This is not about whether the military approach is better or not compared to the civil side of things. Instead we need to focus on a 'point of balance' in other words yes you can get Rolls Royce training when the budget is almost infinite but at what point will the small increases in training standards begin to cost far too much.
The Civil and Military aspirations are different not totally but nevertheless quite divergent from each other. In civil flight training there are no aeros (other than some add-on course), no low level flight (especially at night!), no weapons instruction, etc ....
Just because the RAF utilise aircraft don't forget that they are essentially flying soldiers, a point that is all too often overlooked. Indeed there are some healthy cross integrations of training methods and philosphy but I think both systems should be relatively independant from each other as there are operate in different arenas. It could be argued further that the civilian side would scorn the "money no object" approach adopted at times by our military, would that suffice at senior level in an airline?
As I've already said I admire, respect and am in awe of military flying standards and capability but that doesn't give it an exclusive licence regarding ownership of aviation. The US FAA was founded and still does to this day encompass all of the auspices of a civil system and thank God for that. The military are the people's most trusted, honoured servant and most
noble of knights but they are not the masters.