There is no other airlifter of similar dimensions/perf/modernity etc to the A400 that could be procured instead of/in addition to the A400 to fill the gaps.
There is an aircraft in Ukraine called the Antonov An-70 that has similar size, speed, better runway performance and still claims a 47 tonne payload.
Antonov An-70 STOL & Soft field
The An-70 has an MIL-1553B compatible databus and was built to AP-25 norms, streamlined with JAR-25. If A-400M customers ordered 180 of them and decided to equip it with the avionic suite and DASS that had been planned for the A-400M, Europe would finally have a great tactical airlifter at much less cost than completing the A-400M.
The alternative is C-130Js and C-17s.
I think that 12 tonne issue is the real killer for the A-400M. The Gross weight is going to creep up and to maintain performance (speed, rate of climb, ceiling, take-off run) the engine HP, already an issue, will have to follow. That will increase fuel burn, reduce range, reduce endurance, reduce payload, require larger tanks, etc....
Why do you think the An-70 has 14,000 SHP engines instead of the A-400Ms' 11,000 SHP for a similar sized aircraft ?
Older A-400M specs found on the web mentionned a Take-Off Weight of 130 tonnes. Then we saw 136.5 tonnes and now EADS talks about 141 tonnes. There is a trend there. Where will it stop?
The C-17 went through the same pains, and its runway performance that paid the price. In the early days, to justify funding, Boeing claimed the Boeing C-17 could use 3000 foot runways and was a tactical aircraft as well as a strategic one. Now that the C141 is retired and the C-5 is out of production, one does not hear too much of that anymore. If anyone knows of any runway under 4500 feet where a C-17 has ever landed (outside of training missions), let us know where.
The problem with the A-400M is that is is primarily a tactical aircraft with some strategic capabilities. This extra weight might turn it into a bad tactical aircraft with even more limited strategic capabilities.......