Like so many other commentators here, I initially took exception to JB's article but felt, by the end of it, he had hit most of the key points (ISS B - see me!). He has some credibility, having served in the Podjevo basin at a difficult time with the 'friendly' Serbs.
However, the RAF has not sat around idly waiting for the transport fleet to drop out of the sky. FSTA, as was, was initiated many years ago and finally signed off as the largest MOD PFI by Sir Glenn Torpy. He freely admitted that it was the biggest mortgage the RAF had ever taken out, but it was the only means by which a new long-term capability could be delivered. Meanwhile, a considerable amount of effort has been put in to deliver the A400M, but the delays have been outwith the RAF's purview. And of course, a new C-17 has been announced. I'm sure there are other, more compentant commentators who can refresh PPruners on the progress of these projects.
It would seem an elegant solution to lease/buy some not-so-old civilian acft and use these to fill the void that is opening due to our aging fleet. However. the RAF, ever conscious of its duty of care (!), requires transport acft entering Theatre to met minimum self-protection standards, against SAA and MANPADS threats. Clearly I'm not going to reveal what these are, but suffice to say, these are not off-the-shelf, bolt-on solutions, but require a considerable amount of design and engineering effort (and therefore cost and time) to install. And that's not even beginning on any avionics upgrades that might be required. For these reasons alone, this is why it is not practical for the RAF - indeed, any airforce - to rotate its transport fleet every few years like Sleasy Jet or Ryan Air.
Using hub and spoke (ie TacT for the last leg) again seems a simple solution, and of course it is used where practicable. However, consider the cycles - and amount of cross-decking effort - that a C130J would need to go through to move a full Tri* load of pax and freight, or similar. Again, apart from the effort (and additional TacT airframes that would be required) statistically there is a greater liklihood of snags and acft failures and greater exposure to the bad guys on the ground (through more movements).
Just something to think about.