– Italia, la piazza sfida il riarmo di Margherita Furlan
– Avvocatura dello Stato: è guerra mondiale ibrida di Jeff Hoffman
– La Francia ferma i suoi figli di Jeff Hoffman
– Tirana in fiamme, Rama non cede di Jeff Hoffman
– USA e UE sempre più distanti di Gionata Chatillard
– Due stretti in fiamme, l’Europa paga di Jeff Hoffman
– Taiwan cerca alternative a Hormuz, Trump si inserisce di Ivan Bodyan
– Buon giro intorno al Sole
A cura di Margherita Furlan
Con la collaborazione di Gionata Chatillard, Ivan Bodyan e Jeff Hoffman
Editing di Mario Ferdinandi
CASA DEL SOLE TV — Informazione libera e indipendente
Il nostro lavoro è possibile solo grazie al vostro sostegno. Casa del Sole TV non ha editori forti né finanziamenti pubblici: siamo sostenuti da voi, il nostro pubblico.
Se credi nel valore di un’informazione che non tace, aiutaci a continuare. Dona tramite bonifico bancario: IBAN: IT63P0326822300052392596590
Intestato a: LA CASA DEL SOLE EDIZIONI Causale: Donazione Casa del Sole TV Dona tramite PayPal: paypal.me/casadelsoletv Sostegno ricorrente: casadelsole.tv/sostienici
Anche un piccolo contributo fa la differenza. Grazie di cuore!
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has agreed to accelerate the release of approximately 100 million barrels of emergency oil stocks, including more than 20 million barrels of diesel, as the...
The Saudi kingdom is facing the danger of collapse from soaring war costs as Yemeni air strikes ramp up, hitting its northern neighbor’s capital and industrial centers with impunity.
Yemeni journalist Hussein al-Bukhaiti says the corruption and arrogance of the “House of Evil” is culminating in historic defeat. Its U.S. patron seems unable to avert the coming collapse.
Despite decades of the U.S. selling weapons worth hundreds of billions of dollars to the Saudi rulers, the regime seems shockingly exposed, with no viable defenses. Yemen’s missiles are striking Saudi Arabia at will. The panicky rulers are pleading with the United States and Europe for help.
Yemen’s armed forces are taking the war to Saudi Arabia, striking its airports, imposing a no-fly zone over the entire state and shutting down its vital oil industry.
“The Saudis cannot stop our drones and hypersonic missiles… we are taking the war to them,” says Sanaa-based Hussain al-Bukhaiti.
With no oil exports, Al-Bukhaiti reckons the Saudi rulers are facing an existential nemesis. Many observers have long predicted that the autocratic Saudi kingdom, created by the British Empire, is awaiting downfall from its ossified and family-run power structure.
Speaking from the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, Hussain al-Bukhaiti described the Saudi monarchy as “a house of glass” that is now being shattered by air strikes that cannot be defended against.
“Yemen did not want this war, but we are bringing the fire back to Saudi Arabia.”
Western politicians and media are portraying the conflict between the two Arab Peninsula countries as being caused by recent aggression from the Ansar Allah-led Yemeni government.
Saudi Arabia’s King Khalid international airport was attacked on October 10 with ballistic missiles that killed several people. Other Saudi airports have also been hit. This has led international airlines to suspend flights.
The state-owned Aramco oil industry has also been blasted with missiles. Fires are raging at major facilities, including at the main base of operations in Dammam on the Persian Gulf coast.
Following the missile strike on Riyadh airport at the weekend, U.S. President Donald Trump and all European leaders condemned an “act of terrorism” by Yemen.
Hussain al-Bukhaiti pointed out the gross hypocrisy of European governments not condemning the thousands of Saudi air strikes on Yemen that have occurred since 2015. These governments still remain silent about the ongoing Saudi atrocities against Yemeni civilians. The European Union even declares “solidarity” with Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi monarchy, led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, started the war with unprovoked attacks in March 2015. The aggression was enabled by the United States, Britain, and France supplying warplanes, bombs, and intelligence.
These Western powers continue to arm and direct the Saudi regime in its war against Yemen.
Since 2015, there have been thousands of Western-backed air strikes on Yemen, resulting in more than 20,000 mainly civilian deaths.
“They hit everything, schools, hospitals, water-treatment plants, farms, homes, wedding and funeral halls,” says Al-Bukhaiti.
