Click to see full-size image. (Korean Central News Agency)
North Korea said on October 15 it had test-fired two types of submarine-launched strategic cruise missiles off its east coast a day earlier, in a trial aimed at assessing its underwater weapons systems and the reliability of its military deterrent.
The Korean Central News Agency, or KCNA, reported that the tests were designed to examine the readiness of the country’s underwater combat systems and improve the navy’s ability to carry out strategic missions. It said the test “did not have any adverse impact on the security of neighboring countries.”
KCNA did not identify the missiles or disclose their ranges, flight times or intended targets. The designation “strategic” suggests a role in North Korea’s nuclear deterrent, although Pyongyang did not say whether the tests involved nuclear warheads.
Click to see full-size image. (Korean Central News Agency)
South Korea’s military said it had monitored the launches using multiple surveillance assets, tracking the missiles from before launch through the end of their flights.
Capt. Jang Do-young, a spokesperson for South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military assessed that one missile had been fired from a vertical launch system and the other from a torpedo tube, according to Yonhap News Agency.
South Korean analysts and international news reports identified the vessel shown in the images as the Hero Kim Kun Ok, a roughly 3,000-ton submarine unveiled by North Korea in September 2023. Pyongyang presented it as its first tactical nuclear attack submarine, claiming it could launch nuclear weapons from underwater.
If the identification is correct, the October 14 launches would be the submarine’s first publicly reported live weapons tests.
North Korea previously announced submarine-launched cruise missile tests in January 2024, when it said two Pulhwasal-3-31 missiles had been fired from the smaller, approximately 2,000-ton 8.24 Yongung submarine. That vessel has been used in earlier underwater weapons demonstrations.
The latest test was overseen by Kim Jong-sik, a member of the ruling Workers’ Party’s Central Military Commission, Missile Administration chief Jang Chang-ha and naval underwater weapons engineers, KCNA reported. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was not reported to have attended.
Shin Jong-woo, secretary-general of South Korea’s Korea Defence and Security Forum, said the latest launches showed that “combat system tests for operational deployment are under way,” according to Reuters.
The commander added that North Korea was likely to test a submarine-launched ballistic missile from the vessel before long.
The tests followed North Korea’s launch of tactical ballistic missiles toward the East Sea on October 12 and a series of other weapons demonstrations in recent weeks. Pyongyang has also highlighted its expanding arsenal at a newly opened defense museum, including missiles designed to extend its potential reach against the United States.
The submarine tests fit into Kim’s broader effort to expand the country’s naval capabilities and diversify the platforms from which it could use nuclear weapons.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence
NOW hosted at southfront.press
Previously, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.org.
The .org domain name had been blocked by the US (NATO) (https://southfront.press/southfront-org-blocked-by-u-s-controlled-global-internet-supervisor/) globally, outlawed and without any explanation
Back before that, from 2013 to 2015, SouthFront: Analysis and Intelligence was at southfront.com
MORE ON THIS TOPIC:
The post North Korea Tests Two Submarine-Launched Strategic Cruise Missiles (Photos) appeared first on South Front.
Russia’s expanding campaign against commercial shipping in the Black Sea is creating a security crisis that extends far beyond Ukraine. The latest drone attacks off Bulgaria’s coast have left 11 sailors missing, forced Sofia to seek assistance from NATO and the European Union, and raised concerns that Moscow is attempting to disrupt one of the world’s principal agricultural export routes.
On 13th October, the Guinea-Bissau-flagged HS Dignity sank after being struck by drones approximately 17 nautical miles east of the Bulgarian village of Krapets. Another vessel, the Ukrainian-owned, Maltese-flagged Chelsea 3, was attacked near Byala. All 15 crew members were rescued, although five sustained minor injuries. The incidents followed earlier attacks in Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone on 6th October, when the ALFA WATAN sank and the grain-carrying ABLE was damaged.
