Goodness gracious - two well-considered and detailed responses in a single day!
Originally Posted by obligatory
Your rambling opening paragraph makes no sense, other than to show an interest in the recreational habits of some (unspecified) engineer, plus some strange size-related obsessions.
The claimed range performance of various radars against defined targets can often be obtained from manufacturers' brochures. From there, the process of working out the level RCS reduction needed to achieve a militarily useful reduction in radar range is not difficult, and gives ballpark values for the RCS that a stealthy platform or missile must possess.
Such ballpark values are unclassified and have appeared in the open literature, giving a good idea of how far the 0.000... square metre sequence must stretch. However, the exact values of RCS that have been achieved by various programmes is classified, as are the way that these vary with frequency and with aspect angle.
The practice of flying aircraft such as the F-22 with radar reflectors when on non-operational flights is well documented.
As for the ability to "nail a mach 4 harm or a maneuvering fighter", my own real-world experience of missile operations tells me that the results obtainable on the Ashuluk range may not translate into combat results, especially if the attacker is using a salvo, or has support from a stand-off jammer, decoys or other penetration aids. Operator fatigue (and operator funk) might also degrade performance.
The US may not have an S-400, but I would be fairly confident that they will have reverse-engineered the system to create an accurate threat simulation. That is what they did with the SA-2 and other earlier SAM systems.
Originally Posted by MSphere