Hmm, interesting article, but I can't quite figure out what the journalist is trying to say with it.
It opens up in a very negative tone, making it appear as if leading defence analysts were against the purchase of the A400M transport aircraft. However, the only motivation it gives for this apparent hostility to the deal is that the analysts feel it was "rushed" and "secretive" due to the govt's belated realisation of SA's needs in terms of its obligations in Africa.
Now, while I do agree that the deal was too secretive (an all too common trait in the ANC nowadays), and that it was rushed, the impression I get from the article is that the defence analysts do support the purchase, but are annoyed at the way it happened. That's somewhat different from being opposed to the deal altogether.
After all, the only quoted statements from the un-named analysts appear to be supportive of the SA govt's belated recognition of the need for greater airlift, after the exasperation faced by these same analysts in previous years as they observed the SAAF's airlift need being overlooked.
All in all, the way I see it, what this article is saying can be summed up in the following:
- South Africa has certain obligations in Africa which require decent airlift capacity
- After years of neglecting this requirement, the SA govt has belatedly woken up to its necessity
- For safety and security reasons, chartering airlift is a poor option
- Therefore the purchase of the A400Ms is a good thing
- However, the secretive and apparently rushed nature of the purchase was a negative aspect
So, somewhat different to what the rather sensationalist headline implied. I think it's a pity when journos use sensationalism in their articles.