[–] 76 points 1 day ago (7 children)

https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/MoloWarMonitor/status/2109698037412966679

The American aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is currently slightly behind schedule for its deployment to the Middle East. As reported by Japanese media a few days ago, a U.S. Nimitz-class aircraft carrier was expected to visit the Yokosuka naval base soon, the first such visit in four years, and in all likelihood, this was to be the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). However, the carrier strike group has been slowed down by the weather, Typhoon "Koguma" formed in the Western Pacific around October 5 and is currently moving along a path east of Japan, the very direction from which the carrier was approaching for its visit. Consequently, the nuclear-powered carrier's course has been altered and delayed several times in recent days, the cyclone's strong winds created hazardous conditions for aircraft parked on the flight deck and, more importantly, posed a risk to the crew, who faced the danger of falling overboard amidst violent, high waves. Under normal conditions, the voyage from San Diego to Japan takes about 10 to 14 days, in this instance, however, 15 days have already passed without the ship reaching the vicinity of Japanese territorial waters, though it is still expected to arrive in the coming days.

  • source
  • [–] 63 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    https://archive.ph/fTzis

    US Army Corps of Engineers failed to explain drop in environmental mitigation work: Watchdog

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not seek to mitigate environmental damage for more than 50 projects over the past five years and did not provide detailed explanations to Congress, a government watchdog found.

    more

    Measures to prevent environmental damage were proposed in only 22 of 74 civil works projects the Corps submitted to Congress for approval from 2020 to 2025, according to a report published Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office. The Corps deemed that no such measures were needed for the remaining 52 projects and failed to provide detailed evidence as to why, the watchdog alleges. The agency regularly works to improve water navigation channels to prevent flooding and restore aquatic habitats around the country through its civil works program. It is required by statute to make detailed reports to Congress outlining whether its projects will require measures to prevent possible harm to fish, wildlife and the environment. The engineers are expected “to plan for environmental mitigation — that is, to take actions to avoid, minimize, or compensate for expected losses to fish and wildlife and damage to ecological resources,” which could include reinforcing riverbanks or restoring wetland areas to create new habitats for fish and wildlife, according to the report. The Corps of Engineers may decide not to undertake conservation measures if it deems certain projects will not cause harm. However, the Army is expected to provide Congress with clear explanations for those decisions.

    A chart published by GAO shows a sharp decline in the Corps’ decisions to make mitigation plans for wildlife and habitat protection from 2022 to 2025. In 2024, for example, the agency decided that only one of 13 projects would require measures to safeguard the environment. The GAO’s chart shows zero mitigation plans made in 2025. In its findings, the GAO alleges that the Corps failed to provide necessary details to Congress demonstrating the reasons behind its decision-making in cases when it deemed no environmental protection measures were needed. The watchdog said the vast majority of documents sent to Congress during those five years contained broad and general language that failed to clarify how the Corps reached its decisions. The GAO recommended that the Army establish clear guidance for the Corps to document how it reaches decisions to keep Congress and the public better informed. The Army disputed the GAO’s recommendations in a Sept. 16 letter signed by D. Lee Forsgren, the senior official performing the duties of the Army’s assistant secretary for civil works. “We do not concur with the recommendation in the draft that we need to create more guidance about mitigation decision making on Civil Works projects,” Forsgren wrote. “The water resources project reports (including associated Chief’s Reports) produced by USACE have sufficient technical information for decision makers and the public and resource agencies to understand when habitat mitigation is or is not included in a final recommendation.”

