News

- Officially announced in July 2026
- One of three movies that's part of Marvel Phase 7
- Set to debut in December 2028
- Filming yet to begin, so no trailer/footage to pore over
- First cast members confirmed
- No story details have been unveiled
- Unclear on how it'll impact the MCU

Black Panther 3 is already primed to round out Marvel's 2028 line-up on the big screen. Indeed, with its launch set for December 2028, we know it'll be one of three movies the comic book giant will release in just over two years' time.

What do we know so far about our next trip to Wakanda? Below, I've rounded up all the latest information on the forthcoming Marvel film, including its official release date, confirmed cast, and more. Let's dive in, then — altogether now: Yibambe!

Just announced in Hall H: Ryan Coogler returns to Marvel Studios to direct Black Panther 3, only in theaters December 15, 2028. #SDCC pic.twitter.com/j8XZoLd4s2July 26, 2026

Black Panther 3 is currently scheduled to arrive in theaters worldwide on December 15, 2028. That launch date was revealed during Marvel's Hall H presentation at San Diego Comic-Con (SDCC) 2026 in late July.

There's no word on when filming might begin or how much of the script has been written. However, it's highly unlikely the cameras will start rolling until principal photography has wrapped on Avengers: Secret Wars, aka the final film of the Marvel Multiverse Saga.

The reason? Some of Black Panther 3's confirmed cast (more on them shortly) will appear in the sixth Avengers movie, so it won't enter full production until they're available to shoot it.

No — and it's going to be a long time before a teaser for the next Black Panther movie is publicly released.

If I had to guess, I expect its first trailer will be unveiled at SDCC 2028. That's a good 18 months away, so don't expect me to update this article section for some time.

David Jonsson is your new Black Panther. Black Panther 3, directed by Ryan Coogler, arrives in theaters December 15, 2028. pic.twitter.com/JILHDOelQEJuly 26, 2026

Per Marvel.com, here's the confirmed cast so far:

• David Jonsson as T'Challa II
• Letitia Wright as Shuri
• Winston Duke as M'Baku

Jonsson (Alien: Romulus, The Long Walk) was officially announced as T'Challa II — FYI, his legal name is Toussaint — at SDCC 2026.

We first met T'Challa's son in the final scene of 2022's Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, but it was unclear if he'd ever succeed his father and become the technologically advanced African nation's new protector-in-chief.

Indeed, speaking exclusively to TechRadar back in February 2025, Black Panther producer Nate Moore suggested that the eponymous hero wouldn't be played by a third actor. The first two being, of course, the late Chadwick Boseman, who played T'Challa before his passing in August 2021, and Letitia Wright, whose Marvel character Shuri assumed the mantle in Wakanda Forever.

Now, though, we know that Jonsson will play the grown-up version of T'Challa II. Chatting to Empire magazine, Marvel President Kevin Feige revealed Jonsson was cast after a secret meeting in February 2026, so Moore wasn't pulling the wool over our eyes 12 months earlier.

Meanwhile, Wright told Entertainment Weekly that she's happy for Jonsson to take ownership of the role, although there's no word on whether Shuri will have passed the torch by the start of this movie, or whether it'll happen as part of its plot.

Jonsson won't be the only Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) debutant in Black Panther 3.

Speaking on The Today Show in late 2025, multi-award-winning actor Denzel Washington dropped the bombshell that he'll appear in the threequel. Per Variety, Washington personally called director Ryan Coogler to apologize for jumping the gun on that announcement, but everything's been smoothed over now. Indeed, Coogler doubled down on Washington's casting during a chat with people.com, though he declined to reveal the identity of the A-lister's character.

As for other stars who might feature, it's possible Danai Gurira might return as Okoye, the former head of Wakanda's Dora Milaje. Lupita Nyong'o could be back as Nakia, aka T'Challa II's mom, too. Until Marvel announces their returns, I'll keep them off the confirmed cast list.

David Jonsson is your new Black Panther. Black Panther 3, directed by Ryan Coogler, arrives in theaters December 15, 2028. pic.twitter.com/39FVl9fwbzJuly 26, 2026

Predictably, there are no story details for Black Panther 3. Marvel is fully focused on Avengers: Doomsday, which arrives in cinemas this December, and its Secret Wars sequel, which comes out in December 2027. With the MCU's future being dictated by what happens in these films, we won't have any concrete information about Black Panther 3's plot until the Multiverse Saga has drawn to a close.

