"Rutans spaceship one will only be sub-orbital for around a dozen minutes then it comes down to land the f-22 could take it out on its unpowered glide back to a runway. even if it went up and dropped a bomb and landed on safe ground it would be nearly 2 weeks before it could get up again.(and for the record the raptor costs around 125 million not 1 billion.) (and Rutans ship has cost nearly 25 million to build, funded by Paul Allen." 
No, no, and no. We've spent $26 Billion for 23 F-22's to date. That's a lot more than $125 million per copy.
Estimates on Rutan's cost for SpaceShipOne vary widely, and Rutan hasn't released any figures. Some guess $10 million, other sources guess $25 million.
Substantially below the $1.2 Billion for each F-22, no doubt, though!
Also, the fact that Rutan's craft, or military variants thereof, can fly higher and faster than the F-22 by a wide margin means that it will be that sub-orbital craft, not the F-22, that decides where and when to fire the first meaningful shot...which may be at a ground target rather than at another fighter, or not.
Also, the fact that Rutan's craft, or military variants thereof, can fly higher and faster than the F-22 by a wide margin means that it will be that sub-orbital craft, not the F-22, that decides where and when to fire the first meaningful shot...which may be at a ground target rather than at another fighter, or not. You really must stop this.
Higher, faster but for how long? I have biases, but nothing on the order of your comments on this Rutan bird. Do you have any idea how long there have been craft like this? Do you not remember the X-15? How many people who know this subject have to tell you that this is an Apples-Oranges debate? Burt Rutan is a genius, but he has not cornered the market on these things, he has only done it on the cheap, and he has proved nothing to date with respect to their ability to turn that bird around quickly. The contest is not over, but you have practically declared him the winner.
Your comments regarding the costs of the F-22, are way off base. Every military project has development costs. Some are rolled into each unit, some are not. You cannot credibly suggest that every dime spent on the ATF program is to be reflected in the unit price of the F-22. You can try it, but you would be wrong.
Now, your position has been well documented. You have 3 fighter jocks, 1 still active, suggesting to you that your idea, while visionary, just does not work. What is it going to take to convince you? Not that convincing you is the goal, but I am curious as to why you persist, when years and years of experience is telling you different?