In addition, over 400,000 Yemenis have died from starvation and diseases caused by a blockade on the country imposed by Saudi Arabia and its Western backers for over 10 years.
He says the war reignited in July 2026 after the Saudis broke a four-year truce signed in 2022 by bombing Sanaa international airport. There was no condemnation by Europe of the Saudi violation then.
What Yemen is doing to Saudi Arabia now is but a taste of what the House of Saud inflicted on Yemenis since 2015 with Western support.
The Yemenis this week rejected a reported Saudi proposal for a short-term truce because they see it as just a ploy by the Saudis for rearming and regrouping in a losing situation.
For the war to end, Saudi Arabia must respect Yemen’s sovereignty and stop interfering in its internal affairs.
However, Hussain al-Bukhaiti thinks that the United States will double down and escalate its military involvement in Yemen with a full-blown war. This is not primarily to support the Saudi monarchy, he believes, but rather to prop up the Israeli regime.
Yemen has inflicted huge damage on the Israeli state since it intensified the genocide against Palestinians in October 2023. Yemeni air strikes have repeatedly struck Tel Aviv despite American air defenses.
An expanded U.S. war in Yemen might seem surprising given that Trump has made such a mess of his reckless aggression against Iran and may not have the military forces at his disposal.
But Al-Bukhaiti believes the issue is beyond Trump’s choice. Washington is locked in with the Zionist regime and will do whatever it takes to salvage Israel from defeat. Yemen represents the biggest threat to Israel from the cutting off of its shipping in the Red Sea.
“We are ready for the war that is coming,” he warns.
L’alta inflazione incide sull’andamento della finanza pubblica e sul funzionamento delle regole europee. Sono due le questioni principali: il trattamento del fiscal drag e i margini di flessibilità rispetto a un percorso di spesa pubblica fissato nel 2024.
North Korea’s recent underwater launch of strategic cruise missiles underscores its accelerating drive to field a survivable, sea-based nuclear deterrent, even as significant engineering hurdles and platform limitations continue to constrain its naval ambitions. North Korea test-fired two types of submarine-launched strategic cruise missiles into the Sea of Japan, marking its first public underwater cruise […]
While the U.S. military has a wide array of installations where it can test these systems, it’s still not enough. In addition to the massive increase in weapons development and the need for more realistic training, the changing nature of war is outstripping the capacity of existing facilities as future kill webs will extend thousands of miles, not hundreds. There are only so many places with enough space to try out these systems even to a limited degree without butting up against statutes and regulations while also avoiding interference with civilian air traffic and communications, all in an environment remote enough to avoid prying eyes. The need for more and bigger testing grounds is an issue TWZ has long raised.
In addition to the backdrop of the increase in a wide range of weapons testing, much of it aimed at China, Trump’s super range announcement was delivered as the Pentagon and services are specifically creating commands dedicated to autonomous weapons. On Tuesday, during the annual Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA) conference in Washington, D.C., attended by TWZ, the acting Army Secretary unveiled one such new command, which we will discuss in greater detail later in this story.
“I’m pleased to inform you and announce that right here in Montana, the Department of War is going to establish a new ”super range” for testing advanced weapons and technologies, technologies including potential autonomous weapons, space, and electronic warfare technology, supersonics and hypersonics,” Trump said during a campaign rally in Kalispell. “Montana will help ensure the American military always reigns supreme.”
.@POTUS: "I'm pleased to inform you and announce that right here in Montana, the @DeptofWar is going to establish a new Super Range for testing advanced weapons and technologies, including potential autonomous weapons, space and electronic warfare technology, supersonics, and… pic.twitter.com/W4YqKfq8X4
Trump provided no additional details about where this new “super range” will be located, when it will come online, exactly which systems will be tested or how much it will cost.
Thursday morning, the office of U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy noted that he has been “a strong advocate for building an advanced training range in Montana, securing $10 million for a feasibility study in the FY27 National Defense Authorization Act that passed the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year.”
“The 21st-century battlefield is being redefined by new weapons and evolving technical frontiers that require a novel approach to how America will resource its warfighting capabilities,” the senator said in a statement. “Contested spectrum, electronic warfare, hypersonics, space capabilities and enhanced targeting require a new class of testing and evaluation facilities for our military. The U.S. faces a clear choice: adapt and expand our development infrastructure to the realities of modern warfare, or risk falling behind adversaries who iterate faster.”
