One is too small, the other too big. If there was a viable alternative then that would be another story, but there isn't.
Yes, but once one goes down the road of trying to procure
the best piece of kit for the job, the cost per unit goes through the roof as there tends to be no broader market for the asset than the original customer. You do caveat your remark with "viable" - I must add to that "viable and affordable".
That is not an excuse for procuring the wrong kit if it is all that is available, but it is the main reason why money should not be pumped into a development that fails to achieve what it set out to do for a reasonable cost.
Yes, the A400M would do a huge range of tasks that are unfulfilled by either the C17 or C130
alone at present, but together they manage, and both are available to purchase at a lower cost to the Exchequer (under the assumption that an A400M bailout is required). Do you want one piece of kit to do everything (much capability of which is unused day-to-day), or two pieces of kit that specialise in the tasks required, each having different strengths and weaknesses. It is of course nice to be able to do anything, anytime with the one piece of kit, but if unused in the vast majority of ocassions, it is wasted.
If there was further demand for it (among NATO/Western-allied countries that is), the market would produce it. If the A400M cannot attract further orders, and costs per unit continue to inflate, it should be cancelled.
That surely is the lesson of the Nimrod 2000, or did we not take that one onboard?