  • source
  • [–] 38 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Not everyone, however, is welcome to participate. One former military officer who worked in the defense industry told ProPublica he was contacted by an outside recruiter for Kollitides’ new BOND office. The recruiter, he said, told him that all applicants would be asked who they voted for. The former military officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution, said he expressed discomfort with that line of questioning. He received an email shortly after from the recruiter telling him he was no longer under consideration. The Pentagon did not respond to a question about the officer’s account. “Getting more effective and efficient is not a political question,” the former officer said.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 33 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    more

    “Americans need us at the Pentagon and our civilians and our contractors to do better,” Feinberg said last year. “We can’t fail, we can’t make excuses, we must succeed.” On social media, Kollitides has shown the kind of partisanship long taboo in the Pentagon but now fostered in its ranks by Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Kollitides has decried the “Democrat Party,” warned of the ills of socialism and posted that “the government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”

    like, for example, the government can take hundreds of millions of your tax dollars, and give them to me! porky-happy

    Over the last year, Feinberg has continued to heap responsibility on Kollitides: naming him his co-chief of staff and senior adviser; vice chairman of the Office of Strategic Capital’s investment committee; and director of two other new offices, the Economic Defense Unit and the Business Operators for National Defense, or BOND — the office with the $281 million no-bid contract. His employment status allowing him to hold any of those roles at the Pentagon is somewhat of a mystery.

    I don't see what's so confusing, it says right here on my employee keycard: George K. Kollitides, most corrupt guy ever

    Unlike Feinberg, who was confirmed to his post by the Senate, Kollitides was reportedly first brought onto the federal government last year as a special government employee, or SGE, a designation that allows someone to work in government for no more than 130 days a year. Kollitides seemingly exceeded that cap several months ago. But in the Pentagon’s email system, Kollitides’ name now carries an abbreviation signifying he has been designated an HQE, or highly qualified expert. His employment classification, which the Pentagon confirmed, is designed to hire people who bring “enlightened thinking and innovation”

    I'm highly enlightened in graft and will innovate entirely new methods of theft

    to Defense Department roles that can last up to six years. That distinction brings a unique benefit for Kollitides. Financial disclosures filed by HQEs are generally confidential, while those of high-ranking SGEs are often subject to release once a person fills a government role for more than 60 days. It’s unclear if Pentagon ethics officials granted Kollitides a waiver to keep any disclosures confidential. (ProPublica requested Kollitides’ financial disclosure forms in August, but the Pentagon has not yet responded.) Kollitides’ continued tie to Alvarez & Marsal Capital surfaced in April in a securities filing by a second company with which the defense official was taking a leadership post. Days after Feinberg named him the head of BOND, granting Kollitides deep visibility into weapons production rates of U.S. military contractors, Kollitides took a seat on the board of D. Boral Acquisition I, an offshore shell company whose affiliate D. Boral Capital has partnered with defense-related businesses. Bloomberg Government first reported the filing in July, and that Kollitides stepped down from the position at the end of September. Kollitides’ biography in the filing described his current roles at the Pentagon, then added that “he is also a Senior Advisor” to Alvarez & Marsal Capital and that he previously was a partner and co-head of one the firm’s funds. The A&M entity that Kollitides is described as still advising in the filing is essentially the private-equity partner of the sprawling Alvarez & Marsal firm that includes A&M Federal, which is now providing consulting services for his offices at the Pentagon. Though the private-equity and consulting businesses are distinct, they work together, share back-office staff for human resources and tech support, and have overlapping ownership, according to company documents. The private-equity arm describes itself as having a “strategic relationship” with the consulting side of A&M. The firm boosts its investment decision-making by working with the consulting firm’s thousands of employees around the globe to assess particular companies. And after the fund takes a stake in a company, it deploys the consulting arm’s employees to improve that firm’s operations and make the company more valuable. In other words, the fund’s success hinges on the consulting firm’s.

    Whether Kollitides violated government ethics rules hinges on details that he and the Pentagon have declined to provide. A Defense Department official told ProPublica that Kollitides “does not and has never had” any investments or financial relations with A&M consulting. The official said Kollitides is also “recused on any conflicted matters related to A&M Capital,” which could be referring to Defense Department decisions related to companies A&M Capital has a financial stake in. Ethics experts said that without a written waiver, executive branch officials are generally barred from participating in decisions, such as the awarding of a contract, that would have a direct impact on their financial interests. That law, the experts said, could apply even if the official doesn’t have a stake in a company but just draws a salary — the rationale being that they’ve improved the odds that the company will be able to continue paying them. The Pentagon official did not answer specific questions about whether Kollitides was being compensated by A&M Capital when the contracts were signed, if he played any role in the contract decision-making process or if he sought or received an exemption to do so.

