feel provoked – and that the war, which has long since escalated, could escalate even further.
Strategic impact of Taurus
In addition to the more technical and impressive properties of the Taurus, the question of what this weapon can achieve in war is important. Because technical ability is not the same as strategic impact. And lo and behold, the potential for the latter is more modest. That doesn’t speak against Taurus, but it is inherent. With the Leopard 2, too, people were intoxicated by individual best values and closed their eyes to the fact that the low numbers could not bring about a turning point in the course of the war.
The margin will also be a problem with the Taurus. From a conceptual point of view, precision weapons of this type should be used completely differently. In a conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, strikes in depth were intended to destroy the enemy’s supplies, deployments and command structures. The idea here was of a high-intensity, short war in which the aim was to damage the enemy in depth so that decisive advantages would become apparent at the front. For this purpose, hundreds of attacks should occur in a short period of time.
But in Ukraine, in this war?
Low number of cruise missiles
The situation is completely different. There can be no question of a wave of cruise missile attacks. Germany has a total of around 600 Taurus, half of which are operational. The entire inventory should be processed. If Berlin delivers, Kiev could receive a maximum of 200 to 300 missiles – and that is a very optimistic estimate. These cruise missiles would then be launched into the air by a limited number of aircraft; they could take out individual, particularly important targets, yes. However, a paralyzing wave could not be initiated. That’s why the Crimean Bridge is often mentioned in connection with Taurus.
With the Mephisto warhead, it is hoped that the Taurus could destroy the bridge, at least if multiple cruise missiles are used. The bridge would then no longer be usable and, due to the nature of its construction, it would be difficult to repair in times of war. The Taurus could also be used to attack power plants, the Russian surveillance aircraft and their command centers. All targets where selective destruction causes great damage.
More is not possible. Flat targets and installations that can be repaired, such as railway tracks or harbor quays, are prohibited due to the small number of Taurus. In 2017, US President Trump ordered a retaliatory strike in Syria over an alleged poison gas attack by the Assad regime. At that time, 59 cruise missiles were fired at an airfield; they are said to have destroyed nine older jets there. Kiev cannot afford something like that.
Primary destination Crimean Bridge
The explosive effect of a Taurus is equivalent to a medium-sized bomb. Russia is said to use 3,000 glide bombs every month. What makes the German cruise missile special is its range, the accuracy of its impact and the difficulty of intercepting it. However, Ukraine cannot find “worthwhile” targets on its own due to a lack of intelligence on its own; here it would have to rely on active help from the West. The use of the Taurus is not 100 percent safe either. It is assumed that the cruise missile will be difficult to intercept, but we don’t know. The Taurus is also vulnerable on the ground in the warehouse, and also in the jet’s flight phase. With 200 to 300 missiles, around 100 high-value targets could be eliminated, after which the Taurus would be shot.
Such a loss would hit Russia hard, but it would not end the war. The loss of the Crimean Bridge would have the greatest effect, especially if Ukrainian water drones block Ukraine’s sea route. Even the supply on the peninsula would be at risk; the front would have to be supplied via the occupied mainland. Although the Russians have expanded their railway capacity there, they would probably run into difficulties. The air strikes from Crimea would also have to contend with supply shortages.
Massive influence? Yes. Decisive for the war? No. Military supplies in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions depend on Crimea, but the Russians are on the offensive in Donbass and near Kharkov, so they don’t need Crimea here. If supplies fail to arrive via Crimea, they could go on the offensive again in the north. Ukraine, in turn, could put pressure on the Russians by launching an offensive like the one in the summer of 2023 in the Zaporizhia area. But that is maneuver tactics in the subjunctive: Kiev does not appear to have the necessary ground troops for such a major offensive at the moment or soon.
Russia’s counterattacks
Meanwhile, destroying the Crimean Bridge would almost certainly lead to retaliatory attacks from the Russians. Even if one excludes the horror scenario of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, there are other possibilities: the entire Ukraine is divided by the Dnipro, with 25 bridges and barriers crossing it – which have not yet been seriously attacked. A bombardment of these dams would have devastating consequences.
So it can be said that the use of the Taurus would buy Ukraine time and reduce the pressure on the front. Not more but also not less. Things would look different if the Taurus were part of an overall package that could be used to rebuild the ailing Ukrainian military. But according to media reports, the White House wants to give Kiev more ATACMS, but only models with a range of around 150 kilometers and warheads that cannot be used against hardened targets. There is nothing to suggest that the war will end soon, not even the Taurus, which is celebrated as a miracle weapon.