MI,
I'm not quite sure what you have against the C17, not saying your 100% wrong or anything, just puzzled by the effort your going too. A few questions for you:
1. Have you factored in additional cost for putting NATO spec coms equipment into the Russian aircraft? Boeing do not even supply if for the C17, it comes direct from the USAF, but at least it is 'bolt on' with the C17.
2. What about servicing costs? Spares costs, availability?
3. DAS costs and standards? The C17 has pretty good DAS, and it will be upgraded further still. It also has OBIGS and cockpit armour too.
4. How quickly can the Russian offerings be re-rolled? Do they always carry all the kit with them like the C17? The C17 is very flexible and can be re-rolled in minutes.
5. How much parking space are they going to use? This we a factor when the USAF switched to C17s. They quite simply got traffic jams at busy airports during operations using the C5 and C141.
6. What components and software are shared between the C17 and C130s and what cost (tools, pallets, PFPS, LAIRCM, Flares etc) and training will this save.
The problem with the military is the support always costs 10 x more than it should and offers about 10% of the effectiveness/efficiency it should. These costs could well have added up far too high for the Russian equipment.
99 Sqn have a team of Boeing reps permanently on the Sqn, not saying they will stay for ever, but the support is there. Will Antonov or Ilyushin offer that level of support?
Do your stats for aircraft loses take into account the flying hours?