Politics and inter-service rivalry.

Cost was one reason.  The F-14 was once the most expensive fighter in existence, and a single Phoenix cost a million a pop.  The USAF did evaluate the F-14 as an interceptor replacement for the F-106, which it would've excelled at.  Daniel "Chappie" James lobbied for the Tomcat.  However, this was during the Carter administration (cut the military to the bone, then work on the marrow), and the F-14 was simply too much to get, so the 'Six labored on for another 15 years--and did it well, mind.

 

The other reason, I think, was because the Tomcat was made by the Navy for the Navy.  The USAF didn't want any part of it.  Remember that the last multiservice fighter project had been the F-111, which had been a dismal failure for the Navy and nearly so for the USAF.  The USAF wasn't going to get burned again.  Aside from the Phoenix, there really wasn't much more the Tomcat could do that the F-15 couldn't, and if the USAF started buying F-14s, Congress might ask uncomfortable questions like "Why do you need the F-15, then?"

 

My question is, why not adapt the F-15 to carry the Phoenix?

 

The key word is maintainability.

F-14 is not really a very good design in this regard.

Why nobody designs sweep-wings anymore, uh?

Whilst I'll agree that the F-15 was more manoeuverable than the Tomcat, the F-14 was surprisingly agile. It also had a second pair of eyes, which are quite handy in a dogfight.

 

WVR combat would be secondary to BVR, though, and in BVR the Tomcat was far superior to the Eagle.

Sorry, I misread "maintainability" as "manoeuverability". My bad!

The first limitator in any conflict is the ROE.

Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia are examples.

Liberate the ROE, and you get the best of men and platforms.

 

Now, flight-hour cost of the Tomcat, and work hours are (were) tremendous.

I think the SH is what, one tenth of that? And the Eagle might be 20%?

 

Don't think the Bomcat was such a good platform, IMHO.

Operating costs or not, I don't think the USAF decision to completely overlook the F-14 was at all a smart move. If the Cold War had gone hot, the F-14 would have been a much better fighter than the F-15, especially in crowded skies. The Tomcat, unlike the Eagle, could take on many times its own number of Soviet fighters and still come out on top.

 

That's not at all what I was referring to.

 

An F-15 may have been superior to any Soviet fighter it would have encountered over the battlefield, but it's SARH limitations would have ensured that it would have been shot down in significant numbers in any actual Central European conflict. Much of the fighting would have been at WVR due to ECM, terrain considerations, and the inability of targeting multiple hostiles at BVR.

 

All this would have been dramatically different with the Tomcat, which could destroy enemy fighters at much greater distances than the Eagle. Furthermore, it was more or less the only Western fighter that could engage multiple targets simultaneously at BVR before AMRAAM (with the Soviets having the MiG-31).

 

The Tomcat's WVR battle would have been against much fewer opponents, who would very probably be on the defensive anyway. I still think the Tomcat was a far superior fighter, and one that should have been adopted by the USAF.

From the start they each were designed for different missions and with different traditions and doctrines.

 

The F-14 was designed for Fleet Defence against massed Soviet cruise missile attacks.  It was designed around the AIM-54 Phoenix missile.  Also from the start it was envisioend that there would be a Naval Flight Officer who would work radar and systems and the nose gunner would fly and fire the missiles.  It also had to be built like a tank to handle the stresses of operating from a carrier....trhere is a very good reason that the Navy's nickname for Grumman was The Bethpage Iron Works!

 

The F-15 was itnended as an air superiority fighter/interceptor.  While there was some need fror homeland defence it was intended to fly, fight and win over Western Europe as part of a NATO/Warsaw Pact fight.  It had to be effective in the interceptor role to protect the UK and and Western Europe as well as have the capacity to dogfight well to handle whatever came along.  It was also designed for quick and easy maintenance since it was expected to have a higher level of optempo than the F-14.  And it did nto need to be as robust as the F-14....though it is not a frail aircraft by any stretch.