The F-35B segments were very interesting, although the 'difficulty' of AAR was rather overplayed. Given that there's no 2-sticker, even after the best brief there is, single seat AAR will at first inevitably involve an element of 'teach yourself jousting'. The only Fast Jet I ever saw being downright dangerous was a Luftwaffe Tornado ECR, who I nearly sent home. After some inter-Tornado chat on their back boxes out in echelon, he was adequate the next time. It turned out that he was their boss, who hadn't actually attended the brief!
The Valley segment was better than in the first episode, but emphasis on pass/fail criteria was probably only there to keep the programme makers happy? What was VERY interesting was the radical change in ACM teaching. I was lucky enough to have done TWU on the Hunter at Brawdy and later a further TWU on the Hawk T1 at Chivenor. In those 4 - 5 years, ACM teaching had changed radically, but was still 'guns-centric'. Whereas the T2 teaching is in a wholly new league and the benefit of mission debrief replay is huge. It seem to be very much more fluid with missile parameters rather than guns perhaps being the goal. No more 'base height brawls', grunting away on opposite sides of a circle on the buffet nibble for the other aircraft to make an error - now it's clearly aimed at Typhoon / F-35B ops. Quite rightly. I'd love to have a go - who wouldn't!
But missing a Bingo....
The Hawk T1 had a simple enough fuel gauging system, so I cannot imagine that it is worse in the T2. Don't fall off your perch, BV, but I agree with your comment! Towards the end of my Hunter TWU, we were having a fairly busy 2v2 session out over the Bristol Channel in 4 single seat jets. Hunter fuel gauges were useless in manoeuvre, so fuel awareness was essential. As we finished the last bout, one of my colleagues called a 'Bingo minus' call as he'd failed to keep tabs - so back we went at range speed, he was told to land first....and was off the course soon afterwards.