I don't think you're being downvoted for criticizing the F-35 and instead, being downvoted for thinking the A-10 and F-22 programs were epitomes of engineering excellence. The A-10 suffered from wing cracks; the F-22 continues to suffocate it's pilots. In terms of engineering excellence, I'd say the F-16 or F/A-18 programs were far more successful at developing a successful, useful, adaptable and delivered on-time warplane.
The f-22 was a budget disaster until production was halted, and then the previously on budget and on schedule f-35 went off schedule and over budget. These planes are jobs programs for Congress pure and simple.
I think it is one of those situations where hindsight results in overly rose-colored views. The F-16 (as with a number of single-engined aircraft) was nicknamed "lawn-dart", and the F-18 required a mid-career SuperHornet upgrade into a different aircraft. The F-14 was a hangar-queen, etc. etc.
The 16 outgrew lawn dart once it got out of the prototype phase, and given the need for the computers that kept the bloody thing stable to stay operating in the event of engine out (and loss of alternator/prime mover for any pumps, plus any damage to control surface actuators by an uncontained turbine blade etc) it's not a surprise it had issues in the early days. It was still a damn good machine for what it did, and a good part of that from it's inherent instability once FBW invariants were violated.
The 14 reguired a higher degree of maintenance due to the consequences of the swing-wing mechanism, but that mechanism also enabled uncompromised performance in both flight regimes it was desired to be performant in. It didn't pretend that you could make a machine that can be a VSTOL, and a carrier aircraft at the same time. The radar systems were superb. The electronics were lackluster. I'm aware of issues with the quality of fire indicator lights though.
The 15 I hear surprisingly little complaint about actually. It just kinda is, and is given endless shit because it can't land or take-off from a boat.
Your subjective appraisal of their aesthetic appearance has virtually nothing to do with how well engineered they are and is not the issue being contested.
I once read an article about how the US spread misinformation about spectacularly expensive programs they were pretending to work on, hoping that the Russians would follow suit and waste govt money.
Over the years as I have read about the F-35 and its, uh, challenges, I've wondered if it's a revenge project. ;)
>"The F35 is an engineering disaster and a hangar queen."
It might very well be but it does not mean that it does not have some technologies / components that are highly advanced. The participants would like to keep those strictly to themselves.
The A10 is incredible. I've watch pilots do things that should not be possible and are most probably against the rules. Obscenely short near-stall landings for one.
Well maybe they know so much about our F35 design... they choose not to build them ;)