Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation spoke about the possible reconversion of American B-52 strategic bombers

Russia should be prepared for any scenario, including undesirable ones. In particular, we may be talking about a significant increase in the US nuclear potential.

This statement was made to journalists by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergei Ryabkov.

We must prepare for all sorts of scenarios, including undesirable scenarios in terms of a possible significant increase in the Americans' nuclear potential

- said the diplomat.

He noted that Moscow is already doing this. After all, the entire logic of Washington’s steps suggested that events would develop according to this scenario.

The Deputy Head of the Russian Foreign Ministry spoke about the possible reconversion of American B-52 heavy strategic bombers. The US administration is already discussing connecting civilian production facilities to the production of these aircraft. True, no specific decisions on this issue have yet been developed in Washington. This gives Moscow time to take countermeasures. Ryabkov said that the chosen response option should not be too costly.

The diplomat noted that a significant increase in Washington's nuclear potential is quite likely. Therefore, the Russian leadership will consider effective options for responding to this potential threat. According to him, now there are no limiting factors that can influence US decisions regarding its strategic nuclear weapons and their means of delivery.

Comments

[Msi]

Ryabkov said that the chosen response option should not be too costly.

That's right. We must answer asymmetrically...

[dauria]

We must answer asymmetrically...

Why answer here? Do not allow yourself to be drawn into a butting between China and the United States by either side. Only these two countries have real opportunities to harm Russia. And another question is who is more dangerous. The rest don't count. They can lick, they can bark - it's the potential that matters, not the intentions.

[Luminman]

Quote: dauria

Do not allow yourself to be drawn into a butting between China and the United States by either side

Well, this can be good and speculate...

[dauria]

So the Americans are not “collective farm suckers.” Their principle of “equality on the mainland” has been established since the time of the England-Germany-France triangle. Remember, they will still help Russia if they see that we are really losing to China. Yes, we won’t make it. Only geopolitics is always longer than human life. Our newly-minted oligarchs, “princes from the dirt,” are not trained in this.

[Starover_Z]

Quote from Msi

Ryabkov said that the chosen response option should not be too costly.

That's right. We must answer asymmetrically...

Unless you can wrest Alaska from the United States and install your strike weapons there. In other cases, even countries that are friendly to us will not agree to host our bases. But of course, the option I proposed is too fantastic to be implemented. Is there another option for converting tanker-type vessels into missile carriers?

[bayard]

Quote: Starover_Z

Unless you can wrest Alaska from the United States and install your strike weapons there.

This is, of course, easier than agreeing on the location of your bases in a friendly country. Moreover, this country has the strongest and most modern army in Latin America, recently fought off coup attempts and intervention from the United States, from which the United States seized all accounts and assets, which itself is under their sanctions and is on friendly terms against the United States with the Russian Federation, Iran, China and North Korea. . . Of course, it’s easier to capture Alaska.

Quote: Starover_Z

Is there another option for converting tanker-type vessels into missile carriers?

And what to do with them? What kind of missiles will they “carry”? And who will protect them when they try to go out to the open sea?
The response to the US building up its nuclear potential may be the usual build-up of its own strategic nuclear forces. The same ICBM soil complexes. Their production has been established, there are no particular problems with their deployment, the START Treaty is in the firebox, it is already ending and no one will extend it under the current conditions. Economically, the production and deployment of ICBMs is the most profitable and less expensive way. The cost of an ICBM in Soviet times was no more expensive than a fighter, and I think it’s no more expensive now.
If the United States is really thinking about restarting the production of the B-52, then for them this is really the most accessible way - it doesn’t work with the new ICBM, it doesn’t fit into the deadlines, much less the budget. New SSBNs will not be available soon and will replace the ancient and dilapidated Ohio. . But the simple B-52 is at Boeing’s modern civilian factories - even tomorrow. Not the best solution and not a good life, but for them it is really optimal.
But we cannot build bombers for ourselves - 2-3 Tu-160M ​​per year, this is not the pace. So for us only ICBMs.
And RSD for Europe and continental USA.

[Egeny]

...asymmetrical... is it like, in arithmetic or geometric progression?