That said, there are a couple of things we can speculate on.

For starters, if T'Challa II adopts the Black Panther mantle and also plans on ruling Wakanda, M'Baku — the leader of the Jabari Tribe and the African nation's current monarch — would need to step aside. Will he do so willingly, or will T'Challa II have to fight him in ritual combat for that honor?

Then, as I mentioned earlier, it'll be interesting to see if T'Challa II is already the new Black Panther by the time this Marvel Phase 7 movie starts. The alternative is that he'll replace Shuri at some point during its runtime. This might be a better way of introducing T'Challa II to audiences and giving him a traditional hero's journey to embark on before he becomes the Black Panther's latest custodian.

On top of all that, we'll eventually learn if Washington's character is an ally or enemy of Wakanda's aristocracy, and what role the fictional kingdom will play in version 2.0 of the MCU (I'll circle back to this in a moment). Furthermore, we should find out whether Boseman's legacy as T'Challa, and his untimely death, will loom as large over proceedings as it did in Wakanda Forever. Once more has been discussed by those involved in the movie's production, I'll update this section.

In short: nobody knows. As I said earlier, we've got to get through Doomsday and Secret Wars before we know what version 2.0 of the MCU will look like. Once we do, we'll have a better understanding of how Black Panther and Wakanda fit into Marvel's streamlined cinematic universe.

While we wait, find out everything we know so far about Avengers: Doomsday and then get the full lowdown on Avengers: Secret Wars.

Once you're done, learn all there is to know about VisionQuest before getting the complete scoop on Daredevil: Born Again season 3 ahead of both projects hitting Disney+.

Knowing what ‘quantum’ is and why it affects the internet may not be something most people understand. How a physics concept changes the security of the internet isn’t really at the forefront of most people’s worries.

But the change is already happening. The internet is preparing for a post-quantum world that renders much of the encryption the world has relied on obsolete. To understand just how powerful post-quantum decryption is, think of enigma: an encryption machine that took the entire secret operation of Bletchley park over a year to crack would be solved almost instantly. For today’s standard public-key encryption algorithms, it's a matter of days or hours.

By some estimates, the viability of quantum computers capable of this level of decryption are still several years away. But preparations are already happening - and not just by the good guys.

Given that quantum computers capable of decrypting the current algorithms many businesses rely on today are all but inevitable, hackers have begun stealing troves of files that they cannot currently crack but will have huge value once commercially available quantum computers become available.

To get ahead of the curve, governance bodies have begun introducing regulations to ensure businesses and services are fully protected ahead of time, using longer, more robust encryption methods that can hold up against the quantum threat.

But the shift to protecting against quantum threats introduces new problems for the wider internet. Longer signatures during exchanges add to congestion, and when multiplied by the millions of terabytes of data transferred across the internet each day, this could compound into a serious logistical problem if the necessary steps are not taken.

OpenSSL is one of the world's most widely deployed open source cryptographic libraries. It has been developing open-source post-quantum cryptography to help secure businesses (and the internet) in the billions of secure online interactions that happen every day.

Ahead of OpenSSL Conference 2026, I spoke to Tim Hudson, President of OpenSSL Corporation, about the post-quantum challenges and how organizations can best prepare for a post-quantum internet.

• What challenges will infrastructure providers face in trying to handle a quantum-safe internet that requires significantly larger digital signatures? What sort of capacity, bandwidth, and latency increases could we expect to see and how can they be addressed?

It helps to separate two migrations that are usually collapsed into one. Key exchange is largely solved and already deployed — hybrid post-quantum key agreement has been running in mainstream browsers and CDNs for well over a year, and most people reading this have been using it without noticing. Signatures are the unsolved part.

The numbers drive everything. An ML-DSA-44 signature is 2,420 bytes with a 1,312-byte public key, against 64 bytes for ECDSA P-256. Add certificate chain signatures and the two Certificate Transparency timestamps browsers require, and a naive substitution adds somewhere between 7KB and 10KB to every new connection.

The problem is not aggregate bandwidth, which is cheap. It is that this pushes handshakes past the initial congestion window — roughly 14KB — and past QUIC's anti-amplification limit. Cross those and you buy an extra round trip on every fresh connection. That is a tail-latency problem, and it lands hardest on mobile, satellite, lossy links and constrained devices.

The fixes are architectural, not bigger pipes: Merkle Tree Certificates, trust anchor negotiation, and suppressing intermediates. This is a PKI redesign, not a library upgrade.

