I might add that maximum thrust top speed of an F-18 A/C with F404-GE-400 engines is given with Mach 1.66 at US standard day (15° at SL) at 36000ft.
That is with two AIM-9 on the wing tips and two AIM-7 on fuselage stations, both which do rarely add any real drag. So, the baseline Hornet doesn’t really make it to its top speed.

Which is – given the small size of the airframe – quite remarkable.
I think with 3 ETs the F-16 has quite a good range, but of course, Norway is quite huge.

When an aircraft cruises at Mach 3, the concept of dry and afterburner does not really apply any more. The SR-71 more or less uses a ramjet, not sure about the XB-70. Anyways, the normal job of the compressor in a turbojet engine is done by the inlet, and hence the compression ratio of the afterburner increases. In normal life (M<2) the compression ratio in the afterburner is quite crappy, making the machine less efficient.

However, even aircraft that don’t travel at Mach 3, such as the Mirage IV, Tu-144, and Concorde, have better supersonic range than the F-22.

I believe that the F-22 is unique in that it’s the first fighter aircraft that can truly hold supersonic speeds for a relatively long amount of time. Before, bomber and reconnaisance aircraft, such as the Mirage IV, B-58, SR-71, etc. could accomplish this, but not a fighter aircraft.

I would say for more than one hour would be considered “cruising” speed. One way of calculating a planes supersonic performance could be to multiply its cruising speed by its range at that speed, giving a value that takes into account both speed and range.

Could the Russian T-4, Tu-144, and Tu-22M cruise at supersonic speeds for a good amount of time, or were (are) they mostly limited to short term high speeds?

As for the mention of the Mirage IV, did this aircraft have supersonic cruise capability as good as the B-58? Or was it more like the f-111 in that it could go fast, but not for very long periods?