The significance lies not simply in the destruction of merchant vessels but in the geographical expansion of the threat. Commercial routes previously regarded as comparatively safer alternatives to Ukraine’s exposed ports are now becoming operationally dangerous. Bulgaria and Romania, both NATO and EU members, face disruption to trade, maritime insurance and port operations as the conflict spreads across the western Black Sea.
The latest attacks follow months of Russian strikes against Ukrainian ports, export terminals and civilian shipping. As EU Today previously reported, repeated attacks on Odesa have already reduced Ukraine’s grain-export capacity, while alternative routes through the Danube and neighbouring European countries cannot fully replace its major Black Sea terminals.
The extension of attacks towards Bulgaria changes the economic calculation. Ships carrying agricultural products, those approaching Danube ports and vessels operating between Black Sea countries now face greater uncertainty, regardless of whether they enter Ukrainian territorial waters.
Maritime security company Ambrey assessed the earlier October attacks as highly likely to have been conducted by Russian forces. Its assessment identified vessels associated with Ukrainian grain trade as the principal targets, rather than suggesting that every commercial ship was being attacked indiscriminately.
This distinction is important, but it offers little reassurance to international shipping companies. A campaign directed against Ukrainian trade can disrupt the wider maritime economy when insurers, shipowners and exporters cannot establish which routes remain safe.
The economic consequences are already becoming apparent. Shipowners must consider higher insurance premiums, additional security measures and the possibility of losing vessels and crews. Traders may redirect cargoes or withdraw from routes whose commercial returns no longer justify the risks.
The attacks have also placed Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev in an increasingly difficult political position.
Radev has advocated renewed diplomatic engagement with Moscow and questioned the emphasis placed on military assistance to Ukraine. He has rejected accusations of being pro-Russian, presenting his approach as a pragmatic alternative to prolonged confrontation.
Yet the attacks have demonstrated the limitations of maintaining political distance from a war whose economic and security consequences are reaching Bulgarian waters.
After summoning Russian Ambassador Eleonora Mitrofanova on 13th October, Radev acknowledged that Bulgaria possessed no conclusive evidence establishing responsibility for the latest strikes. Nevertheless, he argued that their consequences benefited Russia and questioned why Ukraine would attack its own commercial vessels.
According to the Bulgarian News Agency’s account of the meeting, the prime minister also warned that higher insurance costs and shipping companies’ reluctance to serve Bulgarian ports were already damaging the national economy.
This is the fundamental change confronting Sofia. The conflict is no longer solely a question of Bulgaria’s position towards Ukraine or its diplomatic relationship with Russia. It is affecting the country’s commercial interests, energy supplies and responsibilities as a NATO member.
Radev’s response does not necessarily indicate a wholesale reversal of his previous political position. It demonstrates that the practical obligations of government can leave considerably less room for accommodation with Moscow than the arguments advanced from outside direct responsibility for national security.
The broader consequences may be felt most severely outside Europe.
Ukraine remains an important supplier of wheat, maize and vegetable oils to international markets, including countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Interruptions to these exports affect more than Ukraine’s agricultural revenues. They can increase transport costs, delay deliveries and reduce the availability of competitively priced food in import-dependent countries.
Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum on 12th October, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned of a possible agricultural crisis, arguing that Russian interference with Black Sea shipping could leave countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East facing serious supply difficulties within months.
The warning reflects a mechanism already familiar from the earlier stages of Russia’s invasion. Following Moscow’s withdrawal from the UN-brokered grain agreement in July 2023, Ukrainian agricultural exporters faced renewed attacks on port infrastructure and substantial uncertainty over maritime access.
The danger is not necessarily an immediate worldwide shortage of grain. Wheat prices remained relatively steady following the 13th October incidents. Rather, sustained disruption could progressively reduce available export capacity, increase costs and place vulnerable importing countries under greater pressure.
For Moscow, such disruption could serve several purposes simultaneously: weakening Ukraine’s economy, raising the costs of international support for Kyiv and creating additional pressures on governments concerned about food inflation and social stability.