The Montana Republican highlighted the value of his state’s huge swaths of undeveloped land for this effort.
“By combining our state’s vast landscapes, innovative spirit, and proud tradition of military service, we are the Last Best Place to ensure America’s fighting men and women have the technological edge they need to dominate the battlefield and win the wars of tomorrow,” he explained.
Montana (Google Earth)
Like Trump, Sheehy offered no specifics about exactly where in Montana the “super range” will be located, when it will come online or how much it will cost. We have reached out to the White House, Sheehy and the Pentagon for more details. The Pentagon deferred us to the White House, which referred us back to the Pentagon. We also contacted the office of U.S. Sen. Steve Daines and Gov. Greg Gianforte.
There are already a number of facilities in Montana conducting the kind of military weapons testing described by Trump. One that closely matches what would be needed from such a location is the Montana Spaceport & Test Range and the affiliated Limestone Hills Innovation & Test Campus. A public-private aerospace and defense initiative, it already conducts testing for next-generation space vehicles, hypersonic, supersonic and ballistic weapons, drones and counter-drone systems and electronic warfare equipment.
Another potential site could be an expansion of the Big Sky Autonomous Systems Range (BSASR). Located near Bozeman, it is “the Lobo Institute’s primary training and testing facility for U.S. and allied military, federal, and partner organizations.” Operated under the Lobo Tactical division, BSASR is “a 6,000-acre, fully fenced complex purpose-built for advanced unmanned aerial systems operations, full-spectrum live fire, mounted and dismounted mobility, and full mission profile exercises grounded in the latest tactics, techniques, and procedures from active conflict zones,” according to the Lobo Institute. “The range pairs realistic terrain with the regulatory, infrastructure, and instructor depth required to train against the operational realities of today’s and tomorrow’s battlefields — and it does so in a remote, controlled environment where units can push hard while keeping risk to acceptable levels.”
Training at the Big Sky Autonomous Systems Range in Montana. (BSASR)
We have reached out to both facilities for more details.
The new super range could also leverage existing range space on the ground and in the air. There is also the large Hays Military Operations Area (MOA) which could be expanded for this new test range effort. MOAs are blocks of airspace designated for military training. Malmstrom Air Force Base and its ICBM fields could also potentially be utilized. Overall, it’s possible a number of existing range areas could be interconnected, both digitally and via airspace corridors, to create a larger complex, as well.
The Pentagon has long realized the need to increase the areas where it can test out these systems, especially to evaluate them under combat-like conditions.
“The current open-air range space should be increased and better integrated to support system-of-systems assessments of air, land, and sea combat systems with capability for emerging long-range fires, hypersonic missiles, EMS warfare, unmanned systems, nuclear effects, and directed energy (DE) weapons,” the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) stated in a report last year. “The DoW needs to invest in and coordinate expanding and connecting the airspace available to the open-air ranges enabling testing and training of advanced capabilities.”
DOT&E
The current facilities are inadequate, DOT&E further explained.
“Threat systems and our own capabilities far exceed the current available air space on the open-air ranges,” according to the report. “The ranges need support and assistance to coordinate additional airspace and corridors with the FAA and industry. Expanding and connecting range air space is necessary to facilitate testing and training critical long-range capabilities that our warfighters need and to replicate the threats they will face.”
In addition, the report states that “to test missiles with longer ranges and gather data to support simulation validation, including for hypersonic missiles, the DoW should invest in long-range, overland missile flight test corridors with land-based impact areas and mobile hypersonic-specific range instrumentation to produce the required lethality data against threat-representative targets for terminal area assessments.”
Rendering of an X-51A Waverider hypersonic weapon. Powered by a Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne SJY61 scramjet engine, it is designed to ride on its own shockwaves and accelerate to about Mach 6. (U.S. Air Force)
The Defense Department had largely been conducting the testing of hypersonic weapons — those that can reach speeds of Mach 5 and above — at sea given the need for the long ranges for evaluation. Still, even that was limited. The Pentagon restricted the number and location of hypersonic tests it carried out each year because of the aging fleet of ships it used as its primary data collection assets to track the capabilities while in flight.
Retired Block 20 and Block 30 RQ-4 Global Hawks belonging to the U.S. Air Force, reconfigured as RangeHawks under the SkyRange hypersonic weapon testing infrastructure program, would help address some of those restrictions. You can read more about that in our story here.