    A “Blank Sheet of Paper” Contract

    A&M’s first contract with the Pentagon was signed in December, months after Kollitides joined the government. That $67.6 million deal was awarded to Alvarez & Marsal Federal through a Defense Department entity focused on efforts to strengthen the nation’s industrial base. The full scope of work that A&M provided is unclear. But documents reviewed by ProPublica show that by late last year, the firm had begun helping to vet possible loan deals for the Office of Strategic Capital, the lending unit then run in part by Kollitides. Like that first contract, the larger, $281 million deal that followed to advise Kollitides’ BOND office came in the form of what is called an OTA, or other transaction agreement, which allows agencies to bypass regular federal contracting rules on public disclosure and oversight. Congress first authorized the Defense Department to use the contracting method in the 1980s to fund breakthrough technologies without publicly disclosing much about the work. The Pentagon has increasingly turned to OTA contracts over the last decade to quickly fund a broader range of one-time costs, including prototype weapons and urgent production needs, even as government auditors have lamented OTAs as a “blank sheet of paper” arrangement with little oversight or accountability.

    Still, experts said an OTA contract for consulting work was extraordinary. That’s because consulting is one of the simplest services the military can buy, and it has a long history of doing so through competitive bidding. Firms often publish the hourly costs for their associates, managers, and other work before solicitations are posted. But like black-box OTA contracts for secret weapons systems, the funding mechanism has hidden from public view details of what taxpayers are getting for the money. The sheer size of the A&M contract stunned experts. At $281,089,206.65, the consulting contract is among the largest OTAs funded through the Defense Department’s main support division in the last decade, including for top-secret semiconductor projects and underwater drones, records show. The Pentagon has said little about the impact of BOND since Hegseth claimed in February that the new entity would revolutionize military purchasing. The defense secretary said that under the program, the military would embed former corporate executives, or, as he put it, “elite, private-sector patriots”

    ELITE PRIVATE-SECTOR PATRIOTS oh my fucking god admiral-biederman

    to help optimize and accelerate the manufacturing of critical munitions. Hegseth said he thought the exercise would help the Pentagon increase resiliency in supply chains. The “era of managed decline is over,” he said.

    the time of the managed crash right into a wall has come saruman-orb

    In private recruitment materials for those executives, as well as for candidates to fill posts in other Kollitides-run units, the stakes and the mission for BOND were described in even starker terms: Neoliberalism and trade deals have left the U.S. as a country that “can no longer manufacture ships, munitions or planes in a timely manner.” The recruiting materials cast the job of fixing that systemic problem as part-time work: “Recently retired Fortune 100 executives spend five days per month solving public- and private-sector operational challenges,” read pages viewed by ProPublica. Two people familiar with A&M’s work for BOND said the firm’s consultants have accompanied former executives on trips to review work at major defense contractors such as Lockheed, Boeing, RTX and BAE Systems. BAE acknowledged a visit by BOND representatives but declined to comment further. Lockheed, Boeing, RTX and other companies contacted by ProPublica did not respond to requests for comment. Contracting experts said that A&M is likely not guaranteed the full amount, and that contracts like these typically span several years, but records show A&M has already been paid about $31 million.

    cont'd in response, just a paragraph left

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 72 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    exhibit 326457 in "American military reindustrialization is a blatant corruption scheme" https://archive.ph/lQOig

    from this article I learned that the phrase "elite, private-sector patriots" is, apparently, a real string of words uttered by Pete Hegseth, who is not Felix from Chapo in disguise, somehow

