Rudster816
The Concorde never really defied the odds of being supersonic.

They put 128 non-military personnel onboard and it flew commercial service for 27 years, when no other country could match it.  Sadly it retired without a successor, and not due to technology either, just economy.  
 
Boeing and NASA did a study back in the 90's, the technology existed to produce a Mach 2.4 300-seat monster as long as passengers were willing to pay 25% extra than regular airliners, there was a projected market for over 1,000 airplanes.  It was the have four engines at 80,000 lbs thrust each, and that technology existed too.  Except since 1999, people decided against spending even 25% extra to go three times faster, but that technology capability is still there, if not better.  In fact I believe the potential exists to make supersonic travel at no extra cost right now, except too many have their misconceptions in the way.  Research is already going into suppressing the sonic boom, so the overland ban in effect around the world won't be an issue forever.
 

Rudster816 Speed alone really isn't all that impressive, all you have to do is strap more engines that produce more thrust. I find the GE90-115's performance far more impressive. They 'overclocked' that sucker to put out nearly as much thrust as all 4 of the Concorde's engines could without their reheaters.  

Thrust does not determine speed, it is how the thrust comes out that determines speed.  You can add wings to a GE90, but will not go supersonic.  And the eight engines of a B-52 or the pair on a 777 doesn't push either supersonic.
 
All jet engines have something called a "By-pass ratio", or BPR, where the front fan connected to the turboject core allows air to by-pass the engine and provide additional thrust.  The engines on Concorde and early supersonics had a by-pass of zero, they were pure turbojets and thus very loud and high fuel consumption.  The result in the exhaust was very hot and high-pressure gas that, once choked, was already supersonic.  Modern engines like GE90 have large BPRs of 5 or greater, meaning the fan contributed to five times the thrust of the inner core.  Well, this large volume of cooler low compression air isn't supersonic at all (it reduces noise and fuel consumption), but coupled with the large profile of the engine and only in a dive would it reach Mach 1.
 
There is a happy zone where a bypass ratio can be above zero and still allow supersonic economically, that is between 1.0 and 2.0.  Just so you know, the BPR of the engines on a B-1 bomber are 1.9 and thus the plane is limited to 980mph straight level.  The BPR of the engines on an F-15 eagle were 0.3 and allowed up to Mach 2.7.  I know the engines on a Eurofighter had a BPR of 1.0 with a max of Mach 1.8; just to give you an idea of the influence of the by-pass ratio on thrust and resulting speed.  It isn't obvious.
 
I'm an Aerospace Engineer, so I know quite a bit about aerodynamics and propulsion, with keen interest in supersonics, particularly in transportation.
 
Also, FYI, no fighter jet is actually designed for sustained supersonic flight just because it has the capability to do so (i.e. any random automobile at with a 150mph on the speedometer while only designed to be efficient at highway speeds).  In fact, the highest number of g-loads fighters take is always subsonic, in the neighborhood of 460 knots.