The introductory chapter to the Right Stuff (Tom Wolfe) describes this well. The sheer cost of lives among test pilots in the 40s and 50s is shocking by today's standards, but this was a generation that went through Normandy and Bataan.
That said, that doesn't explain why the aircraft of WW2 and the early Cold War took just a few years to go from drawing board to combat, in the days before advanced computer modelling, yet it took 20 years to build the Eurofighter. I suspect the lack of accountability of military contractors coupled with government collusion (jobs programs over national security) has more than a bit to do with it.
I am a fighter jet fanatic, but let's be honest: What the hell is a Eurofighter, Raptor, or Lightening going to do that can't also be done by an Eagle, Falcon or Hornet to more or less the same degree?
Let's be clear: The US and NATO established air dominance over the skies in Gulf War I in days, the Balkans in hours, and Afghanistan and Iraq in minutes with aircraft designed in the 70's. There is really no credible threat to western air forces that makes a new generation of fighter jet a priority.
Or at least, there wasn't. Now that Russia and possibly China are building realistic opponents that will challenge the dominance of F-15s/F-16s and F-18s, there is pressure to upgrade.
wow, Russia and China have started building realistic opponents for F-15s/F-16s and F-18s just now? I'm not sure whether I should laugh, cry, or tear my eyes out...
To be fair, the Russians did have that massive collapse of society to deal with a few years back. It slowed them down a little.
The Chinese still aren't big players in this space, and they mostly take their lead from the Russians.
The Russian's haven't exactly been twiddling their thumbs, but while they make great aircraft, their radar and weapon systems are just now starting to eclipse western fourth generation standards, and the Raptor is still posting 20-1 kill ratios in simulated combat.
That will probably change as the PAK-FA and J-XX come online (the Sukkoi being the greater threat, realistically, since nobody really knows what the J-XX actually is).
Keep in mind that many of the opinions around Soviet technology were overly optimistic. Until the Mig-29 and Su-27 entered service in the 80's, they had nothing that could match the F-14/F-15/F16 and F-18.
The kill ratios of the F-15 and F-16 speak for themselves.
I develop software for a drive-by-wire system for impaired people. Drive-by-wire is not a complex thing (specially compared to a jet) and for impaired people the safety regulations are a little bit lower. The first non-secure prototype with no safety features was done in some months.
After that it needed several years of talking with the regulatory body and making prototypes until we were able to sell the first device.
So I think that a lot of this 20 years are needed for a this regulatory stuff.
Well, in the WW2 there was actually a war going on, so producing deadlier and deadlier types of weapons was a more urgent matter for all parties involved. Probably true of the early Cold War times too.
That said, that doesn't explain why the aircraft of WW2 and the early Cold War took just a few years to go from drawing board to combat, in the days before advanced computer modelling, yet it took 20 years to build the Eurofighter. I suspect the lack of accountability of military contractors coupled with government collusion (jobs programs over national security) has more than a bit to do with it.