Up front, please understand this VERY clearly...

We DEFINITELY need to add to conventional lift to the force mix. We need more C-17s C-5s, referbushed C-141s, cargo 747s and Airbusses. The A400 provides an interesting platform and would be a good tool to have. However, in my opinion, we need to focus on other lift alternatives, first, in order of priority. Here's why:

First, the trouble is that these are ALL fixed-wing aircraft, under the perview of the USAF by questionable agreements. Any attempt by the U.S. Army to gain these for themselves will meet with fierce resistance from the self-centered USAF. On the flip side, it will take Congressional mandates and POTUS orders to get the USAF to funnel cash out of its budgets for new sexy stealth fighters and bombers to try to win wars by firepower bombardment alone to buy more cargo lift aircraft. Even WIG could present a problem as it, too, is technically a fixed-wing asset. The USAF has a vested interest in keeping the Army in CONUS, undeployable. They believe they can win any war without ground maneuver force involvement (except for a handful of FACs). There would have to be a tectonic shift in military thinking caused by a national disaster even more severe than the 9/11 attacks to ever get the USAF to admit otherwise, and even then they'd likely "spin" the situation to gaining more money for their failed means.

Second: in the face of tough budget battles we need to focus our cash and scarce political capital on the more efficient lift platform. The C-17 are currently running at about $180 Million a copy. According to my research, the A400 costs $80 Million a copy (40 tons max payload). CL160 runs $100 a copy and hauls 176 tons...hands down the most cost efficient purchase:

C-17 = $2,118,000/Ton Cargo Capacity
A400 = $2,000,000/Ton Cargo Capacity
C-5B = $1,396,000/Ton Cargo Capacity
CL160 = $ 570,000/Ton Cargo Capacity

When you add fuel to the mix, LTA lift just piles on...it uses far less fuel per sortie.

Next problem we face is that HTA lift (except for possibly the C-130 and the A400) requires a mature airfield. I conducted an exhaustive survey of Airports of Debarkation using the CIA Facts Book. It revealed that only about 82% of the nations/territories world wide have APODs large enough to handle C-130s/C-17s (and I believe the A400). Of these nations, on average, there are an average of 42 such APODs per country. Most underdeveloped nations have far fewer.

The C-5/141 and cargo 747s have an even tougher time...only about 2% of nations/territories around the world have APODs capable of handling these larger birds. Afghanistan, for instance, only has 3 APOD of this size.

Depending on the nation you wish to attack, you will need to seize some of these airfields through direct action. Establishing a lodgement requires roughly one Airborne/Air Assault Bde (doctrinally a Bde-size mission) or a Ranger Bn at a minimum. We only have 6-8 units in the army capable of handling such a mission on short notice. Open source documentation makes it easy for a potential adversary to find out this info. If I know this, I can either focus my combat power at all my APODs the U.S. might target or I can limit U.S. options by cratering my own runways save a few I can defend easily. With adequate infantry, mech, and ADA dug in deep and dispersed to maximize survivability against U.S. Airpower, the enemy could slaughter the Airborne Paratroopers as they attempt to sieze the field. Thus they need AMS means to land away into offset zones and then seize runways if required.

With LTA lift:

1) We avoid the potential "turf" battle with the USAF.
2) We are able to economize political capital and budget resources to geometrically expand strategic lift.
3) We obtain almost unlimited access to any nation/territory using LTA lift enable by Air Assault forced-entry to gain a foothold in any threat nation's "backyard" at a place and time of our chosing without the tactical constraints of having these locations capable of being APOD/SPODs for less agile, follow-on forces