• How would you recommend CISOs navigate budgetary constraints when trying to secure their business for the quantum era? What are the critical assets to secure?

Two principles save real money. First, inventory before procurement. You cannot budget a migration you have not scoped, and the discovery phase in a complex estate runs six to twelve months. A cryptographic bill of materials is now explicitly on the regulatory agenda, so this work is not optional in any case.

Second, buy agility rather than algorithms. Products marketed as "quantum-safe" are a poor investment. The ability to change algorithm without redesigning the surrounding system will still be valuable in fifteen years; any specific algorithm choice may not be.

For prioritisation, the useful distinction is between confidentiality and authentication. Recorded traffic can be decrypted retrospectively, so anything requiring long-term secrecy is urgent today. Signatures cannot be forged retroactively — a signature made in 2026 and verified in 2026 is not at risk — so authentication is a scheduling problem, not an emergency.

That points at the genuinely critical assets: hardware roots of trust, firmware and code-signing keys, HSM-held key material, PKI roots with twenty-year validity, and long-lived embedded or operational technology. Those are the things you cannot retrofit later. Everything else is a software update.

• Are there any technologies that businesses can leverage now to maintain backwards compatibility with their existing data and processes as they adopt quantum-safe cryptography?

Several, and most are already in production. Hybrid key establishment is the obvious one. TLS 1.3 negotiates it cleanly and falls back to classical algorithms when the peer does not support post-quantum, so deployment carries little compatibility risk. For certificates, composite and dual-chain approaches let a single deployment satisfy both old and new relying parties during transition.

The less visible but more important layer is cryptographic abstraction. The OpenSSL Library provider architecture exists precisely so algorithm implementations can be replaced without touching application code, and that is the mechanism that makes the transition survivable for anyone with a large codebase.

On the interface side, PKCS#11 v3.2 defines post-quantum mechanisms so HSM-backed applications share a common API, and KMIP handles key lifecycles across multi-vendor estates. I work on both of those standards, and the aim is the same: rotate the algorithm without re-plumbing the system.

One caution. Hybrid is a transition, not a destination — the Australian Signals Directorate is explicit on that point. If you deploy a hybrid, budget for the second migration now rather than discovering it in 2029.

• What role will open source infrastructure play in the post-quantum internet, and are there any unique challenges or opportunities open-source technologies face?

Interoperability is the whole problem, and open source is where interoperability actually gets settled.

Agreeing on an algorithm is necessary but nowhere near sufficient. A working internet migration requires implementations that genuinely interoperate at the byte level, across every vendor, under real conditions.

That agreement gets reached in shared, publicly testable code far more reliably than in specification documents. The practical consequence is that a handful of open source implementations effectively set the pace of the entire transition.

The opportunity is scrutiny. Post-quantum algorithms are new, and most real-world cryptographic failures are implementation defects rather than mathematical ones. Side-channel weaknesses are found by people who can read and attack the code.

The challenges are the familiar ones, and unresolved. Funding remains disproportionate to dependency. Validation lag is the sharper issue: FIPS and Common Criteria validated modules trail published standards by years, so regulated organisations facing 2030 deadlines may find conformant code exists but validated code does not.

That ecosystem problem is a large part of why the OpenSSL Conference in Prague in October each year is scoped across cryptography and security generally rather than around any single project.

• In your opinion, is regulation and governance moving fast enough to prepare businesses of all sizes for Q-day? Are there any shortfalls you would like to see addressed?

The direction is right; the coverage is uneven. The pace has changed materially in 2026. In June the US issued Executive Order 14412 and OMB Memorandum M-26-15, setting hard dates for federal civilian systems and putting cryptographic bills of materials on the agenda.

Australia's Signals Directorate holds one of the more demanding positions globally, expecting a refined transition plan by the end of this year and traditional asymmetric cryptography retired by the end of 2030. The EU roadmap runs national plans to end-2026, high-risk systems to 2030, and full transition to 2035.

Four shortfalls. Guidance is written for large regulated enterprises; smaller organisations receive exhortation rather than tooling. Validation throughput is a binding constraint that no mandate addresses.

Nothing credible covers deployed embedded and operational technology with fifteen to twenty-five year service lives and no update path — that is a replacement program, not a migration, and nobody has funded it. And procurement rules should require demonstrated agility and CBOM (Cryptographic Bill of Materials) disclosure rather than algorithm checkboxes.

