The shitty part about all the F-35 spending is that a lot of aeronautic engineers knew it was a bad idea from the beginning. The concept serves no purpose other than being the best looking aircraft ever to people that know basically nothing about war fighting aircraft (congress).
Think of it like you're designing a car. Your 3 major options are making a race car, making a daily driver, or making a rugged off road vehicle. Instead of picking one, you promise your investors that you can make a vehicle that does all 3 with maximum effectiveness, knowing that it isn't going to turn out like that. The F-35 was supposed to be close air support, a dog fighter, and a bomber, none of which it is able to do well. It's too sluggish and unresponsive to be a fighter. Russian and Chinese aircraft from the 80s can smoke a F-35 in a fight. It can't stay in the air long enough or carry a big enough gun to do close air support, so you're refueling while your infantry is trying to call in an air strike. And as a bomber? Surprise! It can't carry enough weight or fly high enough to be an effective bomber, to the point where it's worse than other aircraft that weren't even designed to be a bomber. It's also supposed to replace like 4 current aircraft that have specialized jobs and do them very well (AV8B Harrier, A-10 Warthog, F-16/F-1

. Not only is it shit, but it's extremely expensive and oppressively obnoxious to repair. Any time airframes removes a panel, the aircraft is down for 24 hours so the special sealant used on all the panels can properly dry. Compare that to a Harrier where 6-7 panels are removed and replaced every day just for basic scheduled inspections.
The F-22 is the Air Force, and their budget is separate from the Navy. While it's also super expensive, as I understand it, it's pretty decent at what it does. I don't know any F-22 pilots or mechanics so I can't say much.