    The Pentagon awarded $350M to a firm tied to a senior DOD official

    Experts expressed shock at a $281 million contract that was no-bid, enormous for consulting work, and set up as an OTA deal.

    more

    Among a cadre of Wall Street executives brought into the Pentagon during President Donald Trump’s second term, George K. Kollitides II has emerged as a powerbroker with a broad mandate to improve procurement of weapons and critical minerals. The longtime partner at the private equity firm Alvarez & Marsal Capital has framed his tour of duty in government as a service to the country. But the work he’s leading has also been a boon to his old friends in the private sector, government procurement records show. In April, months after Kollitides had started work at the Pentagon, he was listed on a securities filing as continuing to work for his old company as a senior adviser. Two months later, the Defense Department finalized a $281 million no-bid consulting contract with an affiliate firm, Alvarez & Marsal Federal, to advise Kollitides’ new Pentagon office, the records show. That contract, large for consulting work even by Defense Department standards, is the second in a pair of deals that since December have awarded almost $350 million in military spending to the firm — about five times more than Alvarez & Marsal entities had received from all U.S. agencies combined in the two decades before Trump returned to office, according to federal spending data. Both of those contracts have been for work connected to Pentagon offices where Kollitides is the head or has a senior role.

    The deals remain shrouded in secrecy, records show, because they were signed under an unusual contracting method the Defense Department uses to fund experimental weapons — work A&M has never claimed to do.

    lol. lmao. no you can't see my girlfriend she goes to another school is part of an experimental weapons development program

    They have begun to send unprecedented sums of taxpayer money to a company that boasts helping government agencies create a “customer-centric culture” and that is deeply intertwined with the private equity firm where Kollitides was a partner for almost 10 years. The two partner firms tag-team investment deals and share back-office support, company documents and federal filings show. Kollitides was still working with A&M Capital when the deals were signed. It’s unclear if he will benefit financially from the windfall of military spending on A&M consulting. His employment at the Pentagon is under a special classification that allows him to keep his financial disclosures confidential. Ethics experts said it’s generally illegal for executive branch officials to play a role in awarding contracts that would have a direct impact on their own finances, unless they were granted a waiver. “It looks way too cozy to be legitimate. I think taxpayers should be appalled,” said Virginia Canter, a former federal government ethics lawyer. “There are a million consulting firms in D.C. and New York. Why would you sole-source this contract? They’re not sending replacement parts for a ship that is sinking.”

    After ProPublica sent questions to the Pentagon, Kollitides and both A&M entities early this week, A&M Capital said Kollitides had just stopped working there days earlier. In a statement, A&M Capital said it is a “separately capitalized and separately managed firm from the Alvarez & Marsal consulting business” and its “management and employees have no involvement in the day-to-day operations of the consulting business, and vice versa.” The firm said that none of Kollitides’ work for it related to the “defense industry, the Department of War or Mr. Kollitides’ government service.” The Alvarez & Marsal consulting business did not answer any of ProPublica’s questions, including how it became aware of the possibility that it could seek the $281 million no-bid contract and what services it is providing to Kollitides’ Pentagon team. The Wall Street Journal on Thursday reported the existence of some of the Alvarez & Marsal contracting. “We are proud to serve clients across all industries, and all levels of government,” the company said in a statement. “The common denominator is always the same: we help solve difficult problems.”