I would also retire the "Q-day" framing. The deadlines that will actually bind organisations are being set by regulators, insurers and procurement teams, not by physics.

• What should those outside of the business world expect to see changing as we approach a quantum-safe internet, and what can they do to prepare?

Mostly, they should expect not to notice. The browser and operating system on your desk have very likely been performing post-quantum key exchange for more than a year without announcing it. That is what a well-run infrastructure migration looks like.

The visible effects will be modest and mostly indirect: slightly larger handshakes, occasionally slower first connections over poor mobile or satellite links, more frequent firmware updates, and some devices losing support earlier than owners expect because their hardware cannot be upgraded to support the new algorithms.

The practical advice is unglamorous. Keep software current - that genuinely is most of it. Expect shorter useful lifetimes for anything with a hardware root of trust. And treat consumer products marketed as "quantum-safe" with scepticism; there is very little a consumer can buy that addresses a risk not already being handled upstream.

The one real personal consideration is long-lived confidential data. Anything that must stay secret for fifteen years or more and is transmitted today could be recorded now and read later. That is a reason to care which services have migrated, not a reason to buy anything.

The iPhone 18 Pro Max main camera's new variable aperture is a huge deal and, in my limited experience, I can already see that it could transform iPhone photography. Still, to know why this matters, you need to understand how it works.

The best analogy is your eyes.

If you've ever squinted to read something, you understand how an aperture works. The more open your pupil, the more light that comes in, but it's widely scattered, making objects in the distance out of focus. If you squint, that cuts the amount of light coming into your eye, but it also removes more of the scattered light, leaving only the sharper light and imagery. On a camera, the open aperture (represented by lower f-stop numbers) has the same effect as your wide-open pupils. Lots more light, but only stuff nearest you is in focus. A smaller aperture, represented by higher f-stop numbers, is the eye-squint: less light but more focus throughout the frame.

Ever since Apple announced the iPhone 18 Pro (and Pro Max's) big camera update, which also includes voluminous Pro-level controls, I've been itching to try them. As soon as I got my iPhone 18 Pro Max in black, I ran outside to see if the update makes an appreciable difference in photography quality and possibilities.

The short answer is yes.

A few things you should know about this new hardware feature. First, it's only on the 48MP main lens, so the 48MP, 4x telephoto, and 48MP ultrawide cameras only have fixed apertures: ƒ/2.8 and ƒ/2.2, respectively. Those are decently wide apertures, but the Main camera has Auto, ƒ/1.48, ƒ/1.8, ƒ/2.8, ƒ/4.0. That's a wide range. It's not quite DSLR-level, where you can stop down to, say, ƒ/11, which can be useful for deep focus and for capturing ultra-bright objects like the moon at night.

It's also worth noting that these are physical f-stops. The iPhone 18 Pro Max Main camera aperture features an array of interlocked blades thinner than a human hair, and they slide over each other as the aperture opens and closes. It's an engineering marvel. In the right light, you can see them adjusting.

I think it's fair to wonder why we need a physical, variable aperture when many of the iPhones since the iPhone 7 Plus have included portrait mode technology. In the early days, it used information from its wide and telephoto lenses to craft a bokeh effect. Eventually, Apple started using software to analyse the image and create a portrait mode with just a single lens (see 2020's iPhone SE). No matter how the iPhones have done it over the years, it's impressive and, for most users, good enough.

My goal, though, was to see how the portrait mode on the iPhone 18 Pro Max might differ from variable aperture photography (my preferred setting was f1.48). In other words, software vs. hardware. I did also fiddle with the other f-stops, but in bright daylight, the bokeh effect on ƒ/1.8 and ƒ/2.8 is quite subtle.

I took pictures of myself, photos of statues, and the image above of a drying leaf. That photo, or rather that one compared to the Portrait Mode shot of the same leaf, is what convinced me: this is a game changer.

When you use Portrait Mode on an iPhone, you can adjust the bokeh before or after photography. It's a reminder that this is, at least in part, a software effect that can include or discard as much background sharpness as you desire.

Using the variable aperture is more akin to traditional photography. You have the lens, the aperture settings, and, now, if you choose, shutter speed, exposure, and focus. In the initial images, I left everything alone except for the aperture. To access it, you select the grid menu in the camera app, choose Aperture, and then select the aperture opening of your choice.

I chose f1.48 and snapped a photo of the same leaf.

