ViperMan
-
Posts
648 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by ViperMan
-
-
2 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:
The reason for the $35K/$34K split is Congress. The NDAA markup mandated "targeted" $35K bonuses. This way the AF can follow the law and still max the bonus as much as possible.
Dumb? Yes.
But the law is the law.I wonder if they could have done $34,999.99? That would have made me laugh out loud, and I would have actually enjoyed being the staff-O that got to type up the MFR or whatever. "It is 'tiered', congressman..."
1 hour ago, BeerMan said:This!!! ^^^^^
I feel like we revisit this issue one a month on this forum. The NDAA is the law. Congress, specifically the SASC, said no to a $60-48k bonus.
They also said the Air Force WILL use targeted bonuses. Current AF leadership is not trying to insult our intelligence, they're following the law.
Put another way, Congress said the monkeys should be happy with $35k in bananas. The Air Force fought back, but lost. Congress wins. Those are the rules of the game.
Write, call, or visit your Senator and your Rep and tell them what you think.
I understand this better now, and FULLY grasp that everyone in the AF answers to someone, including the COS. HOWEVER, the fault of the AF isn't that they currently have their hands tied by Congress/must do what they say. No one is blaming them for that, but there is NO DOUBT the AF could have and should have seen this coming and postured themselves earlier during "cold ops" to deal with the inevitable. Congress will likely almost always say "no" to one of their "children" at first request. The AF (at least parts of it) interfaces with Congress on a daily or weekly basis. Those individuals who do, know this, grasp how the sausage is made, and understand that they're not going to get something the first time they ask. The point? They were negligent in not initiating this effort years ago - that's the problem and complaint. Bitching about $35K vs $34K is just good fun.
34 minutes ago, BeerMan said:If leaving and taking another opportunity is best for anyone and their family, by all means, jump on it and don't look back! But...
In reference to the ACP (amount, AFSC, timeline, etc) be educated about what is actually going on. Sport bitching is fun (I love it), but complaining about the Air Force limiting the bonus amount, and making it tiered is shooting the messenger. Congress literally writes down what the Air Force and other services are allowed to do. They use words, put it on paper, and the internet for everyone to see.
I don't expect any Captain, or line flyer to read the NDAA. Their job is to kick ass and take names in whatever MDS they operate, but at least be aware and listen to the rest of us when we emerge from our desk caves and shed some light on these things.
We have enough shit to fix without spreading bullshit false narratives amongst ourselves.
Cheers,
Beerman
I don't like blaming the messenger either, but I do think the AF has played a greater role in this "crisis" than just a message passer between the country's legislators and the line fliers. The 5-year hiatus on airline retirements built up a 5-year backlog of hiring that was certain to affect retention. Now, we're reacting, when we had all the opportunity in the world to be proactive. Seems like a missed opportunity, and one which, if properly addressed, would have been a staff effort actually worthy of receiving OPR bullets.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, nsplayr said:
These guys are so ignorant to human psychology the way this is structured.
A few thousand dollars here or there really makes no difference at all in a guy's decision to stay. They make these numbers seem so calibrated and logical like there's some magic formula on exactly how much you need to pay to tip the balance. News flash, AFPC and Congress ain't that smart.
What ends up being incredibly insulting however is being paid less than your buddy just because he has a different letter after his number, when you both can see that each of your career fields is undermanned.
Even when the retention need differs across specialties (11F vs 11M), a level bonus is always going to feel more equitable and produce better results. The joy of the fighter guy getting a few thousand more will not outweigh the anger of the heavy guy getting a few thousand less,and the AF will end up with fewer pilots than if they just paid everyone the same bonus.
+1 for $60K across the board for pilots, $25K for CSOs and call it a day.
Mostly agree with you, but not on your point that paying everyone the same is a solution (hello socialism). If someone has a skill set that is in higher demand it can command a higher price, and it should.
Now, the $1K difference between AFSCs is amusing AF logic, as if it was the product of some Rube Goldberg device, and I agree with you that if they're going to pay people equivalently the same amount/bonus, they should just make it the same across the board - $1K difference between 11Xs ain't going to make a difference in retention for those seeking money - it will make a difference for those who want to feel like they are valued by the organization - which a bonus structured like this goes a long way to undermining.