    Kollitides did not respond to questions about whether he played a role in A&M securing contracts to work for his office, but a Pentagon spokesperson replied for the department and on Kollitides’ behalf saying they both followed all applicable rules. “The Department of War maintains a rigorous, multi-layered ethics framework that includes financial disclosure reviews, divestitures where appropriate, and screening to prevent conflicts of interest,” Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Jacob Bliss wrote in an email. Kollitides, he added, “is in full compliance with all ethical laws and regulations. Any claims otherwise are false.” There is widespread bipartisan agreement that the Pentagon’s procurement systems are in need of radical reform and private-sector know-how could help the country better secure supply lines and accelerate the development of new weapons to ensure the military is prepared to fight future wars. But current and former defense officials say the massive spending for connected consultants is a reflection of a changed Defense Department under Trump. They say a clubby and politicized culture has taken hold in a wing of the Pentagon controlled by Kollitides and other former Wall Street executives recruited by Steve Feinberg, the billionaire private-equity titan who is now the deputy defense secretary. It’s an operation, they say, that favors people and companies that have close ties to the administration. This year, ProPublica reported that the Office of Strategic Capital, a unit at the Pentagon that Kollitides helps lead, granted a small North Carolina startup linked to Donald Trump Jr. a $620 million loan after a top aide to the president intervened on the company’s behalf. A group of Democratic lawmakers accused the office of “a staggering level of corruption and influence peddling.”

    ProPublica also reported that the same Pentagon unit was considering a loan to Unusual Machines, a second company connected to the president’s son. A defense official told ProPublica recently that the unit is now in the late stages of a $220 million loan for the Florida drone parts maker, where Trump Jr. sits on the advisory board and was granted a stake. The Pentagon did not respond to a question about the advancing loan process for Unusual Machines and if Trump Jr.’s connections were playing a part. After the earlier loan to a Trump-connected company, the Pentagon said “no company receives preferential treatment” and “political connections play absolutely no role in the Department’s funding decisions.” Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson pushed back on criticism, saying the Defense Department is conducting extensive due diligence on potential lending. That Pentagon lending unit was launched during the Biden administration with an open application process for interested companies. Current and former officials and people who have interacted with the office say Kollitides and other leaders now rely more on their own personal networks to choose companies to fund — as well as the consultants to vet those deals.

    Multiple Pentagon Hats

    That reliance on personal networks is how Kollitides got to the Pentagon. Feinberg first hired Kollitides more than two decades ago. Then a rising private-equity star who had graduated from Columbia Business School, Kollitides moved up the ranks at Cerberus, Feinberg’s firm, taking the reins of its aerospace, defense and government groups. In 2012, Kollitides took on an especially sensitive and more public job for the private-equity giant. Kollitides was named chief executive of a Cerberus company combining Remington, the nation’s oldest gun maker, with more than a dozen other firearms and parts companies, eliminating hundreds of jobs from New York to Georgia to Montana. After three years with the Cerberus-owned gunmaker, Kollitides left and became a partner at Alvarez & Marsal Capital, an offshoot of A&M consulting, whose co-founder also had long-standing business ties to Feinberg. Some former business associates said they were not surprised that Kollitides jumped at the chance to rejoin Feinberg at the Pentagon. The two share a love for firearms and defense industry investments. They have also both described their work addressing the military’s most vexing supply chain issues as a patriotic calling.

    my patriotic calling is to funnel as much government money as possible into my personal coffers and into complete vaporware projects (I'm a patriot for China catgirl-smug)

    cont'd in response

  • source
  • [–] 78 points 2 days ago (13 children)

    https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/DropSiteNews/status/2109159362744791189

    🇸🇦🇾🇪 Ansar Allah's strikes are threatening Saudi Arabia's flagship investment summit, the Future Investment Initiative, known as "Davos in the desert," which opens in two weeks, the Financial Times reported. Scheduled speakers include BlackRock's Larry Fink, JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon and Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio. Organizers told participants Friday night that the summit would go ahead as planned, with "comprehensive security measures" at Riyadh's airports, venues and hotels. That was followed by Saturday’s attack on Riyadh's King Khalid International Airport, the third this week, which killed 12 people and wounded 309. "We have no idea what's going on," an executive at one firm scheduled to attend told the FT. "It's a very dicey situation." Italy's energy minister has pulled out of a ministerial energy meeting in Riyadh next week and will appear by video instead.

    critical support to Saudi Arabia in its efforts to gather a whole bunch of ghouls right within Ansarallah missile range

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 3 days ago* (3 children)