[Reptiloid]

Zhenya, word asymmetrical has been frustrating me lately Somehow I don’t see any unexpected reactions on our part, and at the same time very painful for our opponents. I wonder how staff members will be taken from the ISS? will we see anything asymmetrical?

[Egeny]

That's just the point, just chatter.

[SovAr238A]

So.
According to mathematics and logic, asymmetry does not exist.
It exists only in sophistry; it is a falsity veiled as a logical judgment.
The main example, the runner, will never be able to catch up with the turtle.

[Egeny]

...with established rules - never, which means you need to change the conditions of the game.

[Egeny]

...hello, by parachute or Falcon will pick you up.

[Polite Moose]

Quote from Msi

We need to answer asymmetrically...

Sell ​​them even more enriched uranium. To completely lose all symmetry. And at the same time logic.

[your1970]

Sell ​​them even more enriched uranium. To completely lose all symmetry. And at the same time logic.

The United States has already imposed sanctions for six months - a ban on the purchase of Russian uranium for the United States.

[Egeny]

...sanctions were “imposed”, but for uranium there is a small exception.)

[The popuas]

How is that!?.. Sell them more uranium...

[Victor Leningradets]

Very interesting!
And where are all these B-21s and other PAK YES in this case? Have you played bait and hello!?
So you see, we will finally start producing the Tu-160MN.

[Egeny]

So the “swans” need to be riveted a long time ago, so the Chubais-humped “perestroika” came back to haunt us.

[Victor Leningradets]

It's time and time again. And the reincarnation of the Tu-95 will be released as an anti-submarine weapon.
Here's the thing: the B-52 from my youth is coming back again!
Even then we joked that this was the bomb carrier of all times.

[Egeny]

So the Yankees are thinking of using this “bomb carrier” for its intended purpose... one way.

[Victor Leningradets]

No, this beast drank a lot of blood. Linebacker-1 and Linebacker-2 are their work. And they did quite well with survivability back then. And when they were re-equipped with the AGM-69, they were watched more closely than ever. Up to 20 warheads (8 is the norm). They also had an Achilles heel - refueling over the ocean. This is where you could take them!

[Egeny]

When they are transferred to Ramstein, then we will scratch our heels.

[SovAr238A]

And how and over what ocean could they be taken?
If you understand that we had no aviation over any ocean...
Why are you spouting such stupid nonsense...

[Victor Leningradets]

If you don't understand, don't write like that. And aviation had nothing to do with it.
At the refueling point, the planes dangle tied up at low speed for 30 - 40 minutes. So, with sufficient information and the right reaction, taking this area into a triangle is not difficult. Exchange - 3 warheads for 8 - 20.
You also have to understand that you haven’t heard of the fighter strategist program.

[voyaka uh]

The B-21 is approved for production.
Only one has been built so far. And this is no longer a prototype, but a working machine.
A total of 100 pieces are planned.

The NGAD fighter has not been approved for production.
There is one flying prototype and that’s it.

[UAT]

Enlighten the illiterate. What kind of beast is this “B-52 reconversion”?

[Egeny]

...and according to the Kyiv version, they will attach nuclear charges and launch them in one direction like a UAV....
And they will lift tons on board...

[UAT]

Let’s say they lift tens of tons, but I’m asking seriously what the B-52 has to do with reconversion, i.e. transfer of military industry, earlier which produced peaceful products, to be released again for peaceful purposes? It turns out that Ryabkov is already a high-ranking diplomat, an illiterate babble, cleaner than our journalists?

[Egeny]

...I don’t think Ryabkov betrayed such stupidity.
You understand that conversion is the transfer of military production to peaceful production, reconversion, presumably, on the contrary, although this is the first time I have seen this term in print. Something is wrong with the author of the article

[UAT]

Quote from Ryabkov's statement

I would like to remind you that at one time, even before we suspended the New START Treaty, we raised the topic of reconverting heavy bombers of the US Air Force....

