All this talk of whether or not an airframe can transport an MBT or not is surely missing the point unless you invest in an awful lot of aircraft.
Tanks are used in Sqns of 12 and require a lot of logistical support in the way of ammunition, fuel and support to the crew. It is also considered unwise tactically to employ armour without infantry support, not to mention arty, RE and recovery assets. The reason the Army's heavy equipment goes in by STUFT is due to the sheer volume and tonnage of the supporting infrastructure and the time it takes to develop it.
It is worth remembering that the deployment to the Gulf in 1990/1 began 6 months before the land campaign kicked off. Similarly, when IFOR deployed post Dayton during the winter of 1995/6, it still took the best part of a month to get them into position. When you bear it in mind that we already had thousands of troops in theatre with a functioning APOD and SPOD it does highlight the realities of a modern, joint deployment.
By the way, to all those that think Apache is the answer irrespective of question, their logistical tail requires a similar tonnage of support to tanks.
If we had a government that was prepared to invest in a fleet of 30 to 40 C -17s, or equivalent size airframe, it might be a goer but at our current level of expenditure it all seems largely academic.