That said, if there is a (much) greater need for certain AFSCs, they should reflect that in the bonus they offer. Ultimately though, I'm not one for bonuses and would prefer to see the AF tackle this problem in a completely different way that represents the value provided to the DOD that each AFSC brings. I would rather have them divorce the pay scale from O-whatever and align it with AFSC. At this point in my career, I struggle more with the logic of paying O-1/2/3/4/5/6s the same when different AFSCs bring inherently different value to the warfighting table. Same is true for Es.
-
4
-
-
10 minutes ago, Ram said:
It jumped the shark before that. TC just can't fathom that he could ever be wrong about anything. Reading his diatribes was a peak into the mind of a very special kind of narcissist.
For a recent example, check out his "analysis" on the Thunderbird mishap...laughable.
-
1
-
-
Does this mean the USN gets back Miramar?
-
1
-
-
If it was X-dollars pegged to inflation/pay raises, meaning they recognize its value decreases as other pays increase, I would have taken that as a signal that they realized there was a systematic issue with the bonus of the last 25 years - as it is, I don't really any positive signals being sent with the current suggested bonus levels.
-
2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:
Fair enough.
I will quibble on your historical analogy though, that was when it was "universal" UPT and all were tracking 38s with their order of merit and Fighter, Bomber, Recce recommendation determining who could go where then. Everyone was a 38 student then so the assignment of non-fighters was not remarkable but routine.
I didn't imply and I don't think that T-1s have "dibs" on certain assignments, however, the expectation is that the T-1s will be the primary source for those assignments, I saw some guys who were competitive for 38s choose T-1s, not me just to keep it real, but as Fuzz, said not everyone in T-1s is a unsuccessful T-38 track applicant.
Flying T-1s doesn't close doors, its a privilege. I wanted to fly something with an afterburner but that didn't work out, so be it. But getting to fly heavy jets is not a consolation prize. Not sure if you were intending to shit on heavy flying or not but it comes across that way. That's not butt hurt talking ether, just not going to be condescended to.
I'm done ranting, no animosity either.
How was WWI started? One guy shooting another guy was the little match to light the big fire. Kindling was already in place though...
I agree with you and enjoy most of your posts. Not meaning to $hit on anyone - I just prefer to be very to the point on this forum. As far as the "closing doors" comment, of course flying any USAF jet is a privilege, and one all dudes should be very proud of - I simply mean that the last time someone got taken from the T-1 track and thrown into the F-22 was never.
My original intent was to properly frame the two youngins' mindsets regarding opportunities in pilot training - it was their posts which strongly suggested T-1 studs had "dibs" on certain assignments, and the suggestive use of "quotation" marks also implied that they thought it was BS some hot dog 38 shithead swooped in and took "their" assignment - as if to say that if you choose to go to 38s you are opting out of the opportunity to fly what is generally the desired assignment on the T-1 side of the house - which is a bullshit thought.
I've pasted what I was really getting at below:
11 hours ago, innovator said:Ulysses is correct. They were both non-recs.
Alright, I am gonna bitch. Despite what the bigwigs say, both of those 17s were taken from the T-1 pool of assignments. The outcome: those two T-38 students were "saved" from a bomber and in return two of the T-1 students that wanted C-17s got hosed.
Is this fair? I don't know. I will say that if you are going to play ball with the T-38s and want to compete for fighters, you must be ready to face the outcome if you don't perform well. Getting "rewarded" with C-17s (that T-1 students were competing for) is not justified after going to multiple 89s.
You know what, lets just take the guy at the bottom of his T-1 class and give him a fifth gen fighter.....
Sorry for the rant guys.
Ehh, on second reading, it really isn't even implied - they outright said it.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:
Maybe not wrong but inconsistent and frankly hypocritical.
SUPT is meant to be Specialized not Universal UPT. I understand that needs of the AF drove the policy of 38 studs being universally assignable but that was based on an institutional need not a personal preference that was limited because of a career choice, i.e. the choice of these studs to track 38s and the likely assignments to follow from that personal choice.
They ranked their track preferences and made their decisions. Now, when those chickens come home to roost, good or bad, they must live with them.
Well, lets just say we disagree. 38 studs have always been universally assignable - ever since the days of UPT, when T-38 studs went on to fly C-141s, OV-10s, etc.
SUPT was implemented to save the Air Force money and to prolong the life of the T-38. Not to give T-1 students "dibs" on certain platforms. T-38 studs did rack their preferences, as did I years ago, knowing that I could always go fly something "heavy" later in life if I wanted to do so. Choosing to go fly 38s doesn't close any doors - choosing to fly T-1s does.
