You failed to mention that the F-14 reused the F-111 engines. Not having to work through parallel development of a new engine and aircraft was a huge leg up for Grumman. And you can’t dismiss that having a engineering team coming right off the F-111 B onto the F-14 was not a big help. Not dismissing the Grumman engineers busted their butts and did a good job. But this aircraft’s two years period between contract award and first flight should not be viewed as a yardstick for other programs.
Also realize that FARA will also be doing a parallel development for both the aircraft and a new GE engine. Never a good plan for new aircraft development.
I agree that the attention span of our government and its unwillingness to commit to properly funding an aircraft development program is problematic. It has been the primary cause of new aircraft program delays and cost overruns. Although our government’s elected officials prefer to blame contractors for their own failures.
Starting at MCAIR in St Louis four decades ago, I was lucky to have learned what it takes to build an aircraft from a clean sheet from the best in the business. I also learned that unnecessary compressed schedules result in bad engineering compromises.
Ah, but it wasn't that I failed to mention the execrable TF30 engines. The Navy's VFX (which became the F-14), like the Air Force's FX (which became the F-15) was directed to be designed around the in development IEDP (Initial Engine Development Program) engine, which would be furnished as GFE. This became the F100-PW-100 for USAF and the higher thrust, lower (dry) fuel burn but a bit "draggier" F401-PW-400 for USN. Because the USN needed their fighter sooner and everything else could be developed faster than the engines, the decision was made to build the first 69 (and maybe just the first 13) with the TF30 as the F-14A, as much of the flight testing could be accomplished with the lower thrust TF30s and operational F-14s (including some re-engined F-14As) would have the F401 and be the (original) F-14B. For a number of reasons, including some hinky actions by the Air Force, the F401 was canceled and the F-14A, plagued by the TF30, became the main production version. It was sort of like putting the EMD F-15 into production rather than fully developing it into the superb aircraft it became.
The point is that every bidder had the option to design their aircraft to have the versatility to use the TF30 as an interim engine during development pending arrival of the IDEP.
Regarding your point about FARA. There is apparently no off-the-shelf engine that will meet the Army's needs, there not having been a lot of work in this arena absent a program that could use it. No contractor is willing anymore to spend gangs and gangs solely of their own money to develop something like this without a guaranteed market. So in 2006 Army set up the Advanced Affordable Turbine (AATE) program which in 2009 morphed into the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) to replace the T700 in a number of applications (it may also be used on the AH-64), telling all FARA respondents they had to design their craft to be powered by a single ITEP engine. That competition was eventually won in February 2019 by GE with their T901 which had been running since at least 2017, so the engine is further along than the IDEP was during the VFX/FX days. We'll see.