However, if testing moves to an overland phase, the need for expanded air corridors could grow increasingly critical. Last year, the Pentagon’s Test Resource Management Center (TRMC) identified three candidate locations to perform those tests, one over Alaska, another at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico and a third in Australia, Defense News reported at the time.
An interceptor launches from an Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) system operated by soldiers assigned to the 1st Battalion, 51st Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 7th Infantry Division (Multi-Domain Command Pacific), during a test at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, on July 28, 2026. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Michael Majors and White Sands Missile Range Public Affairs) Sgt. Michael Majors
The U.S. Air Force’s scramjet-powered Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) has finally reached the flight test phase, with at least one “release” having been carried out so far over a range in Australia. (Raytheon) Raytheon
The military is also looking to expand where it can test electronic warfare systems to help ease the bottleneck at White Sands and a few other locations. Such testing is limited due to U.S. restrictions on jamming, which can interfere with civilian systems.
Before he resigned after tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, former Army Secretary Dan Driscoll in June said the service had plans to set up at least two domestic ranges that mimic realistic conditions on Ukraine’s battlefields, where the electromagnetic spectrum is a highly contested domain. This spectrum would be even more heavily disputed in a fight with China.
“You can have a kind of electronic warfare and all of the contested environment created, and you can have drone manufacturers and counter-drone tool-builders engaging together,” Driscoll told reporters. “Then, we also want soldiers to be able to go there, so that they can strengthen their skills and work hand-in-hand with developers.”
A drone swarm returns from a mission during the XVIII Airborne Corps’ Scarlet Dragon 26-3 at Fort Bragg, N.C., Sept. 15, 2026. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Iliana Lopez) Pfc. Iliana Lopez
Driscoll said there are already places in the U.S. where the Army can test safely, and separately, the service is looking at a global range outside the U.S. to do “much more aggressive testing,” including with hypersonics. When asked, Driscoll declined to say where these ranges would be until planning is farther along.
“At least some of the current counter-drone training for soldiers, like one CBS News saw in April, does not include electronic jamming — in part because the U.S. restricts jamming domestically,” CBS reported.
In August, the Army opened premier test ranges for the use of private industry to conduct internal research and development. Additionally, the service co-hosted a Denied, Disrupted, Intermittent and Limited testing environment, at Camp Grayling in September, and there are three more scheduled for Fiscal Year 2027, an Army spokesperson told us.
(U.S. Army)
Trump’s news about the “super range” was delivered as the Pentagon and the services are working to ramp up the development and production of a range of autonomous systems.
Last month, as we noted earlier in this story, the Pentagon announced plans for a new functional combatant command, very broadly akin to U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) or U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM), but for operational activities involving autonomous and robotic capabilities. In addition, Hegseth also announced new initiatives to help further accelerate the fielding of uncrewed systems in the air, at sea, and on land, as well as to explore future warfighting challenges. All of this builds on previous and long-overdue efforts to prioritize the fielding of various tiers of drones, as well as artificial intelligence (AI) and other emerging technologies, across domains, but there are questions about how these new efforts will translate into tangible developments.
.@SECWAR “Today, at my direction—we are announcing the creation of Autonomous Warfare Command, or AutoWarCom:
A new 4-star combatant command—with service-like authorities—built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the Joint Force in the fastest peacetime shift in… pic.twitter.com/kYWBxy6Dij
On Tuesday, acting Army Secretary Adam Telle announced the creation of the service’s Futures and Autonomous Systems Command (FASCOM).
“This is our way to make sure that we take all of the great work that’s been happening with the resources that we have today, and we centralize it,” Telle said. “We’re pushing autonomy down into our units, but when it comes to having and making sure that the left hand in the Army knows what the right hand of the Army is doing, this happens at FASCOM; then FASCOM feeds up into AutoWarCom.”
Telle added that FASCOM “will work with the other services to create scale for purchasing power and share best practices on autonomy.”
“It is too soon to speculate about anything related to FASCOM,” the Army told us. “Specifics on structure, command, mission, etc. will be announced at a future dates [and] will require the kind of additional testing facilities that a new Montana super range could provide.”
The use of highly cooperative autonomous weapons platforms that can swarm and operate collectively over large areas will also tax existing ranges beyond their capacity.
