-re Snatch.
It was known in the 90s it was not fit for purpose in NI, and a replacement programme announced with a firm ISD. Hence, at one level, that demonstrates the vulnerability was known against threats in that theatre. So far, so good(ish).
When it was deployed to sandy places, that vulnerability analysis would have been revalidated for changes in threats. As successive Defence Secretaries insisted it WAS fit for purpose, one assumes they can back this up with the VA.
Or not.
If not, and the threats were even greater (and I think most would say they were) then I'd want to know who chopped that programme and why we had to wait for many deaths to force a series of minor UORs.
Please don't mention FRES. The above replacement was a concurrent programme, both endorsed at the same time for different requirements/uses, but with similar ISDs. (Around 2005/6).
That bit about VA was what wasn't done properly on C130. Don't get caught up in airworthiness - that is just the manifestation of proper safety management in an aircraft. Haddon-Cave, although he didn't spell it out, was referring to Air, Land and Sea.