Channel 2,
Area ruling was of major importance when we were designing aircraft to fly continuously in the transonic region (the speed range where it has an effect on zero lift drag) with engines that had limited power - the Buccaneer was a prime example. However, with modern fast jets, the transonic drag rise became just one of many factors affecting form and the ability to design more efficient and more powerful engines greatly reduced the significance of area ruling.
An important factor to consider is the mission for which an aircraft is designed. Take the F-14 as an example. This is its CAP to supersonic intercept requirement (not dissimilar to a number of other types):
150 miles subsonic cruise to CAP
CAP
Accel M0.7 to M1.35
4 1/2 minutes and 50nm to intercept
RTB or AAR
Time in the transonic region in that scenario would be in the region of 20-30 seconds and drag rise overcome by use of burner.
Whilst there is a degree of area ruling in many modern fighters, it is far less rigorously applied in designs than once was the case and is often only applied where its inclusion fits with other design requirements - F-18 (nearly) vertical stabilisers, for example. The degree to which area ruling is applied is very subtle these days, so much so that it is hard to see and is often only noticeable in the placement of of other features that contribute to cross section - LEX, engine housing, canopy form, even the front end of the 747.
But, where other factors override the need to mitigate transonic drag rise, it is often calculated to be of lesser importance - other sources of drag are available. Installed thrust is no longer the same limitation it was with the Buccaneer or F-105. The last two air-to-air aircraft I flew certainly did not show much evidence of area ruling, particularly behind the wing and one of those didn't have a fixed wing position on which to apply area ruling and its fuselage was basically a long, rectangular box. Transonic performance certainly wasn't a problem with either of those.
Area ruling is not a particularly significant issue to use to criticise F-35 (F-22 shows even less evidence of area ruling than F-35), but I am interested by your use of the term "Whitcomb's area rule". Not a term I have ever heard an engineer, designer or aircrew use. More likely a phrase one would see in Wikipedia or other online resources.
As to you comments to
KenV, I think you need to look again at the graphics he presented to you. The area ruling, albeit in a non-typical fuselage shaping form, is acheived to some degree by the relative placement of wings, tailplanes and fins. I think you might reconsider your somewhat unneccesary remark:
Originally Posted by Channel 2
Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself
when all he has done is to respond rather well to your question.