Personally, I liked doing them. On a fighter forum, guys say they are prohibited in the F-22 and F-35, so why learn it?
On the other hand, lots of other guys had anecdotal stories (in both peacetime and combat) of guys being led down after major damage or systems failures.
Even if no longer allowed in those two jets, I still feel some of the skills learned in form landings translated to better ability in close formation (in general) that could have uses in combat...say, AAR, or the least-familiar feel for the maneuvering dynamics of the jet: high AoA at low speeds (knife-fight in a phone-booth BFM; vertical scissors, etc).
In my view, there was a better way to teach the landings. I was taught as a student, and years later as an IP, I taught the same mantra: to focus on Lead, the wing leading-edge, and the “stab bolt” (which isn’t a bolt at all...) as primary, and “check the runway” periodically; more so when you got closer to touchdown.
I hit upon an idea during my last 1000 hours of 4000 in the T-38. I’d tell my student: “Would it bother you to fly a landing to the outside runway, while another jet was landing on the Center runway?” They’d say “Umm...no!!” I’d continue: “what if I started moving the runways closer together?” They’d give me the RCA Victor dog-look.
“What if the parallels were only 500 ft apart? 250? 75?”
”Make your side of the runway your primary reference, and pretend Lead is another jet landing on a parallel runway, 75 ft away. While flying to your runway, pretend you are flying off of him...and respect him if he does something abrupt or stupid. But make the RUNWAY the primary reference, and it will make flying off of him easier.”
The difference was incredible. Instead of wild phugoid oscillations, they usually were fairly stable.
I only wish I had thought of it when I was flying the F-4!!