Off late, there has been misplaced and exaggerated opinion (or even outright propaganda against Tejas) to acquire foreign light fighter which needs to be countered. First it is the lack of capability ("Tejas cannot fly far or cannot carry enough or takes too long to prepare for it to be airborne”), then it is lack of capacity (we cannot produce fast enough and squadron strength will fall to 27 by 2032 etc.) and later it is variety of planes. All are grossly exaggerated. We need to realise that foreign light fighters competing with Tejas will deplete our reserves by over $15 billion and it would lend a body blow to Tejas program from which the fighter might never recover.
1. Is Tejas MK 1A is good enough for the designed role as of point defence and close air support (i.e. near ground attack) aircraft - The answer is a definitive yes. The MK-1A version being stealthier (1/5 RCS) and with either the RBE2, UTTAM or the EL/M 2052 AESA radar will be a potent addition. Being more manoeuvrable and if we add Spectra used in Rafale to EW System, it'll beat most fighters in a dog fight rather easily. Range, by design, is really not of much consequence. We have heavier planes for such roles.
2. Can we produce ~225 planes in next 11 years (i.e. by 2028), the time line by which proposed 114 foreign light fighters can be expected and cover the retirement of 11 squadrons of MIG 21 & 27 by 2024? - Largely YES. With the capacity of 16 producing planes annually, existing order of 6 squadrons (123 MK-1 &1A) is to be met by 2025 and shortfall comes down to 5 (or say 6 and not 15 etc.) squadrons, which can be met in next 5 years (I.e. by 2030). 3 squadrons of upgraded Mirage good for another 2 decades takes the count to sanctioned strength of 14 light fighter squadrons. With additional investment (i.e. bigger order), 24 planes annually is doable and shortfall if any of 11 squadrons can be fulfilled by 2028. Theoretically, with new private production lines competing with HAL, the number can be improved further.
3. True, MK-1A (12 ton class) is inferior to Gripen E (16 ton class) in range, payload and multi-role capabilities, but is the MK2 (similar tonnage) comparable? The MK2 is comparable to the Gripen E in all areas except maturity, drag reducing aerodynamic, operational costs and sensor fusion suite and may even exceed in areas of payload (same GE F414 engine and with 1 ton further reduction, ~3 ton lesser Empty Weight), range (similar Internal Fuel Capacity, 3 ton lesser Empty Weight and same engine though more drag due to delta wing configuration) and EW Systems (Spectra). MK-1 itself is better in the areas of manoeuvrability, stealth, high altitude warfare and of course, per unit cost and equal if not better in ease of flying and safety (avionics). Tejas will become better with additional investment and time.
4. By not buying foreign light fighters, are we not losing on variety and putting all our eggs in one basket? Not really. We have variety of options, both Western and Russian, in the medium and heavy category that creates enough space for predominantly indigenous light fighter segment (Tejas engine, radar & weapons are western/Russian). In the light category too, we have 3 squadrons of upgraded Mirage good for another 2 decades.
Finally, we can be and must be self-reliant in light fighter category and all foreign fighter acquisitions must be limited to only medium & heavy category.