The result, which you can see above, was two pretty good pictures, but closer examination reveals how Portrait Mode struggled with the curling leaf. Look at the stem. It's almost gone. By contrast, on the variable aperture shot, it was clear that the phone wasn't trying to apply some software magic to separate the leaf from the background and create the bokeh. The leaf is complete. The whole image looks natural and, honestly, the hardware does what it would do on a traditional camera: let the lens and aperture opening make the call.

The leaf is in stark, colorful focus, and the background, while not as blurred as you get from Portrait Mode's default settings, is pleasantly out of focus.

I saw similar results with my selfies. Again, Portrait Mode goes hard on the background blur, but because it's largely computational, some artifacts remain. In particular, the space between the right stem of my glasses and my head is oddly sharp. And, if I'm being honest, the default level of bokeh sort of disconnects me from the background environment.

The results on the Gertrude Stein statue are less equivocal. The default portrait mode seems to favor the figure a bit more, though I still like the variable apertures' more realistic background blur.

Later, I started fiddling with a combination of aperture settings, shutter speeds, exposures, and focus. There are limits on all of these tools, but that's really the limitation of a smartphone camera. Without the really big sensor, wider space between the lens, aperture, shutter, and sensor, there's only so much you can do.

Still, I was impressed. My variable aperture shots look closer than ever to pro-level photography, and the additional pro controls are just so much fun to play with.

If there's any disappointment here, it's that we have just one variable aperture. I could do amazing things with more f-stops on the telephoto lens. Ah well, there's always next year.

Check out my gallery to see some of what I shot on my first day with the iPhone 18 Pro Max.

Charles Cecil wants to make one thing clear: “I'm not anti-AI.”

The veteran British developer behind the legendary 1996 point-and-click game Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars speaks to TechRadar about AI's divisive role in modern game development - and, in particular, how it was used in the upcoming remake of the sequel, Broken Sword - The Smoking Mirror: Reforged, due out in 2027.

The original, a commercial success selling 759,000 copies, sees American tourist George Stobbart team up with freelance journalist Nicole Collard to track a mysterious Mayan stone across Paris, London, and Central America. This remake doesn't use AI, and, according to Cecil, there's a very good reason for that.

“I think AI has its place,” Cecil says. “It's just not relevant in our games because we want human animation, human characterization and human expression, and that's much better done by humans.”

A perfect example of that lies in the game's hand-drawn art, all of it redone for Broken Sword - The Smoking Mirror: Reforged.

This hugely labor-intensive process encompassed roughly 55,000 frames of animation, more than the 30,000 of Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars’ 2024 remake.

“George opens the newspaper and kind of just glances at the screen,” says Cecil, referring to the actions of the game's protagonist in an early scene. “He's looking at the viewer, and that's what human beings do. That is not something that AI can do.”

In low-res, eyes were just dots on a face. In high-res, eyes are windows to the soul and therefore have to be animated with precision and intent. Where applicable, artists were free to add flourishes, using their own interpretation to fill in the gaps.

For instance, the painting of Professor Oubier hanging on the wall in the rapidly burning study was always too pixelated to see clearly. Now, however, you can make out exactly what he looks like in 4K, at 36 times the original resolution, all while a visibly uncomfortable George jostles his rope bindings.

Developer Revolution Software didn't stop there. The team redrew scores of items that never really made much sense. Take the poison dart, which now looks less like a playing dart and more like something shot out of a blowpipe.

Despite the decision to abstain from AI use for the most part, it wasn't entirely absent. AI was used for the initial round of upscaling before artists added detail by hand, with backgrounds scanned as black-and-white layouts for them to build on using the originals as references. AI was more of a tool than a creative device.

“We experimented with AI for the first one, and we used AI to upscale and then redraw the characters. And as I say, it can upscale, but it can't put any character in.”

That's largely thanks to the luxury of time. The first game needed to be made in a year or risk cancellation. Revolution Software sprinted to the finish line, but made a few shortcuts along the way.

One oversight was 40 voice lines that were recorded and packaged in the game's files but never used. Now, in Broken Sword - The Smoking Mirror: Reforged, fans can finally hear them (one line involves George asking the Parisian waiter about the tequila worm in his pocket).

Another infamous example occurs in the Game Boy Advance version. “You have a choice to go to Spain or Syria,” says Cecil. “If you do one, you can finish the game, and it's fine. If you do the other, it takes you there, but you can't then finish. There's a bug that doesn't allow you to finish…It's an awful, awful bug. I mean, it's absolutely shocking.”

