One of the biggest factors affecting the outcome of aerial engagements, as studied and concluded by the USAF post-GW 1, is Situational Awareness. Yes, there are other factors, but they are in some cases significantly paler in comparison to this metric. This alone explains why such a premium has been placed on high-fidelity information flow. Datalink improvements; networks; less reliance on verbal comm. Shaping the engagement, dictating the flow, countering the enemy quickly through various means, all enhances lethality.
The playground spat on F-105 and the somewhat ill-understood (or poorly communicated) rant that followed it on area ruling isn't helpful or even remotely relevant to a debate on F-35. Regardless of the things other platforms are better at (B-52 can carry more than F-35 etc), the F-35 design concept was balanced with more pressing and more effective means in mind (Situational Awareness and a number of others). I couldn't give a rat's posterior if F-35 is thought to "minimally" conform to the Whitcombe Area Rule if it isn't as relevant today to lethality as it was back in the 60s. In those days your bombs rarely hit directly (had to carry more!) and had to have accel/speed to get outta SAM threats quickly.
Whether you agree or not, Channel 2, modern fighting concepts have moved on considerably from what was important even 20 years ago and we're now well beyond being able to "get outta dodge quickly". Stealth really is a must. If that stealth means you get in and get out then great. If SA means you are superior in engagements then great. If those and other factors mean you have to stick some of your Whitcombe Area Rule up your posterior, as a result of physics and expert design, then frankly I rest my case your Honour.
This is why most of the professional fighter pilots here read your remarks with more than a little bit of contempt.