I think those figures and the associated graphs are a little simplistic, not taking into account the different missions etc.
C-17 tend to fly longer missions than C-130 so some of the costs, ground crew, infrastructure etc are similar but the C-17 in some ways uses less of those.
C-130 may use X ground crew, Y facilities /mission, Z fuel/hr
C-17 may use ?xX ground crew, ?xY facilities/mission. ?xZ fuel/hr
Depending on the ratios in the above criteria it is plausible that given the longer mission profiles of the C-17 that the statisticians would get those results.
Not agreeing they reflect the real world, just seeing it like an accountant.
The Guam B2
crash putting up the hourly cost of running the fleet, it didn't really, just a beancounters view of the world.
Sure one has to take these things into account but the loss of one frame did not suddenly almost double the cost of a strike mision.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!