The immediate challenge for Brussels and NATO is how to protect commercial navigation without allowing the conflict to expand into a direct military confrontation.
Bulgaria has requested stronger air and maritime surveillance and is seeking closer coordination with Romania and Turkey. Defence Minister Dimitar Stoyanov said on 14th October that Sofia expected to join a NATO counter-drone initiative by the end of the month.
The EU has already developed a framework for addressing precisely such threats. Its Black Sea strategy, announced in May 2025, proposed a maritime security hub integrating surveillance, intelligence-sharing, infrastructure protection and regional cooperation.
The attacks now expose the difference between developing a security framework and providing effective protection to merchant vessels. Better intelligence can identify threats, but preventing further sinkings requires detection systems, coordinated responses and sufficient defensive capabilities.
Turkey’s involvement is particularly important because of its control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles and its established role in Black Sea maritime security. Any workable regional arrangement must therefore extend beyond cooperation between Bulgaria and Romania.
The incidents occurred outside Bulgaria’s 12-nautical-mile territorial sea, meaning they do not automatically constitute an armed attack on NATO territory under Article 5. Nevertheless, repeated strikes within the economic zones of alliance members pose a substantial challenge to maritime security.
Russia’s campaign against Ukrainian exports is increasingly imposing costs on neighbouring European states and international trading partners. The question facing the EU is whether it can secure the commercial routes on which both Ukraine’s economy and the food supplies of millions beyond Europe depend.
The head of Mercedes-Benz has warned that excluding British manufacturers from the European Union’s proposed industrial preference rules would damage the competitiveness of carmakers across Europe, challenging Brussels over legislation intended to protect European production from growing international competition.
Ola Källenius, chief executive of Mercedes-Benz and president of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), criticised the prospect of restricting British participation in the forthcoming “Made in Europe” framework during discussions in Brussels on Wednesday, 14 October.
His intervention comes as European governments negotiate the Industrial Accelerator Act, which would introduce European-content requirements affecting public procurement and certain forms of industrial support.
The proposed legislation is intended to strengthen manufacturing within the EU, but its treatment of production in neighbouring countries has become contentious, particularly in an automotive industry whose factories and suppliers operate across national borders.
British manufacturing remains closely integrated with continental European automotive production despite the United Kingdom’s departure from the single market.
Components manufactured in Britain are incorporated into vehicles assembled in EU member states, while British factories depend on engines, batteries, electronics and other parts produced in continental Europe.
The value of this integrated manufacturing system depends on companies being able to source components across borders without unnecessary restrictions.
Källenius warned that excluding the UK from the proposed rules would weaken manufacturers operating on both sides of the Channel.
His position reflects industry concerns that a narrowly defined European-content regime could impose additional costs on companies already facing pressure from Chinese competition, slowing demand and substantial investment requirements.
As EU Today reported in September, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has been pressing Brussels to recognise the UK as a trusted industrial partner under the emerging framework.
Germany has also supported a broader approach that would allow selected trading partners to qualify under European-content rules where reciprocal conditions are met.
France has favoured stronger preferences for production within the EU itself, reflecting differences among member states over how far European industrial policy should extend beyond the Union’s borders.
The Industrial Accelerator Act proposed by the European Commission is intended to strengthen Europe’s manufacturing base and support production in strategically important sectors.
Its provisions address public procurement and industrial incentives affecting products including vehicles, steel, aluminium and clean technologies.
The Commission wants European public spending to support local industrial capacity rather than reinforce dependence on imports from major international competitors.
China has become the principal focus of those concerns because of its expanding manufacturing capacity, particularly in electric vehicles and batteries.
However, measures designed to counter Chinese industrial competition could also affect established trading partners whose manufacturers form part of European supply chains.
The United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey occupy different legal positions in their economic relations with the EU, but all maintain important industrial connections with member states.
An approach that treats their production as equivalent to imports from countries with substantially different market conditions could require European companies to reorganise existing supplier relationships.
