As standalone structures? No worse or even lower in measurement. But that is not how total RCS is calculated: Sums the discrete measured figures.
The interaction between discrete structures is what made the corner reflector undesirable in RCS control. This make location, location, and location, just like real estate sales, crucial for RCS control. Corner reflectors are fixed and this make them predictable in terms of level of contributorship. Moving structures are less predictable. Put both fixed and moving structures on a moving complex body and we have internal weapons bays, absorber on leading edges, and other methods in trying to minimize returns to source direction. That is why we have to measure the entire aircraft despite the fact that we have binders full of discrete standalone measurements of individual structures, large and small.
We knew that with the F-117 with its many edge diffraction generators, as the aircraft passes through a beam, we have target scintillations. Not enough to attract the attention of 'pre-stealth' radar systems, but now that 'stealth' and how the principles works are known, we have to move away from that design.
For example...
Note what the comment said about maneuver restrictions in combat. Even as minimalist a design like the flying wing B-2, target scintillations because of low level radiation generators, like the split wing tip rudders to create asymmetric drag for turning, are sufficient to discourage its usage.
The Real Batplane, I saw one of these one evening at approx 15,000 to 20, 000 ft about 45 nm North of St. Louis, it was surreal, at first I thought it was a large bird, as we have lots of turkey vultures in central IL. It was flying in among some fair weather cumulus, this is also a very smart but expensive bird, why we only built 20. Like I said wait to you guys start getting all those bills. Then you will have a little simpathy for those Poooor little Russians.
