I mentioned less than 0.1 square meter for the F-35 because we really don't know what it is. Yet, you ridiculed the idea stating that we might as well say the F-35 is less than 1 sq m.
I did not ridicule you in any way. I provided the only number that have been released and shared with the press. Neither did I make any attempt to pass those numbers along as if they were all aspect or anything but "best" case.
That LOL..statement wasn't a ridicule of what you said, but just that to be on the safe side may as well claim it to be less than 1 sqm. The rest of the RCS data presented by you also has no real supporting evidence of it being either best case, all aspect, worst case or whatever but you still mentioned it. Same goes for the AMCA RCS goal/target, we have no qualitative data on the requirement but given the general lack of information we go with it since it is the little " data " we have.
When you see values that suggest the F-35 and F-22 have a lower RCS than an insect, it raises questions a lot of questions. Namely the methodology as to how testing was done and how it was sold off
That is what has been reported. Of course if you wish to remain skeptical, thats your right and I seriously doubt that any OEM or armed forces branch is going to open up their testing, and share detailed reports just to convince the skeptics.
I usually do not mind having doubt even when some numbers are released as long as that remains the acceptable behavior across products. So for example if some OEM or agency hasn't released their radar performance the same should apply rather than trying to estimate things without much supporting evidence on a particular product.
I was talking about the specification for RCS for advertisement purposes. Typically, much is done in terms of near and far field measurements along with extensive testing prior to IOC.
The best case frontal RCS is something that is actually measured and considered important. Of course it goes without saying that the process of fully measuring and comparing the all aspect RCS is a time-consuming task and in case of the F-35 its taken a few years to fully document.
The various service directorates have existed for decades that cover all aspects of electromagnetic performance. Of course billions have been spent. More often than not, most of these facilities are operated by various contractors to the program offices, and then another set of contractors to monitor progress. Even places like MIT - Lincoln Laboratories is in the game. It's all about the funding flow, defense contractor corporate and middle class welfare. It is a huge and expensive bureaucratic empire. Most of these fellows in these directorates are technically incompetent and you see all sorts of crazy billing like $230/hour for radar engineering expertise from various contractors. Yes, some of it is absolutely essential to learn the technical lesson once, but repeatedly is ridiculous
As I said, you could write a paper with supporting evidence on what is done (document exactly the processes) and then make recommendations based on your own experience and research. I don't have any inclination to do so, nor do I have the sort of access to information that may make it possible to objectively speak of the matter. What little I know, the process has significantly changed over the last 15 or so years and the control has shifted to more in house stuff since the volumes required (testing, re-testing, documenting and followups) has essentially incentivized those sort of actions and changes.
As far as contractors being brought in and being paid XXX $/ hour, you could make the argument for or against, provided you publish a thorough paper on exactly what the protocols are and what they exactly do etc. Its an academic exercise rather than a forum discussion based on personal "stories" or experiences.