Details about the new range proposed by Trump are scant, and it remains to be seen whether it will live up to the hype or even be built. As we noted earlier in this piece, a feasibility study, which hasn’t even been funded yet, is still needed before major work can begin. However, if and when it does come online, a new Montana test range will be welcomed by a military in need of additional places to test out its latest capabilities.
North Korea says it has test-fired two types of submarine-launched strategic cruise missiles off its east coast, in what appears to be the first time its bizarre Hero Kim Kun Ok submarine has been seen at sea in a publicized manner. If the vessel truly was the launch platform, the tests would mark its first confirmed weapons trials and a potential step toward operational service. Unveiled with considerable fanfare in 2023, the Hero Kim Kun Ok has been billed by Pyongyang as a centerpiece of its future nuclear-armed navy, but its operational status and actual capabilities have remained unclear.
The launches took place Wednesday, October 14, with state media Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reporting the activity earlier today. North Korea said the tests were intended to assess the readiness of its underwater combat systems, improve the Navy’s ability to execute strategic missions, and demonstrate the reliability of its deterrent. Along with imagery of the cruise missiles, KCNA released one photo of the Hero Kim Kun Ok underway, which you can see at the top of this story.
The launch of a cruise missile, apparently from a vertical launch tube. North Korean state media North Korean state mediaSubmerged launch of one of the North Korean cruise missiles. North Korean state media
KCNA did not otherwise identify the submarine involved or disclose the missiles’ ranges, flight paths, or performance. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said it had detected and tracked the launches from before firing through the cruise and terminal phases. A JCS spokesperson said one missile type was launched from a vertical launch system and another from a torpedo tube. This would match the imagery we are seeing, it would also match the Hero Kim Kun Ok’s unique capabilities. The South Korean military assessed that the launches came from a submarine but did not initially identify the vessel publicly.
There remains a possibility that the 3,000-ton-class Hero Kim Kun Ok was not actually involved in launching the missiles. North Korea has long used underwater platforms for test missile launches and has paired these with images of an actual submarine for propaganda purposes. However, the JCS confirming they came from a submarine would lend additional credence to the possibility Hero Kim Kun Ok did indeed launch the missiles. If this is the case, it would indicate that North Korea has begun validating weapons systems aboard the submarine ahead of deployment. At the very least, we can confirm that the Hero Kim Kun Ok is now sailing, although South Korean and U.S. intelligence would be acutely aware of its movements and it could have been in at-sea testing for years now, we just don’t know.
North Korea unveiled the submarine in September 2023, describing it as its first “tactical nuclear attack submarine” and one of the Navy’s core offensive platforms. At the launching ceremony, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was quoted as saying that arming the Navy with nuclear weapons “brooks no further delay.”
The North Korean diesel-electric submarine Hero Kim Kun Ok, which has the hull number 841. North Korean state media
Nevertheless, many questions remain about the submarine’s design and operational prospects. Overall, it remains a heavily modified derivative of a Cold War-era Romeo class diesel-electric submarine — nearly an antique by today’s standards — rather than a purpose-built guided missile submarine. Previous imagery shows 10 missile launch tubes concealed in the prominent ‘turtle back’ aft of the sail, in addition to torpedo tubes, although the precise configuration, usable capacity, and operational status of those systems remain uncertain.
The absence of publicly reported weapons tests from the vessel over the following years raised questions about its development. Analyst Shin Jong-woo of South Korea’s Defense and Security Forum toldReuters that the latest launches suggested combat-system testing for operational deployment was underway. He also suggested that North Korea may have resolved technical problems and could also test a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) before the vessel enters service. North Korea has previously presented SLBMs of increasing size, but has lacked a suitable submarine to launch them from.
The North Korean diesel-electric submarine Hero Kim Kun Ok during its launch. North Korean state media
Missile launches while the submarine is submerged represent a more demanding and operationally relevant capability than firing from the surface.
At the same time, a missile launch of any kind demonstrates only part of the capability required for a submarine like this to be effective at all. An operational submarine must also be able to deploy reliably, remain sufficiently difficult to detect, maintain its weapons, and execute missions under realistic conditions.
A vertical launch system (VLS) can provide dedicated capacity for certain missile types — potentially much larger ones — and may enable faster launches or larger salvos than a configuration relying exclusively on torpedo tubes. Torpedo tubes offer an alternative launch method, but with different constraints on weapon dimensions, handling, and firing procedures.