For manufacturers, replacing a supplier may involve more than simply ordering components from another factory. Production standards, technical certification, logistics and long-term investment arrangements can make changes expensive and difficult.
Following an ACEA board meeting on Wednesday, European manufacturers called for faster progress on the wider automotive legislative package.
In its 14 October statement, ACEA urged EU institutions to advance negotiations so that the package could be finalised early next year.
The association argues that manufacturers require a predictable regulatory framework to plan investments in electric vehicles, production facilities and new technologies.
Källenius linked the industry’s transition towards zero-emission mobility with the need to preserve employment and strengthen economic security.
European manufacturers are simultaneously investing heavily in electrification while competing against Chinese companies with established battery supply chains and significant production capacity.
The resulting financial pressures are particularly serious for manufacturers that must develop new vehicle platforms while maintaining existing factories and dealer networks.
Additional restrictions on component sourcing could complicate those decisions at a time when companies are seeking to reduce costs.
The dispute has acquired a further dimension following remarks by British Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.
Speaking on Wednesday, Reynolds indicated that Britain would not automatically follow the European Union in imposing tariffs on Chinese vehicles.
The UK government maintains that trade measures must be determined according to British economic interests rather than adopted simply to align with Brussels.
That position complicates London’s attempt to secure favourable treatment under European industrial rules.
EU policymakers have argued that closer alignment on trade defences could support Britain’s claim to be treated as a trusted partner.
British ministers, however, must consider whether restrictions on Chinese imports would benefit domestic manufacturers and consumers.
The disagreement will form part of the broader economic relationship being discussed ahead of the next UK–EU summit, scheduled for 20 November.
The automotive dispute follows earlier negotiations over British participation in European defence procurement and other industrial programmes.
In both cases, London wants access to initiatives designed to strengthen European production while remaining outside the EU’s institutional framework.
Brussels must determine how far preferential treatment can extend to non-member countries without undermining the objectives of its industrial policy.
The Commission’s proposals have already revealed disagreements between governments favouring a tightly defined European manufacturing base and those seeking to preserve wider commercial partnerships.
Källenius’s intervention strengthens the argument that industrial protection cannot be considered separately from the supply chains on which European manufacturers depend.
The final legislation will influence investment decisions, procurement arrangements and the position of British suppliers within the continental automotive industry.
The outcome will also provide an indication of how far the EU is prepared to accommodate its closest trading partners as it attempts to strengthen European manufacturing against growing competition from China.
A U.S. Navy F-35C has made the first arrested landing for the type aboard a Ford class aircraft carrier, with the milestone taking place aboard the future USS John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) in the Western Atlantic on October 13, 2026. The milestone marks a major step in testing the Navy’s stealth fighter aboard its newest carrier class, following years of challenges integrating advanced launch and recovery systems.
Two F-35C test pilots assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 (VX-23), part of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), flew to the carrier as part of an ongoing Aircraft Compatibility Testing (ACT) campaign. A team from the Patuxent River-based F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF), detached to the ship, is conducting the evaluation using a specially instrumented example of the carrier-capable stealth fighter. The imagery released shows two jets, although only one is seen landing on the flattop. The other is seen carrying inert Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs externally.
The Navy took preliminary acceptance of the carrier from Newport News Shipbuilding on September 29, following successful acceptance trials in August. That development allows the ship and its crew to conduct at-sea testing and build underway proficiency while the shipbuilder completes final systems testing ahead of formal delivery, scheduled for spring 2027.
The test is an important step in validating the integration of the F-35C with the Ford class. The Navy’s newest carriers use electromagnetic catapults and advanced arresting equipment, replacing the steam-powered launch systems and conventional arresting machinery found aboard the preceding Nimitz class.
Aircraft Compatibility Testing assesses the operational capabilities of a ship’s aircraft launch and recovery equipment with U.S. Navy aircraft. The process helps engineers evaluate how the carrier’s systems interact with individual aircraft and collect data needed to validate their performance.