-
5
-
-
7 hours ago, innovator said:
Ulysses is correct. They were both non-recs.
Alright, I am gonna bitch. Despite what the bigwigs say, both of those 17s were taken from the T-1 pool of assignments. The outcome: those two T-38 students were "saved" from a bomber and in return two of the T-1 students that wanted C-17s got hosed.
Is this fair? I don't know. I will say that if you are going to play ball with the T-38s and want to compete for fighters, you must be ready to face the outcome if you don't perform well. Getting "rewarded" with C-17s (that T-1 students were competing for) is not justified after going to multiple 89s.
You know what, lets just take the guy at the bottom of his T-1 class and give him a fifth gen fighter.....
Sorry for the rant guys.
Yes. People who know a lot more than you made decisions that you don't like - it doesn't mean they're wrong. 38 studs are universally assignable, and those individuals who "stole" 17s likely out-competed the ones you think they "displaced" earlier in the program when they were "head to head" - i.e. when they were in T-6s.
7 hours ago, Ulysses said:Furthermore, if guys are sucking in 38s and can't get a bomber drop, is there a chance of being recycled back into Tones or something, or does that just cause too much administrative difficulty/backup in the next class? If they're gonna be stealing a heavy from a T-1 student then it only seems fair that they then compete against those T-1 students.
But that's assuming "fairness."
No. They either graduate and the above happens, or they wash out.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, viper154 said:
As said above, how do you plan retaining these guys in places like DLF when they can rack up a few thousand hours in 2-3 years and make bank in a desirable location. Its cheaper for the AF to force Lts to be FAIPs for $33,000 a year +BAH/benefits than to shell out 6 figures to a civilian dude.
Is it though? The USAF puts > $1M bucks into a guy over 54 weeks and then an additional $300K over the following 3 years to do that "job" - so call it $1.3M bucks for 4 years of work. Then, you wind up getting only 6 years out of the guy when he finally gets to an MWS...so...?
-
3 minutes ago, Vetter said:
Airline IT is stuck in the late 70s/early 80s. After being at AA for almost 3 years, I can say without a doubt the only reason this shit show doesn't implode is because of the Capt and FO. These companies are not going to outlay the capital to make any improvements which would allow single pilot or autonomous. Possible in a Utopia...sure. Just not in this ing world.
LOL.
-
59 minutes ago, Hacker said:
Use the company EFB to surf porn.
(whispered tone) FA #1 to #2: "Janet, would you please tell the captain the intercom is stuck in hot mic!!!"
-
1
-
-
Sure, as long as they're retired military pilots.
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, viperdriver1313 said:
Fingers came and talked to us at Misawa. We asked him that direct question.
He actually said he wanted to lessen it to 8 years active duty..and 6 years in the reserves. So yes, more years total in commitment.
Allow AF pilots to fly for the Airlines but still hold on to that experience an extra 4 years..
Let me know if I'm completely out of line, but having an inherent dangerous job, working 14+ hour days, and flying a jet that requires more skill that working at a desk=should equal more pay. I'm making as much money as a COMM officer (who works half that)? Doesn't seem right to me. I'm not all about the money and would even take a pay cut at this point to fly for the Airlines as soon as I'm done with my 10.
Don't just patch the problem with $30K plus bonus's at the 10 plus year point after I'm burned out.
No, you're not out of line - you're just thinking outside the box (sts). Why is it proper to pay people who do drastically different jobs and accept wildly different levels of risk the same salary? It's acceptable because of the meme that was installed in your brain in whatever commissioning source you came from that "we're all equal."
-
18 minutes ago, brickhistory said:
If they stick to the timeline in the article and actually have a autonomous passenger aircraft next summer, then that's where my bet would be.
If you mean airliner; the latter, which I assume was your point.
Mine is that this is happening and Moore's law is applicable.
The latter was. And yes, I think this is also happening, but there is also the reality that although technical progress may be rapid and uninhibited, there are also legislative hurdles that tend to put the brakes on things like this (progress) and don't care about Moore's law - generally they put on "safety" clothes to buy legitimacy, and implement some measure of control over whatever the industry happens to be. Mark my words, you will never be allowed to own a vehicle that is capable of full autonomy.
