It is good in the sense that those engineers can try to do their best instead of dealing with unrealistic and generally purposeless requirements from the army. Another thing is armies tend to be conservative in many areas, and their leaders are often elderly (elderly mean even more stubborn) commanders. However, young engineers are often quite progressive (not in political means) minded people. We can even see the difference between Force-to-Force, where Ground Forces choose WW2-era tanks over modern ones just because they have heavy in their name, while Navy even considers unmanned submarines. There was a US general who fought against his Force to install drone weapons.
If not for Baykar, who would think of the Kızılelma Concept in the Turkish Army? Or, if not for TUSAŞ, who would think deep-strike stealth UAV concept? We can think of the same for TCG Anadolu; ultimately, it was the idea of some engineers in SSB to turn it into a drone carrier (although that invention came from desperation). If that left conservative ideas of some old general that might float around empty, waiting for the US to approve F-35Bs somewhere in the future.