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/971354
So the author of the article probably has nothing to do with it. Let me note that conversion is the transfer of civilian industry to military lines. Reconversion is the opposite, but as far as I understand, it is precisely the military industry that was converted in the recent past.
Therefore, most likely, my question is to Ryabkov, or to Interfax, a quote from whose message I cited above.
Thank you for your desire to answer.

[Victor Leningradets]

It’s simpler, they have a couple of hundred aircraft in the desert. They left the frame on this basis - everything anew, but at a modern level (they had modifications subsequent to H in the plan). Engines, avionics, weapons.
With modern engines it will fly to Japan without refueling.
In general, it’s a matter of war. They are the ones who print out the mobile resource.

[UAT]

Respected Victor Leningradets, and what does the “restoration” or production of B-52 bombers from scratch have to do with reconversion?

[Victor Leningradets]

The most direct. Everyone capable of implementation will be involved in the implementation of the program to reduce the time frame. Mobilization of the economy by industry.
Only this is not a concert in our honor, but for a big war with China. Although, the edge may catch us too.

[UAT]

Read what reconversion is, and then write about the “most direct” thing. Show at least minimal respect for yourself, your loved one, before flopping into a puddle so sweepingly.

[Egeny]

Dear, you persistently repeat the opposite... and turn it on its head.
Type “production conversion” into a search engine and they will tell you that instead of machine guns they began to produce pots and pans, like in the 90s.
Reconversion is the return of production capacities to military levels. Thank you for your attention.

[UAT]

Dear Egeny, you should understand the discussion a little, and then express your categorical point of view. Well, let’s brush up on the basic rules of politeness.

[Egeny]

Dear, are you the patient from ward No. 6?

[UAT]

No. (The text will be short)

[Egeny]

...was it really released?)

[bayard]

Quote: UAT

Let me note that conversion is the transfer of civilian industry to military lines. Reconversion is the opposite,

A fundamental revolution of meaning.
Conversion is the transfer of MILITARY production to civilian production or the use of military equipment after conversion for civilian purposes.
Reconversion, accordingly, is the opposite - the return to service of military equipment from a demilitarized state.
Here we can talk about both removing the B-52s standing at storage bases from storage and returning them to service, and (possibly) restarting their production at Boeing’s civilian facilities. In any case, the word "reconversion" is understood as the return to service of the B-52.

[UAT]

Respected bayard, I am not operating with my own conjectures, but with information provided by Yandex search. In particular:
"Reconversion - Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
dic.academic.ru›Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Reconversion - (from Re... and lat. conversio - conversion, return) transfer of the country's economy after the end of the war to the production of civilian products. R. involves the implementation of structural changes in the field of production..."
So you should be careful about the fundamental revolution of meanings.
I understand that the term could have acquired other meanings since the time of TSB. But he (term) COULD NOT turn over.

[bayard]

Alexey, I know too well the meaning of the word “conversion”; during the years of Perestroika it became very popular and meant the transfer of a military enterprise to civilian orders, or the demilitarization of military equipment for use in the civilian sphere. Even some companies were called that way - “Ros-Conversion”, Ukr-Conversion”.
And the Latin “revolt” means “revolution”, respectively “re” - “re”\”on the contrary”.
Moreover, both in the meaning of what has been said and in the nature of the intentions of US officials, we are talking specifically about the restart of B-52 production at Boeing factories. At Boeing's civilian factories, where passenger and transport airliners are now being built.
Those. the semantic meaning of the term “reconversion” is the return to service of certain military equipment that has been demilitarized/removed from storage/weapons or is being restarted into production.
But if I were Ryabkov, I wouldn’t break up my words with foreign language, so that people wouldn’t get confused. After all, it sounds much simpler and clearer - “restart/resume production of the B-52,” or “return to service of the B-52 from storage bases.”
So “revolt” is “reverse”, “on the contrary”.
Therefore, the French (Latin) word “Revolution”, when translated into normal Russian, simply means COUP. And this banal foreign word was used by the Bolsheviks more for charm and “revolutionary romance”.
And all because it’s foreign.
Here is another example, a word that scares some, inspires others - Communism. Also a French word.
A commune is a community (that’s why we have communal farming in our cities)
Communism is a COMMUNITY system/way of life. Russian villages and Cossack villages lived in this way... It turns out that communism existed in the Republic of Ingushetia even before the October Coup/Revolution... and Stolypin really did not like these communities.

