Nah, that actually had nothing to do with ADA. They went ahead with designing an air force specific version. They said a naval version would be made later on. Then some navy guys said it would be a better idea to just make the naval version first and then convert it to an AF version. The same wisdom they pointed out went into the Rafale.
To which, ADA said converting one from the other will see compromises in both designs, Rafale has it too, which is why the AF and N will get two separate next gen designs. They are sticking to their guns for now. Hence TEDBF came into being.
ADA claims the naval design will be slightly bigger, fatter for carrying more fuel and internal weapons. So the AF version cannot be derived from it due to the AF requirement for a smaller, leaner, meaner aircraft.
It's the latter in the second sentence. The thing about naval aviation is their radars are powerful enough to pick up stealth aircraft from reasonable distances, so they have less need for a 'stealth' aircraft, not to mention the aircraft also use long range weapons long before they reach the detection range of naval radars. You could say that what the air force call stealth is still not good enough for the navy at this time. What the navy would definitely like is stealth force multipliers, but that concept doesn't exist yet.
