I've not been in a flying fighter jet, but I helped design some of them, as well as engines for them.
In the original Top Gun, we know that Maverick gets into jet wash and stalls an engine. The early F14s had Pratt and Whitney engines and they were known to have compressor stall issues. There are even a few YouTube videos showing pilots losing engines while trying to land on carriers in the dark. Anyway, I worked for GE who made the engines for the later F14s as well as retrofits, and while GE isn't the leader in military engines, their reputation is built around bulletproof reliability. GE patented a system that controls the tiny guide vanes between the compressor stages, aptly called Variable Guide Vanes. For decades they were the only one doing that, and Pratt and Rolls and the others were always at max/fixed area and had to open and passages to bleed off excess compressed air. So basically they were always trying to suck in as much as they could with no regard to ambient conditions, and hence rapid changes in pressure like flying through jet wash would cause them to stall, whereas the GE engine would quickly adjust the guide vanes and stay lit.
I haven't seen the F14 up close, but after GE I worked at Northrop who makes most of the F-18 (also made the F14, and made the carriers used original Top Gun.) Technically it's a Boeing plane, but Northrop makes everything from the end of the cockpit back then sends it to Boeing to stick the nose on and sell it. So I would take brakes from work, literally walk across the hall, and down the production line of F-18s. They hang from a device that lets them roll, so at various stages of completion they're either right side up, or upside down, allowing access to whatever is needed. It's just so cool to see them up close. They're tiny! It's basically an envelope just big enough for engines, pilot, and fuel, with armament stuffed on the outside and whatever little space was left over inside.
I love aerospace and used to say it was the epitome of engineering, but interestingly the automotive industry has better tolerance and manufacturing control. I was working on the team that made 3d metal printing a reality (certified and now flying on the 737 Max), and helped design the combustor of the 787, both of which are ~18% more efficient than the predecessors. To get better control of fuel and air we started working more with automotive suppliers who were used to holding 10x tighter tolerances.
Those fighter engines are burning 14,300 lbs of fuel per hour, per engine, at max power but before afterburn ("Augmentation is the technical term for afterburn.) So that's like 2300 gallons per hour. Augmentation adds about another 75%.
IT takes a long time to design and certify an airplane. The first project where I had real ownership was the engine for the Bombardier Global 7000/8000. This was back in 2010-2012. I just got a text last week that they hit supersonic speed during some flight tests, and I guess they're calling it the fastest business jet in the world. I designed the fuel nozzles, fuel/air mixers, and helped design the combustor, and owned the integration of the 4 major sections of the engine: compressor, combustor, turbine, and externals (fuel, etc.) basically making sure it worked well at 51,000 ft and also could withstand things like throttle chops and engine relights during takeoff. I think the design goal was 51,000 ft and mach 0.93. For a business/commercial plane that's very high, and very fast.
Actually that engine is a beast! During the first few weeks of testing something happened that caused a change in internal temperatures, but it kept running and we were on a tight schedule so we just went with it. It turns out it liberated a 5th stage compressor blade (about half way down the compressor) and spit it out the back end, taking out downstream compressor and turbine blades on its way out. It just wanted to keep going. Now I hear they're looking at making it run on hydrogen. It kind of makes me want to go back, but Hawaii is a little nicer place to live than Cincinnati.