Proone,
The implicit point is that had things not been so mismanaged in the first place, the requirement would already have been satisfied using in-service resources. In this case, either a shedload more C130 or A400M already in service.
Not acknowledging this is similar to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The Palestinians were "done out of" their land. When the Israelis acknowledge the wrongs done to the Palestinians in the 1940s to create their state, then things might improve.
You haven't considered a career in Politics, have you?
It's not often that I find myself agreeing with Proone, but I certainly do on this point!
'A shedload more C130's' might cost a little more than the several million being spent on these two aircraft.
Everybody seems to ignore the state of our public finances (thanks to Gordon and his mate Tony) and complains when fleets are retired or deteriorate, but then also complain when the problem is addressed. If the UK is to pull out of Afghan in 2014, then why would we want to address that specific operational requirement by spending billions on an entire fleet?
Yes, you can argue that we need to spend billions on our AT fleet for our longer term requirement, but the 146's are a cheap, specific, short term solution, to a specific, short term operational requirement.
And for the poster who suggested that these aircraft are for VIP transport, I think you might have misread the brief! Why do you think the C130's are all falling over??