The forward four tubes are larger than the rear six on the submarine’s ‘turtle back.’ This would allow the boat to carry multiple types of missiles, possibly including a mix of short-range and longer-range submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs).
A North Korean cruise missile in flight after submerged launch. North Korean state media
Testing both systems would be consistent with an effort to validate multiple elements of the submarine’s weapons architecture.
North Korea has pursued submarine-launched missiles for years. In March 2023, it reported a submarine-launched cruise missile test from the older 8.24 Yongung submarine. In January 2024, Pyongyang said it had fired Pulhwasal-3-31 strategic cruise missiles from that same vessel. The earlier sub is in the 2,000-ton-class and is understood to have only one or two vertical launch tubes.
North Korea’s description of the weapons as “strategic” cruise missiles should also be treated cautiously. North Korea’s long-range cruise missile program is well established and a nuclear payload is a major part of its ambitions, but how mature or reliable a nuclear warhead is for this application at this time isn’t clear. Regardless, ground, surface, and now subsurface-launched cruise missiles are a key part of North Korea’s broader deterrent architecture.
According to reports, Wednesday’s activity was the first publicly reported underwater North Korean missile-testing event since the January 2024 launch.
Compared to the 8.24 Yongung submarine, the Hero Kim Kun Ok has a larger hull and additional vertical launch tubes, but it still uses very dated diesel-electric propulsion, which presents hugely different endurance, acoustic, and operating constraints compared with nuclear propulsion or even modern diesel-electric submarine capabilities.
As to the expectation that Pyongyang may test an SLBM from the submarine before deployment, this would be a likely milestone toward North Korea fielding a credible sea-based nuclear deterrent.
North Korean SLBMs identified as the Pukguksong-5 on parade in January 2021. North Korean state media
North Korea is also pursuing a separate nuclear-powered submarine project, unveiled as under construction in March 2025. Its completion and operational timeline remain uncertain. Nuclear propulsion is a much bigger challenge, but if perfected, such a boat would be of considerably greater value, especially as a second-strike capability.
People seen looking at a TV broadcast at Seoul Railway Station showing North Korean leader Kim Jong Un unveiling the manufacturing site for a future nuclear-powered missile submarine at an undisclosed location. Photo by Kim Jae-Hwan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images SOPA Images
The sequence is consistent with Pyongyang’s effort to diversify its delivery systems and complicate military planning for South Korea, the United States, and Japan.
A satellite image of the Pongdae Submarine Factory on the northeast coast of North Korea, the center of its submarine development activities. Google Earth
The activity also carries a diplomatic message. North Korea has repeatedly insisted that it will not abandon its nuclear weapons while the United States maintains what Pyongyang calls a hostile policy. It has also rejected the suggestion that adjustments to U.S.-South Korean military exercises would be sufficient to change the underlying relationship.
The tests also follow North Korea’s rejection of an apparent diplomatic opening from U.S. President Donald Trump after Washington sought to reduce tensions surrounding a U.S.-South Korean military exercise.
Kim touring the Sinpo submarine yards back in 2019, the first time we got a glimpse of the future Hero Kim Kun Ok. North Korean state media
A submarine able to launch missiles from less predictable locations complicates defensive planning for South Korea and the United States. The challenge extends beyond intercepting missiles after launch to detecting and tracking the submarine before it reaches a potential firing position. Even a partially capable vessel places additional demands on potential adversaries.
Were things to ‘go hot’ on the Korean Peninsula, any submarine capable of carrying strategic weapons would be at the top of the targeting list for Pyongyang’s adversaries. A submarine based on the archaic Romeo class design would be fairly easy to track from the time it leaves its berth. This is especially the case bearing in mind the sophisticated nature of South Korea’s anti-submarine capabilities.
Future submarines will become increasingly more challenging, however. That problem could intensify if future North Korean boats make more use of Russian assistance in developing their capabilities. Submarine technology is supposedly part of the payment to Pyongyang for its help in the war in Ukraine. This could become a much larger problem, even if Moscow were to provide North Korea with advanced Kilo class boats, for example.
For now, provided that the Hero Kim Kun Ok launched the missiles, which seems most likely, this would indicate that North Korea is advancing weapons integration aboard a submarine intended to expand its offensive naval capabilities. The fact that the Hero Kim Kun Ok is now at sea also signals progress toward deployment.
Whatever the ultimate operational effectiveness of the Hero Kim Kun Ok and its emerging missile armament, Pyongyang continues to demonstrate incremental improvements to its submarine forces.
