Not doubling down in the least. To the contrary, it seems to be you who is getting their panties in a wad because of a question asking for a comparison of India's carrier capability against that of a navy with a long established carrier capability.
Not needed. In a high-attrition war, keeping stealth coatings in shape won't be easy, and that could affect aircraft availability. When you're already working with a limited F-35B fleet that's shared between the RAF and the Fleet Air Arm, every jet matters. That's a pretty thin margin for a country that wants to maintain a global blue-water navy.
Did a simple question really get under your skin this badly? Instead of making a counterargument, you wrote an entire paragraph trying to psychoanalyse me. If you've got an actual argument, put it on the table. If not, stop hiding behind cheap one liners.
Then explain this to me. I'm genuinely curious about this. F-35's F135 engine uses a low observable afterburner and a sawtooth exhaust nozzle to reduce its IR signature by mixing the hot exhaust with cooler air. It also has curved vanes that block a direct view of the turbine and the rear end is designed to reduce both its IR and radar signature. If all these features are supposed to make it much harder for an IR-guided missile to lock on, then how did it get hit by an Iranian Soviet-era IR missile? What am I missing here?
