I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying and even what the literature is saying. BTW, your link doesn't work.
The RCS of the F35 has been stated as -30 dBsm to less than -40 dBsm. This is head on. A side profile will yield a different result which may be many times as much.
I am not stating that it isn't the best case frontal RCS in fact both the articles mention that explicitly. You could go and confirm with the author of the avWeek article by contacting him. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 5890,d.eXY
There is absolutely no evidence to confirm any of the RCS mentioned by yourself or to confirm that they are in fact anything other than best case - frontal RCS measures (B-1 etc).
The specifications given for public consumption typically come from testing aircraft in an anechoic chamber using a transmitter with horizontal polarization and testing across a set of frequencies. The best results make it to AW&ST and other propaganda.
You can have your own set of theories but the fact still remains that no where has there been any mention of this NOT being anything other frontal RCS. Every link that has claimed this, has explicitly stated that this is the frontal best case RCS. Even the old Janes articles form the late 90's to early 2000's mention this (too lazy to look the up now). There has been absolutely no effort by anyone concerned, either with the program or the OEM to actually claim that the best case RCS measurement is anything but that and no one has tried to imply that it is an all aspect RCS for the aircraft.
The number that was released to AvWeek and subsequently to other media sources was the KPP at the time of the competition. They aren't going to be dumb enough to publish extensive RCS modeling and prototype testing results. They have since not said anything to update what was said about the KPP other then that it was bettered and the later claims that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22A.
That much is known. However, anyone can seek any sort of detailed information about any specification or claim and choose not to believe something until they are given full unrestricted, declassified access to testing. That is fine as long as it is applied to other programs as well. In that way we cannot claim that the B-2 is VLO.
We will never know what it is in practice when detection is trying to be done with an airborne platform such as an AWACS that may be using a wide frequency range and different polarization transmission. Now, that said, I am not discounting the great importance of stealth technology.
There are multiple aircraft, ground based sensors, radar ranges and chambers that measure the entire spectrum of the RF signature. For the F-35 post DR vehicle this has taken over 3 years to actually explicitly document and compare to the KPP. This is why there is a lag in reporting form the time the KPP's were disclosed (again, best case frontal) to the time the senior ACC officials (such as the head himself) claiming that it has not only beaten the KPP's but exceeds the stealthiness of the F-22A.
Stealth technology is as much bout design as it is about finding out the RCS and optimal signatures against various threats. There is an industrial scale effort in the background that manages that.
On a side note. Much of this work is very technically complicated and neither the USAF or USN has the resources to evaluate it, nor are the program management offices technically competent to understand it. The USAF and USN then go about hiring 3rd party companies to evaluate the work of the contractor. It leads to very high costs of a weapon system. This can not be a model for any one else.
A directorate has existed for over a decade that oversees operations of service owned assets (some open, other secret) and brings in expertise from the academia from time to time to refine the process. Gone are the days when OEM's had exclusive access to their own facilities and expertise and the services relied upon them or contracted them on a case by case basis (as was done during the Have Blue testing).Other RCS facilities have been under government/service control for over 5 decades. .Like everything else the process is always a mixture. Even basic design and refinements are done by the OEM under the management of the larger program manager led team. This doesn't apply just to stealth, RCS etc but also to the basic engineering concerned with the aircraft. Prototype radars are mostly classified but in the past have been custom ordered by the services for their own ranges. Sometimes as in the case of the Lockheed developed VHF radars, it was purchased by lockheed martin after the USAF was done with it so that it could include it in its own company based projects..Other than that, RCS management post testing has been successfully incorporated at the squadron and AEF level since the induction of the F-22. Each aircraft's signature is tracked, monitored and maintained and fed into a database. While relying on a small set of experts was the norm 20 years back, expertise, testing protocols and physical testing hardware has since proliferated to multiple devisions both in the industry and special services run setups.
I'll leave it at that !
As far as it being a model for anyone else - That depends whether anyone else is looking to undertake projects on that scale or not. The stealth infrastructure (and this involves all the testing, evaluating and documenting abilities in addition to the capability to design and produce stealthy designs) exists at the level because there have been investments made since the 70's (in fact earlier) to develop this capability and to maintain a lead over near peer threats with this capability. You can dissect this and write a paper on how to do it better if you please but that would involve access to a lot of things which I seriously doubt exists with anyone outside of the DOD or industry. Btw, there is next to NOTHING known about radar-range modernization and the R&D efforts in the classified budget for complex RCS testing beyond the investments made for the F117 and B-2 systems. One would be naive to think that they haven't ordered custom-prototypes using advanced AESA radars over the last decade when they have spent close to 100 Billion on the USAF classified budget alone in that time frame