Shipowners are facing an increasingly fragmented fuel market as disruptions triggered by the Middle East conflict raise concerns about the availability and quality of supply.
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.
Rescuers were searching for seven missing crew on Thursday from one of two chemical tankers that caught fire overnight just outside Romanian territorial waters in the Black Sea, after Russian drones strayed into national airspace, Romanian officials said.
L’articolo “Xi spia l’esercitazione militare a Oslo I soldati usano mezzi cinesi per gli spostamenti e scoprono che le telecamere dei veicoli hanno filmato tutto” pubblicato sul La_Verita del14 Ottobre ...
Drone strikes against merchant vessels off Bulgaria have brought Russia’s war into waters bordering NATO and the European Union. With grain exports threatened, shipping costs rising and Sofia seeking allied protection, Moscow’s campaign against maritime trade risks becoming another instrument of economic and political pressure.
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.
Russia’s Campaign Against Maritime Trade
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.
Radev Confronts the Consequences of Moscow’s War
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.
Food Security Becomes Another Instrument of Pressure
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.
Europe’s Black Sea Security Strategy Faces a Practical Test
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.
Mercedes-Benz chief executive Ola Källenius has warned that excluding British manufacturers from European industrial preference rules would damage automotive production on both sides of the Channel, increasing pressure on Brussels ahead of negotiations over its proposed Industrial Accelerator Act.
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.
European production extends beyond the EU
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.
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.
Industry demands regulatory certainty
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.
Britain refuses to follow EU tariffs automatically
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 wider implications for EU–UK relations
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.
An F-35 test pilot from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two Three (VX-23), Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), flies an F-35C overhead the PCU John F. Kennedy in the Western Atlantic on Oct. 13, 2026. U.S. Navy
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.
Two F-35 test pilots from VX-23 fly F-35Cs to the PCU John F. Kennedy in the Western Atlantic on Oct. 13, 2026. U.S. Navy
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.
A U.S. Navy F-35C of VX-23 makes an arrested landing on the flight deck aboard PCU John F. Kennedy. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaitlyn BaileyA U.S. Navy F-35C of VX-23 catches the wire on the flight deck aboard PCU John F. Kennedy. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaitlyn Bailey
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.
A U.S. Navy F-35C of VX-23 with its airframe liberally adorned with telemetry markings — these act as precision visual references used during flight testing to capture exact spatial data. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaitlyn BaileyA close-up of one of the U.S. Navy F-35Cs of VX-23 reveals a full set of underwing stores pylons and a load of three inert 500-pound JDAM-series weapons. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaitlyn Bailey
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, TWZhighlighted concerns that Ford class carriers would not be ready to operate the F-35C for years.
A U.S. Navy F-35C makes an arrested landing on the flight deck aboard PCU John F. Kennedy for the first time. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaitlyn Bailey
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. Fordcompleted 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.
A U.S. Navy F-35C, attached to VX-23, after an arrested landing on the flight deck aboard PCU John F. Kennedy. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaitlyn Bailey
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. Kennedyexplicitly included both JBD upgrades and changes to maintenance spaces and information systems.
An F-35 test pilot from VX-23 flies an F-35C to the PCU John F. Kennedy in the Western Atlantic on Oct. 13, 2026. U.S. Navy
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.
A J-35 is prepared for takeoff on Fujian. via Chinese internet
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.
L'Ets europeo non salva il clima ma distrugge l'industria. Analisi dello scontro tra Meloni e l'intransigenza tecnocratica di Bruxelles sulla transizione.
Iranian officials have confirmed top-level discussions about the country’s potential exit from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). What does this mean for the Middle East and for the world? Essence of the Matter Iran, as Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei noted at a briefing, continues, as before, to faithfully fulfill […]
A week after two cargo ships were struck by drones off the Bulgarian coast, the attack was repeated even closer to our territorial waters with a similar outcome: one vessel was sunk, and another was abandoned by its crew, resulting in injuries and likely numerous fatalities. This is already having tangible consequences for Bulgaria. “Attacks […]
Login
CASA DEL SOLE TV — Informazione libera e indipendente
Dona tramite bonifico bancario: IBAN: IT63P0326822300052392596590 
Dona tramite PayPal: paypal.me/casadelsoletv
Sostegno ricorrente: casadelsole.tv/sostienici
