So, my 3 points then:
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but please accept that you have extremely limited factual knowledge of either the old or the new, and your chum at Shawbury (who also has little factual knowledge about the new era) may not be a reliable source.
I have considerably more than one chum at Strawbs and on both sides of the fence - I am not in the habit of mentioning things that do not come from reliable (but deniable for their own protection) sources.
Sorry - I genuinely don't see how you deduce this. And if the planned syllabuses are being tweaked as the start date approaches, why shouldn't they be? The 'old' DHFS syllabuses have been improved/changed/'streamlined' countless times.
there are a whole bunch of massively experienced instructors who could be used to tweak the syllabus - if it is complete (or nearly so) why wouldn't you market-test it on those who will deliver it?
Btw the 'old' DHFS syllabus was a cut and paste from the even older Gazelle 2 AFTS syllabus so it had some pedigree - can you say that about the shiny new one?
I admire your positive spin on MFTS and I hope you aren't disappointed with it but I won't be holding my breath..........
Bullsh!t. Remember all that guff about 330-degree radars
that was and remains a factor - the new SAR model doesn't have Radops (even though the ex-mil ones will monitor the letdown) so you have the co-pilot doing it instead - not a particular problem if it is regularly trained for but it still lacks the flexibility and assurance of a Radop with (almost) full radar coverage - ask a Radop if you don't believe me.