... the question now being, with FRES fading into the distance, is there a justification for the A400M that makes it a necessity. If so, will it be able to do all the tasks the C130J does? If so, can we buy/lease more capacity to get through the time until it becomes available, then sell the C130Js? It would seem foolish to buy more. If not, why not cancel the A400M and buy more C130J/C17s now, the savings from not having to operate a third logistic support and training system should make up any cost difference.
The drawback to the C130 is that its cargo cabin is too small for the L.A.V. III/ Stryker and for many of the Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers already in use, at least by US armed forces. After a while, the British Army will probably want to operate some of these wheeled vehicles too, especially if the proposed FRES ( Were FRESes to be tracked ? ) set of vehicles remains cancelled.
The A400 and the C-17 are big enough for these vehicles, the C-130 isn't. The C-17 can also load a Main Battle Tank. The A400 is to small for that, even if current A400 problems are resolved.
An enlarged follow-on to the C-130 doesn't seem likely to happen. Boeing is shopping around a C-17B with more thrust, more flaps, and a third nosewheel. A C-17B might be able to match the A400's advertised slow flight and short field performance.
The USAF is going to get some C-27's. There probably will also be an improved V-22.
The next all new and big military transport American military transport project will probably be either a four engine tilt rotor or a big big helicopter, bigger than H-53K or MiL-26. Don't hold your breath waiting for one of those.
A worthwhile proposal for C130's and C17's is to fit some of them with electro optics pods and underwing weapons racks, while retaining cargo carrying ability. Maybe that is a good idea for the RAF also, mais non?