[UAT]

Respected bayard, you explained your point of view quite clearly. I completely agree with you regarding the remark about the inappropriateness of Ryabkov’s use of a very uncommon term. But you completely ignored the definition of TSB, and this, in my opinion, is a credible source, unlike the journalists and party nomenklatura of the perestroika era.

[bayard]

Quote: UAT

But you completely ignored the definition of TSB

You just didn't understand him. “conversion” (Latin) is really “reversal”, and “re, revolt” is “re”, “on the contrary”, “revolution”. So in the end we get - “RECONVERSION”.
And if, in relation to previously civilian enterprises that, after mobilization, were transferred to the production of military products, and after the war returning to the production of the previous product range, the term “reconversion” is fair (as indicated in the TSB), then in the same way this term is true in relation to factories Boeing, which previously produced military products (bombers in huge volumes), then were “CONVERSED” to produce civilian airliners, and are now going to be loaded with military orders again (restart of production), then it is for these Boeing plants that a return to the production of bombers will be a “RECONVERSION” ". The TSB gave an example of the reconversion of formerly civilian enterprises after the war, and in this case, preparations are being made for the reconversion of formerly military factories to their original status.
Ryabkov is a diplomat with excellent knowledge of languages, political and economic history and similar terms. But the public, unfortunately, gets confused in such terms. Because it is foreign.

[UAT]

Actually, I’m referring not just to Yandex search, but specifically to TSB.

[DenVB]

Quote: UAT

What kind of beast is this “B-52 reconversion”?

My understanding.

The START treaty included the following concepts: “heavy bomber equipped for nuclear weapons” and “heavy bomber equipped for non-nuclear weapons.” The number of first category bombers was limited by the treaty. The "extra" "nuclear bombers" had to be either destroyed or converted.

Accordingly, conversion is when a bomber from the first category is converted to the second, and reconversion is the reverse process.

[UAT]

Thank you, dear DenVB. You are the first to offer a version of the answer to my question. I, however, have doubts about its fairness because Yandex search gives on the 1st page only options for transferring industry to a military footing and back, and something medical.

[UAT]

Thank you again, dear DenVB. After some thought and discussion with the hon. bayard, my doubts about the validity of your version have practically disappeared.

[Ezekiel 25-17]

Russia has about 4500 nukes in storage; transfer them to media and that's the end of it.

[Egeny]

Well, well... we promoted the SVO in a year and a half with great difficulty, but here...
these are the Amers’ settling tanks in the desert...

[Ezekiel 25-17]

We don’t need it: you have nothing to do with Russia.

[Egeny]

...well, yes, especially YOU, according to the comments, you’re definitely not ours...)

[Vlad-43]

Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation spoke about the possible reconversion of American B-52 strategic bombers

Or maybe the reactivation of the B-52

[HAM]

It has already become clear to everyone that the Yankees again want to pull off their old trick - to drag Russia like the USSR into an arms race and ruin it...... they have already pulled it off once. Ryabkov correctly noted - it is necessary to answer, but not as expensive as you want enemy...I wouldn’t be surprised if the “Star Wars 2.0” project is taken out again....
and why the bullet flew past the head, the Yankees definitely wouldn’t have time for the arms race... but it’s not evening yet......

[Egeny]

...but with what zeal our Ministry of Defense officials cut up missiles and bankrupted enterprises...

[Reptiloid]

Yes, whoever could reach where, tried! they sold the machines for scrap, saying that they were outdated.... the West will adjust the computers! And, as they wrote, these machines still serve usefully in some countries

[Electrical]

Discussions are already underway about connecting civilian production facilities to the production of these aircraft.

Why civilians? What about Boeing? Or is he already... Lost his competence.

[bayard]

Quote: Electrical

Why civilians? What about Boeing? Or is he already... Lost his competence.

