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?
"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?" 
I expect precisely, yes, precisely the same "this is how it's done, and we ain't changing" attitude from current fighter pilots, commanders, and military procurement experts today in regard to sub-orbital civilian aircraft as we saw from Battleship proponents against carriers in the 1920's through 1930's, and prior to that as we saw from the "experts" who said that the Wright brothers' aircraft didn't change anything, as well as from those who said that horse-mounted cavalry could never be replaced by Henry Ford's contraption (or adaptations thereof).
That's just human nature. Most people simply reject change. Very few people can *ever* understand revolutionary shifts in dual-use (i.e. civilian/military) technology. Even fewer people can see such shifts prior to them happening.
It's in our nature to reject as preposterous sub-orbital fighters at this time. What Rutan has done is to be considered as an isolated event with no bearing on future military applications...to most human minds.
Ships made of steel instead of wood were rejected for millenia, for instance. The average Joe simply couldn't accept that steel could float, or that even if it did float that it could ever have any military value.
Just prior to the Civil War, military procurement experts laughed at the existing civilian multiple-shot rifles of the day ("they'll use up all their ammo and then be shot dead" was one dismissal).
Oddly, two civilian technologies back then that *weren't* rejected by the militaries of their day were trains and electronic telegraphs. Those were exceptions to the rule that new civilian technologies get dismissed out of hand by military "experts," however.
I expect the same today. It's only natural to reject the revolutionary before and during the revolution.