The relevance of the fast-food argument is simply to point out that before we have self-flying passenger airliners, we are going to need to figure out what we do (as a country) with 10s of thousands of fast-food workers who will be dis-employed first - not to mention many other industries that have equally unskilled labor, or less-skilled labor than airline pilots - who arguably serve a much more important function that any one of the ~ 10^7 (or more) people who work in big-box stores and the like.
15 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:True - in this case I think it will be partial automation (single pilot ops) before they go for the full monty.
One human in the cockpit, HAL in the right seat and a datalink to another human who could thru another autopilot take control of the jet. That human on the ground will be responsible for intervening on any number of jets linked to an Ops Center for savings in the unlikely event that ground directed intervention is needed. This will satisfy the two pilot regulations until ICAO says one person in the loop is enough.
This is the bow wave of history forming, how the hell do we run society when 50% of the population (or more) are automated out of work.
Exactly - if you're not technically proficient, you'll likely not have much to contribute to anything.
-
33 minutes ago, brickhistory said:
To my flying friends, I wish you nothing but success in capitalizing on your training and skills.
I think you are naïve if you don't think that every day very large, very rich interests are working diligently to replace you.
Egged by the airlines who would like nothing better than to cut one of two of their biggest operating costs - labor (the other being fuel) - and pay the Bombay guy to run the LAS - ORD routing.
Dispatchers becoming operational C2 is happening and there are far fewer of them to pay.
DoD isn't just interested in this in order to not put a guy in harm's way. Cutting the payroll always is an attractive thing to staff warriors.
Sure the link may be nothing but a stunt and as funny as Achmed facing a face full of sand milli-seconds prior to impact when HAL 9000 decides to reboot will be, it all starts somewhere.
Agree.
One question: do you think we will see autonomous passenger aircraft or fully automated fast-food restaurants first?
-
4 hours ago, Swizzle said:
Why the F' don't they just add TSP matching to any AFSC 11X or 12X or Aviation bonus payment used for TSP....the services are allowed to match....
It'd be a small upfront payment from Mother Blue for a possibly big benefit for aviators later when we're old and deaf from flying her planes.
Because then they could never take it away.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, BeerMan said:
Yep, especially if the airline is headquartered, has a significant presence, or impacts the economy of their state.
Are you surprised?
I cynically do believe that certain ones do care more about such calculations, but I still don't buy that they would give more weight to an airlines' complaint about USAF 11F salaries than they already do - I mean if they cared so much, why did they implement the 1500 hr ATP rule? That arguably will have a far, far greater impact on the airlines than will the "delay" that a higher military salary would have on staffing the airlines' rosters, since retired guys at 20 years would likely go to the airlines anyway.
-
10 hours ago, pcola said:
Agree with this sentiment. Why should it be assumed that the AF can't compete financially with airline salaries? Given the relatively small percentage of mil personnel that are pilots, it would seem that even huge bonuses should constitute a relatively small percentage of DOD $. Take a look at some of the unique medical bonuses and then ask yourself why the AF/DOD/Congress refuses to entertain the idea that its pilot force is as worthy of receiving competitive compensation.
I agree with you, and in my humble opinion, the USAF doesn't want to set the precedent of paying certain line officers double or more what they pay other line officers - it would likely cause "morale" issues in other parts of the Air Force - that is their real reason in my calculation - not the fact that they can't actually compete with the private sector (airlines). Which is why, every time I've heard it 'discussed', it's always brought up as a non-starter: "well, we know we can't compete with the airlines, so therefore..."
Really? The DOD has an enormous budget - they could squeeze a couple rocks and put a major dent in their problem using nothing but money, if it was no object.
-
1 hour ago, sqwatch said:
Because if the military outbids the civilian sector for labor as we are a significant source for the airlines, powerful lobbyists and people start calling senators.
So? Senators care more about an airlines' bottom line than they do national security?
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, SocialD said:
I don't think it will happen soon enough for it to have an impact on most of our careers. The big hiring is over the next 15ish years. I think it will be tough to get the technology to a level needed and the public onboard with this idea over that timeframe. Hell they can't even get self driving cars to do it right. There are videos all over of these cars blowing stop signs, almost hitting people and a few fatality crashes.
FYI getting to a fully autonomous car is a much more difficult problem than a self-flying airplane - basic reason, the driving environment is drastically more complex than the aircraft environment.
-
3
-
-
What about upping the retirement age to 85?
