And it does so at a considerable expense of your endurance. While the "raw thrust in certain situations" argument is of course to the point, saving fuel for those situations as much as possible is a prudent idea. Realisticly, I would say modern high-end fighters should have engines powerfull enough to (among other things) get through transsonic acceleration with dry thrust in a reasonable amount of time.
Well Scratch, I was probably a little to casual about that post, in reality the USAF wouldn't buy aircraft with afterburner, if they had an abundance of dry thrust,as its heavy, maintenance intensive, and burns fuel at a prodigious rate. That why I stated the J-20 and PAK-FA needed enough dry thrust to supercruise, to avoid having to use afterburner to intercept and engage OpFor, in reality, they are operating the best engines they each have available. As I'm sure you are well aware, afterburner/reheat is as the name implies an additional combustion chamber added to the engine to develop additional thrust, that additional thrust is a life saver every day. In a heavy, fuel and weapons laden fighter aircraft, it is much safer to accelerate rapidly to flying speed, less ground run, less time on the runway, better initial climb rate, and pilots most always get out of burner once they are at best rate speed, maintaining maximum dry thrust if needed to clear obstacles, the exception is when a max rate climb in burner, gets you to your most efficient cruise altitude, and you are able to throttle back sooner.
That's why all modern fighter aircraft depend on in-flight refueling, in order to top off at altitude to extend your range. So rather than implying it was just to make noise and have fun, I should have stated that since the inception of the jet age, afterburners have been magnificent performance enhancers when available, and well worth the additional weight, maintenance, and fuel burn to provide an extra margin of performance, and safety?