This is how they are assembled at Boeing's civilian factories. The B-52 is no more complex than a modern civil aircraft, the airframe is only stronger, and the hardware is different. They need it as an inexpensive carrier of the missile launcher, because you can go broke on the production of the B-21, and you won’t be able to build much. But at Boeing’s civilian factories you can produce at least 50, at least 100 of them per year.
They have a problem with the new ICBM - they don’t meet the deadlines, the cost of the project is constantly growing, and it was time to write off the Minutemen the day before yesterday.
The good old Cold War is back.

[Pavel57]

What are we talking about - getting old B-52s out of storage in Arizona?

[the same doctor]

The more we talk about low-cost responses, the more we will have to spend in the end.
.
A simple example. In 2022, a complete blockade of trade with the West would cost us no more than $10 billion a week. Freezing Europe would have surrendered in a week or two. We would return all losses due to rising prices, renegotiate all contracts on favorable terms, cancel the third energy package and sanctions, and return the Central Bank's reserves. But the conditional Millers and Sechins blocked our victory in the economic war and we have already spent more than 200 billion on the war alone, not counting other losses.

Have you compared? 10 were greedy, lost more than 600! And how many more will they lose? I estimate the wages of fighting soldiers alone to be $15 billion a year.
.
So it is today. Either we demonstrate a relatively cheap readiness to build up nuclear and non-nuclear weapons capabilities, block uranium supplies to the West, or we will have to spend a couple of trillions (or more) later to achieve nuclear parity again.
To avoid a big war, we must invest in weapons production. Do not push the current military-industrial complex by waving wads of dollars in front of thieving directors, but invest in programming, machines and personnel. It is already absolutely clear what kind of weapon needs to be made (clear to everyone except the MO, which stubbornly plays with radio-controlled cars) to win. We need a capacity for 300 six-inch shells (or hail and sun rockets) per day. We need military drones (and they will be cheaper than current models), and not the current civilian squalor. We need means of observation and communication... And much more, but this is already clear to everyone.
Only our convincing victory in Ukraine can prevent war. Otherwise, it will be like after the Finnish one. The semi-victory in Finland encouraged Hitler to attack the USSR...

[Alien From]

What can I talk about if I’ve been at the helm for 30 years and I still have my sights set on it. It’s just that the West is absolutely happy with this, and the lochtorat are only happy to be deceived. Ugh, I'm tired of this circus. Electronic voting is especially fun. What kind of person do you have to be to watch the same show for 24 years???

[Normann]

What difference does it make, it’s all the same, both they and us will be destroyed.

[rocket757]

There are currently no deterrents that can influence US decisions regarding its strategic nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.

. As long as the minke whales can use their green candy wrappers to buy the necessary resources, nothing will really hold them back.

[SovAr238A]

What the hell is the production of an 80 year old aircraft?
What are these newsmen talking about?
It is impossible to repeat the production of an 80-year-old aircraft now, even with all the drawings available.
The technical process of those years is lost, the materials science is different.
Nobody knows anything about the technology of those times...

[SovAr238A]

Quote: UAT

Let’s say they lift tens of tons, but I’m asking seriously what the B-52 has to do with reconversion, i.e. transfer of military industry, earlier which produced peaceful products, to be released again for peaceful purposes? It turns out that Ryabkov is already a high-ranking diplomat, an illiterate babble, cleaner than our journalists?

Reconversion is apparently a buzzword used to describe the re-engining of military aircraft with civilian engines that are 20-30 percent more fuel efficient and three times more reliable.

[Electrical]

Reconversion is apparently a buzzword that is used to describe the remotorization of military aircraft.

What Ryabkov means by this newfangled foreign word, only God knows. Because he himself can hardly explain this clearly. Maybe this is when previously, overproduction was converted into stocks in Nevada of still repairable samples, and now they want to contract some private traders to remove these stocks from mothballing and convert them back into combat samples. Well, maybe, indeed, we are talking about the transfer of some private civilian enterprises to the production of purely military products in the form of B52. Moreover, if previously the conversion was in the form, there will be no more military orders, think for yourself how to survive and what to produce. Now it will happen, we don’t care what you did before, now you will make a military order, and if you don’t agree, we will imprison you for disrupting this very military order.