If we follow that logic, then it’ no coincidence that Buran is nearly identical to the Space Shuttle.
It certainly is not. The Buran was nearly identical to the Space Shuttle orbiter, externally. The airframe and its aerodynamic properties were pretty much the same, it was a case of “why reinvent the wheel”, they wanted a system with Shuttle-esque capabilities. Not that the Soviets had not designed shuttle-esque vehicles before on their own, because they had, but they decided to play it safe when it came to “countering” the STS (they were deeply paranoid about its abilities…)
But apart from the aerodynamic features of the orbiter, the rest of the Buran system was way different from the STS, in that:
The lifting system, Energiya, was designed as a standalone super heavy rocket from scratch, capable of flying on its own with all kinds of different payloads piggbacking on it. In fact, its first flight was with an 80-ton space laser (which later failed to enter its designated orbit due to a fault in its own systems, while Energiya performed nominally and delivered it as intended).
The Buran was merely one of many such potential payloads, and as such the Buran lacked big honking engines of its own plumbed to an EFT as on the STS. Buran was stand-alone.
The Buran was designed from the ground-up to fly automatically, under computer control, so as to be able to function as an autonomous in-orbit rescue-and-retrieval vehicle among other things. On its first (and only) spaceflight, it flew under computer control, successfully.
The Buran’s safety systems were far superior to the limited options offered by the Space Shuttle orbiter, partly thanks to its non-dependence on the launch vehicle assembly. Also, it had a far more thought-out crew escape provisions for ejections at lower altitudes.
All these capabilities were engineered into the system because the Soviets were so freaking paranoid about the STS and they pretty much thought it could do all of it. Turns out they overcompensated, so to speak.
The space buff Scott Manley called Buran a “Space Shuttle v2.0” which I find rather suitable a description. Apart from the sounder overall design choices, mind you, the lifting technologies developed for the STS were retrospectively repurposed to finally become a US “Energiya” of sorts, in the contemporary Space Launch System.
…But, I fail to see how this relates to F-14 and MiG-31. The only similarity between the two is that they were both tailored to carry big long-range AAMs (AIM-54 vs. R-33).
The MiG-31 shares its basic airframe with the earlier interceptor/reconnaissance aircraft MiG-25, and the role it was assigned was previously assigned to the Foxbat (P/PD versions) and the Tu-128. I.e. patrolling and defending the vast swathes of airspace over the USSR, especially over the many remote areas.
The Tomcat, not so much. Clean sheet design, swing-wing, carrier optimized, far more versatile than the MiG-31, the most similar predecessor being the naval F-4, but still not quite.
Sign In