    Thanks for the note

    tracking agency called WindwardAI

    we really gotta have AI shoe-horned into everything I guess

    Windward is the leading Maritime AI™ company, delivering an all-source operational picture of the maritime domain. Windward fuses behavioral analytics and multi-sensor data into explainable, unclassified and shareable mission-grade intelligence.

    what the fuck does "mission-grade intelligence" even mean, fucking Felix bit ass company description admiral-biederman

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 56 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (12 children)

    edit: see Marmite's comment below, the tanker being marked as carrying oil seems to have been wrong

    https://x.com/ripplebrain/status/2108965319335387216 (privated account)

    There are two ways to read this chart:

    1. The Ukrainians finally managed, after multiple years of drone campaigns against Russian refineries, to take out the majority of Russia's refining capacity and force them to restrict exports
    2. The Russians saw this situation coming, restricted exports for a few months to build up a stockpile and drive diesel prices higher, and now they're going to sell off that stockpile at sky high prices, sanctions free

    The answer could also be somewhere in the middle of course. The signal that it's more likely to be the latter than the former, three weeks ago the Russian government extended its export restrictions to the end of October. Earlier today they abruptly cancelled the restrictions at the same moment Trump announced he was lifting sanctions. If they were actually constrained by domestic needs, this wouldn't make sense.


    The tanker currently in route to the US carrying Russian diesel left port on the 22nd of September. Its deadweight tonnage is 53,000t, so it's carrying around a sixth of the diesel Trump said Russia would be releasing immediately. In barrels it's approximately 375,000-400,000bbl. This plan has clearly been in the works for weeks, and yes, Russia does have diesel to export, despite the claims from various observers that this would be impossible.

    Interestingly Putin met with Pezeshkian in the interim so the Iranians certainly knew about it

    I suppose it might also be possible the tanker was header for another location and got diverted when the deal was announced, but I dunno, kind of a suspect situation with regards to the timing

    https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/Ajonai6/status/2108969948920070480

    Iranian fuel - Caspian Sea - Russia - USA - F-16s back to Iran. Typical fuel life cycle.

    tito-laugh

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

    more on this https://x.com/ripplebrain/status/2108564373505523725

    Ok more detailed summary statistics for the Lincoln's deployment have been published in the US media since yesterday, so let's do a breakdown comparing the Lincoln to the USS Saratoga in the Gulf War. First, some caveats. We don't know if the bombs dropped figure painted on the Lincoln is just gravity bombs, or if it includes air-launched cruise missiles too. We'll also need to compare the Saratoga's two F-18 squadrons to the Lincolns two F-18 squadrons plus its ten F-35s and its EA-18G Growlers, because we have much more detailed statistics for the Saratoga's F-18s than we do for its full air wing. What we see is that the Saratoga's F-18s heavily outperformed the entirety of the Lincoln's air wing by 100% in terms of ordnance delivered even though:

    • The Lincoln has almost 2x the strike aircraft in this comparison
    • The Lincoln's aircraft flew more combat sorties (these are supposedly ground strike sorties, not air defense sorties, so the comparison is valid)
    • The Lincoln has 2x the potential sortie rate
    • The Lincoln's strike aircraft can carry a heavier payload
    • The Lincoln had more days of combat operations

    The mitigating factors for the Lincoln are:

    • The share of precision guided munitions it dropped is probably much higher
    • Its aircraft had to sortie much further from their targets because of the danger of Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles

    Possible explanations for this:

    • Casualty aversion led CENTCOM to fly fewer missions over Iran
    • Logistics difficulties in keeping the Lincoln stocked with munitions
    • Difficulty in locating targets