The F-35C is specifically designed for carrier operations, with larger wings, reinforced landing gear and a beefier tail hook compared with the Air Force’s F-35A. Its ability to launch from a carrier and recover through an arrested landing is central to its role in the Navy’s carrier air wings, which also include F-35Cs operated by the U.S. Marine Corps.
The use of a specially instrumented aircraft is particularly relevant to the test campaign. Instrumentation allows test teams to record data during flight-deck operations, helping them assess system performance and identify any issues requiring further evaluation.
The first arrested landing aboard John F. Kennedy demonstrates that the ship has reached an important F-35C compatibility milestone. It does not, however, establish that all testing, certification, or operational qualification requirements have been completed.
The milestone comes against the backdrop of the Ford class program’s difficulties integrating some of its advanced aviation systems. The lead ship, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), introduced the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), technologies intended to improve aircraft-launch flexibility, recovery performance, and overall sortie generation. Development and reliability challenges with both EMALS and AAG have contributed to delays in the class’s progress. In a 2019 report, TWZ highlighted concerns that Ford class carriers would not be ready to operate the F-35C for years.
USS Gerald R. Ford was designed and built before the F-35C’s full carrier-integration requirements were sufficiently mature, so the Navy deferred several upgrades to a later modernization period rather than delaying the ship’s delivery. Following congressional pressure, the Navy adopted a single-phase delivery approach for USS John F. Kennedy, incorporating these modifications during construction instead.
The USS Gerald R. Ford completed its Aircraft Compatibility Testing in January 2020, following 16 days at sea, during which the crew launched and recovered 211 aircraft, testing five different airframes — but the F-35C was not included.
Beyond EMALS and AAG, integrating the F-35C on Kennedy requires modifications to the carrier’s maintenance infrastructure and support systems. These include specialized spaces for handling the aircraft’s sensitive mission systems and classified data, computer networks and interfaces linking its maintenance and logistics systems with the Navy’s existing infrastructure, and facilities and equipment to support the upkeep of its low-observable coatings and materials. The Navy has also identified the need for more robust jet blast deflectors (JBDs), which protect flight-deck personnel and equipment from the F-35C’s intense engine exhaust.
Earlier F-35C integration work aboard Nimitz class carriers included JBD modifications to improve heat resistance and cooling, while planning for John F. Kennedy explicitly included both JBD upgrades and changes to maintenance spaces and information systems.
The latest test represents progress toward resolving the compatibility question, although the full scope of the remaining work will depend on the results of the ongoing evaluation.
The development also comes as China advances its own carrier aviation capabilities. Unlike the U.S. Navy, its Fujian aircraft carrier has demonstrated electromagnetic catapult launches and arrested recoveries involving several aircraft types, including the J-35 stealth fighter.
In contrast to the U.S. Navy, which accumulated decades of experience with steam-powered catapults before adopting electromagnetic launch technology, China chose electromagnetic catapults for its first catapult-equipped carrier.
Although China’s demonstrations aboard Fujian and the F-35C compatibility testing aboard Kennedy involve different aircraft, ships, and stages of development, both underscore the technical demands of integrating advanced aircraft with modern carrier launch and recovery systems.
For the U.S. Navy, the immediate priority is to demonstrate that the Ford class can reliably support its intended aircraft. The F-35C’s first arrested landing aboard Kennedy is a significant step in that process, with further testing — not least an EMALS takeoff — needed before the milestone can begin to translate into an operational capability.
Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com
The post F-35C Makes First Arrested Landing Aboard A Ford Class Carrier appeared first on TWZ.
As the US Navy lays the groundwork for its next-generation SSN(X) attack submarine to replace its aging fleet, the US’s longstanding undersea supremacy faces an intensifying test against China’s rapid naval buildup, advancing acoustic stealth and superior shipyard capacity. The US Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) issued a sources-sought notice to survey domestic shipyard […]
The post US Navy’s SSN(X) won’t arrive for years as China closes sub gap appeared first on Asia Times.
Login