The numbers for changing SpaceShipOne into a fighter and then mass-producing them are so low that to print them only invites idle laughter.
What can't be denied is that even hand-building them from scratch is cheap...that they go higher than anything that anyone has...and that they are faster.
Not bad for civilians.
In the meantime, pork projects like the F-22 and F-35 divert our attentions and resources away from going sub-orbital.
Civilians can go sub-orbital but our military can't. We haven't seen this sort of technological discrepancy since the Wright brothers had the ability to fly over forts before our military could duplicate the feat.
I understand what you are saying about sub-orbital.
I can only [find comfort] assume the Air Force's RD types have considered the very same concepts.
I must assume that you know this is a preposterous statement (and WHY do you keep comparing a rocket to jets?). Let's get past that: why is it you believe a sub-orbital, hyper-velocity weapons platform would suit our needs? Wasn't the Aurora built with those parameters?
Rutan doesn't have to comply with a Alexandrian library full of Dilbert Documents that are required for all miliary aircraft. The paperwork is stagering. I'm working on F-35 components and all I can say is we are still full steam ahead. No concern on the horizon as far as I can see for the program. I do take note that a bunch of F-35 program managers were recently pink-slipped due to the bird's weight issues....big stuff now.
I do like the standardization concept that the F-35 was suppost to leverage. As far as I can see the F-22 won't fit the Marine's bill for STOVL needs.
And TS, I love warhogs too! One tough bird.