    I've seen people defend the idea that the carriers deployed to the Arabian Sea during this war have a greater combat potential than the larger fleet of naval assets deployed during Desert Storm, and that should be true, but the statistics don't bear that out. This is total napkin math but just for comparison, Russia drops 9,000 glide bombs a month on Ukraine. Almost all of those sorties are flown by the Su-34, and the Russians operate ~150 of them. That's 2 bombs per airframe per day. Let's assume the Lincoln had 80 days of "combat operations" during the entire war (the real figure is probably much higher than this). That's 0.42 bombs per airframe per day. And the airspace over Ukraine is probably less permissive than the airspace over Iran. The Lincoln's air wing was heavily constrained by distance. Even if we assume all of the Lincoln's bombs were delivered within the initial 40 day phase of the Iran War, and its aircraft then sat around doing nothing for the rest of its deployment, the Russian Air Force is 2.4x more efficient, aircraft per aircraft

    https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/WithLabor/status/2108566695845806170

    6 and change hour average sortie time vs 3hr 45min on the Saratoga shows you how fucking scared and stood-off we were compared to Iraq1...75min transit time each way covers a lot of miles even in a dirty F/A-18 on the way there

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 54 points 4 days ago* (7 children)

    https://x.com/ripplebrain/status/2108400390098072015 (privated account), https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/mhmiranusa/status/2108385508170530830

    USS Abrham Lincoln kill marks during operation Epic Fury include

    • 103 drones (most of them likley Shahed-136)
    • 23 Anti Ship missiles
    • 10 submarines (mostly Ghadir class midjets)
    • 34 warships (likley include fast attack crafts)
    • and use of 1463 bombs (mostly Mark series).

    1,463 bombs is significantly lower than even I would have expected considering the length of the deployment. For comparison, the USS Saratoga's two F-18 squadrons dropped ~2,200 bombs during Desert Storm in just 43 days. The comparison is particularly bad for the Lincoln because modern carriers can achieve nearly double the sortie rate and the Lincoln has a full extra squadron of ground attack aircraft and those aircraft can carry a much heavier payload.

    Just so I'm not misunderstood, what I'm saying here is that this war, even in its earlier phases, is not as high intensity as it's been portrayed. Whether its casualty aversion, munition shortages, or politics, the fury isn't epic. There have been far more than 43 days of "high intensity" combat operations for the Lincoln during this war. It should have been able to triple or even quadruple the number of strikes the Saratoga achieved. Instead it only dropped 66% of the bombs the Saratoga did over a much longer timespan.

    Could the ratio of standoff weapons used vs glide bombs used account for the Iraq vs Iran disparity?

    These are likely standoff munitions too (glide bombs). It would be a little weird to tally up bombs dropped but not include ALCMs in the number. Hard to say. I've been working on a piece that will try to prove this though, and all the data I've gathered so far suggests the US military has severely underperformed in strike rate.

    for comparison, Russia, a country which has far less resources to invest in its airforce: https://x.com/ripplebrain/status/2108389914018472055

    Cockpit footage from a Su-34 delivering four #FABs UMPB D-30SN guided aerial bombs being dropped.

    According to the Ukrainians, the Russians are dropping 9000 of these on Ukraine a month, or around 300 a day. The Russian Air Force has set a new record in glide bomb strikes every month for the past four months in a row.

  • source
  • dinner with anthropic (thelemmy.club)
     

    https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/pardus_prime/status/2106047765469933716

    NEW: According to a bombshell report in the New York Times, Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah threatened to walk out of Pope Leo XIV’s AI encyclical launch in May because the pope rejected the idea that machines can be conscious. Olah’s team then privately lobbied the pope’s advisers “to take the possibility of model consciousness seriously.” Pope Leo XIV held firm. For months, Anthropic has wined and dined theologians and religious scholars under nondisclosure agreements, hoping they would bless the idea that Claude has moral standing.

    I would give almost anything to have been in the room to watch the guy whose job it was to convince a Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas graduate that his boss has successfully matched God and created a soul.

    "Grazie for the dinner Msr. Olah. We shall carry your words to his Holiness." (writes HERETIC in all caps on Vatican stationary, seals it in an ivory white envelope, hands it off to the nearest assistant)

    view more: next ›