The common denominator here is the failure to implement the airworthiness regs.
The recent cases where this failure is absolutely clear cut, if only because it is spelt out in the BoI reports (so not just my own opinion), are Nimrod, Tornado/Patriot and Sea King ASaC. I won’t pre-judge C130, but suspect that one is more a fitness for purpose issue, which shares the same processes, procedures and Duty of Care obligation.
It is certainly a factor in the Chinook Mk2, because the evidence clearly shows the regs were not implemented properly. Whether or not this had a direct bearing on the crash nobody will ever know – which is the whole point of trying to have the verdict overturned. But it should not detract from the fact.
I’d say the above is a pretty damning body of evidence, all of it in the public domain. Of the five I’ve mentioned, at least 3 were predictable, predicted and ignored; with the MoD’s own airworthiness advisors having critical concerns about a 4th (Chinook). Yes, you very quickly get to the real problem. Lack of management oversight and leadership, and abrogation of responsibility. Start at 2 Star and work upwards.