Do not know about the C-130Js, P-8I, etc, but the C-17 has a standard contract for 80% up-time. FOR the rest of their lives!!!!
Plenty of FUD around. OK, let us try.
* No one responded to the IAF global tender for the IL-76s - because of a clause in the tender (that the 3rd party had to get the blessing of IL!!! Go figure)
* Recent numbers on the IL-76s: I have not seen any - googled a lot.
The air frames were completely overhauled starting 2009 or so, to increase life by around 10 years. The first one came back around 2011-12, so around 2022 they will start retiring them.
Spares: No idea. I assume that the Russians have been able to meet the IAFs need.
My guess is that the IL-76s are being used less often than they were when the C-17s were not there - a fair expectation I would say - which places less stress on them. (IAF seems to have around 17 IL-76s and 10 C-17s)
Since we have had deep discussion on C-17 vs. whatever, here are a few salient points:
* People who think any-thing-can-cart-people-like-the-C-17, do not seem to understand that transports need a LOT of maintenance. So, teh question becomes what is that ratio of flyable time and maintenance
* To give you an idea of "maintenance" and therefore up-time, this was the requirement for the IL-76 in the global tender:
The tender adds that on any single day the serviceability of each fleet (IL-76 and IL-78) should not fall below 50 per cent of total number of aircraft included in the contract
After ALL that noise, the expectations for the IL-76 was at 50%. So, 17 IL-76 in the inventory, IAF expected 8 to be flyable. Go figure.
* IL-76 needs 7 to operate, C-17 needs 3 (and IL-476 needs 5)
We have been through the following, so briefly (and I have no idea why this is coming up):
SU: MKIs, India funded them and revived Sukhoi
MiG-29: India funded resolving problems faced by that bird. No expert, but am told that the 29 had huge problems
Russian Naval sites: India funded reviving them (2/3?)
T-90: What to say?
IL-476: IL was relying on either India or China to pitch in. Neither did. So, my feel is that this is a dead deal that will produce some for the A-100 (recall initial estimates were some 125 for the military and then some for the civilian)
FGFA: IMHO, repeat of the MKI, SU waiting for Indian funds
As an aside, I think it is the policy of the Russian MoD to get their MICs to rely on exports to fund Russian projects.
__________________________________________________
I see this whole thing from three dimension, with the major one being that "India" is no longer the "India" of even 15 years ago. The needs of India have changed and clearly in declining the offer made around 2005 for the IL-476 India (IAF) stated that the ILs did not meet transport needs (the A-50s are a totally different beast - I do not think they can be compared to the IL-76s). Today that was a wise decision (IMHO). India's position has changed even further, where the old thinking just does not apply.
As far as C-17s sitting on the tarmac in Delhi - GREAT. You want that sword in the sheath, knowing if it were to come out it would be in anger.
Meanwhile use the C-17 for diplomacy. That is ALSO what it was bought for.