Even as long ago as the F-4, simulators were great for various intercepts etc. training, because unlike in the actual aircraft, the radar didn't go U/S all the time. Even the ancient AI trainers at Conongsby were adequate for basic set handling and some intercept training etc. The sims were also used for intercept training and for aircraft emergency procedures etc. But for anything involving G, they were not so useful.
When HCAP visited Valley, the write-up commented on the use of the clever simulators for A-to-A work and the narrative drily mentioned that the young lady who was flying it was talking to them over her shoulder "Whilst pulling a simulated 5G....". Hmmmm....
Part-task-trainers (PTT), properly used for the intended purpose can often achieve more than a full flight simulator, paradoxically. Training new AAR crews for the VC10 in the 'Pennants' trainer was a useful exercise and they concentrated on the task in hand rather than expecting to be given some aircraft emergency in a Full Flight Simulator (FFS). The TriStar 'Corels' were equally good.
When we did the TNA for training air transport crews for the AAR role on a particular aircraft type, we looked at all levels of training media including Computer Based Traing, Computer Assisted Instruction, PTT, FFS and the aircraft itself. The cost of modifying the FFS was prohibitive, so the ultimate decision was for knowledge-based training to be delivered by self-paced CBT and for skill-based training to be delivered by PTT. The first 2 crews did a famil trip in the aircraft, but from then on there was very little 'on aircraft' training as the PTT was such an excellent solution.
So yes, you can do a vast amount of 'role training' in a PTT and/or FFS. But the bean counters need to be reined in from seeing 'synthetic' training as a total solution.