An AI might have spotted such mistakes, but then again, you could argue mistakes are what give art humanity. If nothing else, they make for a great story.

But the remake is far from a bug-fixing exercise. Instead, it's an opportunity to make the game better. Where most remasters seek to preserve the subject, Broken Sword - The Smoking Mirror: Reforged is almost an act of excavation.

“All of these things we now have the time to do,” says Cecil. “Because what Revolution has done for the last 15 years is we've self-published all our games. And I can decide when we’re going to spend a little bit more time getting this, right? Is it worth it?”

The devs found time to add features, too, like a new three-tier hint system that actively monitors your progress and feeds you steadily more obvious tips so you're not stuck for too long. The final tip tells you outright what to do. Thankfully, purists can turn it off.

Meanwhile, Nintendo Switch 2 players get four different control schemes: touchscreen, gamepad, one Joy-Con 2 detached and used as a mouse, or a versatile combination of everything.

Plus, there’s something Cecil has personally wanted to add for 30 years: a beautiful, detailed map of Paris. This is used to aid player navigation instead of having them rely on clunky icons. With everything in the game, these feel like choices made by humans, not AI.

“We've really gone out of our way to produce something that, in my view, is completely future-proof, because people were playing the first one 30 years ago, and millions and millions of people have played that game. And my ambition is that in 20 years' time, a fourth generation will be playing again.”

“Going forward,” he continues, “people are going to seek out human-crafted art. You know, there's going to be that sense, because obviously we all have a human connection with each other.”

• Satellite imagery shows China building a roughly ~200m ship in Shanghai that analysts say is a mothership for submarine-sized drones
• It pairs a bottom-opening well-deck and 12-arm cradle with an internal hangar that experts estimate holds four 115- to 148ft XXLUUVs
• While the ship itself is shorter than an Essex-class carrier, its dock clocks in at about 1,115ft

China appears to be building a type of ship no navy is publicly known to operate: a large surface vessel designed to carry, launch, and recover uncrewed submarines the size of conventional crewed boats

The hull was first posted on September 13 2026 by Japanese open-source analyst KAROTASU and assessed two days later by H I Sutton at Naval News.

It currently sits at a dock at the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard in Shanghai, and Beijing has yet to formally acknowledge its existence, so it has no name, list of capabilities, or the military branch that will eventually operate it.

KAROTASU's post places the vessel in what he calls a 340m-class dock, which works out to approximately 1,115ft. However, the dock is not the ship. The same post estimates the hull itself at roughly 200m long and 30m wide, and notes that a second, unidentified structure is being assembled in the same dock.

Defence Security Asia, using imagery dated September 15, puts the hull at about 205m by 27m, which clocks in at roughly 672 ft. This makes the mothership big, but not as big as the largest WWII-era fleet carriers, though larger than the US Navy's Independence-class light carriers from that era.

For context, an Essex-class carrier, the backbone of the US Navy's Pacific campaign from 1943, measured 872 to 888ft overall and displaced 36,380 long tons at full load. At 656 to 673ft, the Chinese hull comes up roughly 200 to 230ft short.

The primary use case of such a mothership would be to deploy extra-extra-large uncrewed underwater vehicles (XXLUUVs), which is a mouthful, and it builds around China's naval ambitions at a time when it seems certain that any conflict or show of power between the world's two superpowers will involve a maritime component.

At 35 and 45m (115 and 148ft), the XXLUUVs are the size of small crewed submarines and have an estimated range of 10,000 nautical miles based on a similarly sized concept that a Chinese shipbuilder has exhibited.

This, at the very least, challenges the current balance of power on multiple naval fronts that were not in play previously: until now, the drones have been tested from specially built floating docks, which conceal them in port and carry them out to sea for launch.

This works well on paper and for trials, which often use a mix of towing, favorable weather, and predictable shore infrastructure, but it limits range to their maximum operating capabilities and access to spare parts/repair potential, all of which the yet-to-be-named vessel addresses.

All in all, in a world that has conflicts flaring up left, right, and center, the world's largest surface ship is designed around full-size uncrewed submarines, with an enclosed hangar to house and maintain them, which is both a statement and a real threat to the US and its allies on the naval front from China, which is closing gaps on multiple fronts and taking the lead on others, even as territorial disputes in the South China Sea remain a key issue.