This is the same pedantic question that I've heard for twenty-nine years.

These velocities are a consequence of meeting specific excess power
requirements (P_s). A positive P_s allows an aircraft to accelerate (gain
velocity), sustain G, or climb in altitude, or any of these three. P_s
does
not come free. P_s is computed as:

(Thrust - Drag) * Velocity / Weight

A natural consequence of a fighter's design is speed. The design is a
result
of tradeoffs. The fact that fighters rarely exercise their supersonic
capabilities is not relevent. By reducing the thrust of the engines to
limit
the aircraft speed to M-1.5 or M-1.0, the aircraft's performance is other
realms is sharply limited as well.

Since high speed is a natural consequence of a fighter's design, the USAF
and
USN have taken advantage of it.

Implying that very high speed is a free benefit of high thrust. The F-16
has more thrust but is slower than the F-104, but it's more capable in many
ways. It's not a function of reducing thrust, but rather a function of
optimizing the design for mission-related functions. Mach 2 speed isn't one
of those functions and has been deemphasized (ala F-14B versus F-14A). At
the other extreme, the (highly specialized) SR-71 is a legitimate 3.2 cruise
airplane, yet is severely Q limited.

Probably the best example is the F-18, which has excellent performance
subsonic but rapidly runs into a brick wall above the number (highly
configuration dependent). IMO, too much high speed performance was
sacrificed (high indicated airspeeds are illusive as well), or more
correctly the drag was never really designed out of the F-17, its prototype.
Despite its shortcomings, its a pretty capable airplane, even if it's slower
than many earlier jets with half the thrust.

R / John