MFTS does seem to be degenerating doesnt it, both in terms of delivery shortcomings and the resulting commercial relationship - pretty much in the way that quite a few (old timers!) on here had been forecasting it would.
I do agree that simply throwing rocks at ASCENT is massively oversimplifying the issues at hand. The accountability (the buck) still stops with MoD (PE) or whatever they are called these days, regardless of the shortcomings of their chosen delivery partner.
Fundamentally the current situation has come about by a misguided attempt to simultaneously modernise and strip out cost of Flying Training. So whereas previously we had a flying training system that was (arguably) the envy of the world it did come at a cost and also was facing quite acute recapitalisation challenges. Further coupled with the ever changing face of modern warfare you can kind of see why some relatively clever, career minded professionals, decided that MFTS had legs.
All sounds good so far, however the next step is where I imagine it started to unravel. This is the bit where the "cost challenge" is laid down and instead of working to a, for arguments sake, 10% cut on the headline costs of the legacy system you are then told it has to be 40%. Cue a load of headscratching, from which said professionals declare that what is being asked for is impossible, i.e. no way it is possible to save 40%, recapatilise the fleet and modernise the syllabus all at the same time. Next they get told they have no choice they will "have to make it fit" so, and this is the clever bit, a set of assumptions are documented, e.g. assume that student pilot numbers will remain at 2010 levels for the next 25yrs, assume that International Training requirements will decline over next 25yrs, assume that availability rate of Texan II will be 99.999% for next 25yrs, assume that MPA capability will not be required for next 25yrs, assume that outflow rates will remain at Y% per annum for next 25yrs, etc, etc
If all of those assumptions (and many more) would have held true then maybe this MFTS malarkey would have stood a chance, but as soon as those assumptions started to change then an already marginal delivery plan suddenly becomes a worthless pile of garbage. Then you have to find somebody senior with an ounce of gumption to go and tell the DefSec that MFTS is dead on its feet, then he has to listen, then DefSec gets replaced, then the VSO moves on, etc, etc
Eventually you end up where we seem to be today where all the poorly chickens come home to roost....
The only thing likely to dramatically alter prospects in the long term is to throw more money at it