-
5
-
-
51 minutes ago, Lstcause257 said:
Why the hell does this matter? For all we know he was tasked to work with the FAA to come up with a solution (something that has been discussed for a while). As a result a part of the equation to help the national pilot shortage (both military and civilian) is to lower the time.
What's wrong if they lower the hours for FOs, a lot of the issues mentioned are completely in the control of the airlines. (Showing without rest, pay, training)
I was crossing oceans with just over 1K hours with a brand new FP. So according to some posts here we should have been a death trap waiting to happen.
If you are an AF pilot and you believe this is doing you an injustice the problem probably isn't flights hours...It matters because if you don't ID the root cause of an issue, you will never solve the problem.
Nothing is wrong if the FAA lowers the hours for an ATP, but that's not the complaint. We (the pilots here) all know that it wasn't a flight-hour issue that caused the Colgan crash, and the subsequent rule-change doesn't really enhance the flying safety of the public.
People's issue is that the USAF is addressing an issue that's not causing its problems.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, emer msn said:
I hope this is a joke, but wouldn't be surprised if it isn't.
I have a feeling this is ultimately a response to a number of "crash pads" that have cropped up around places like PIT and Shaw that take advantage (rightfully so) of the rules of the game regarding long-term "deployments" to places like AFCENT/CENTCOM, or TDYs at Randolph, etc.
Bros notice that there is a huge economic disconnect between what is being paid for vs what is received on base. and have rushed to fill the gap. This undermines the "monopoly" system, takes money from someone's pocket, which powerful entities don't like, and hence a "mini" policy that directly contravenes established law.
-
7 hours ago, BeerMan said:
Everyone on this board has been screaming for the last 5 years that Air Force leadership, Congress, and America in general has not been paying attention to the looming pilot shortage. The 11Ms have been screaming "do something, don't just focus on 11Fs!" The Guard and Reserves are saying the same thing. They are losing their experienced pilots as well. Everyone agrees that if the Air Force does not do something then we're all F'd. Boot color, Friday shirts, rolled up sleeves, and contractors are not going to solve what is becoming a national problem, and will be a national crisis in 5-10 years. You could eliminate every pilot filled 179/365 tomorrow and you still wouldn't save enough pilots to put even a tiny dent in the approximately 1500-3000 pilots a year that the guys on this board have said are going to be hired in the next decade. We shit on one another all the time about the Air Force not having a long term plan that works with Congress and the commercial sector, and now some of us are angry because the Air Force is trying to have a conversation about a national problem?
Personally, I'll take having to compete with a regional guy at an airline over having all of the experience sucked out of the Air Force. Fingers is just being honest about the problem, and is having a conversation with the people who can help. Having a conversation is a good thing! Do you see that perspective?
And to be clear: I agree with a lot of the comments guys have made about attacking the problem instead of the symptoms. Stupid 179s/365s still need to be abolished, I like the positive uniform changes, in active duty fighter squadrons I have personally seen contractors tackle queep jobs, constant deployments to "temporary" (ahem permanent) locations with and without pilot swaps need to be adjusted, and there are still many other changes that need to be addressed and/or implemented.
I fully agree with you on this, and call me a cynic, but when I get a memo telling me I can roll up my sleeves, I delete it as fast as I do the ones reminding me that we're putting new cover sheets on our TPS reports - it just doesn't matter to me in the big scheme - I'll roll them up/down, wear whatever color boots you want, etc. That said, the AF wouldn't need to worry what the airlines did if their focus was on QOL. It is the only way the AF will compete with the airlines and it = (Fun / work) x Compensation. The Air Force, arguably, has a lot of control over two of these factors (Fun and compensation), so when people see our focus turned outward on issues that are yet to affect us, it's equivalent to worrying about a non-factor. So ultimately, I don't consider arguments that state the AF can't compete with industry - the AF is part of the only entity on the planet that can print money, so yes, they can compete - they just don't want to set that precedent.
What else it suggests to me is that longer UPT commitments are not in the works, the AF was told 'no', or is anticipating being told 'no'.
7 hours ago, BeerMan said:Stop focusing specifically on the 1500 hour rule for a second. Try looking at the problem from a 10-year lens.
[...]
Personally, I'll take having to compete with a regional guy at an airline over having all of the experience sucked out of the Air Force. Fingers is just being honest about the problem, and is having a conversation with the people who can help. Having a conversation is a good thing! Do you see that perspective?
And to be clear: I agree with a lot of the comments guys have made about attacking the problem instead of the symptoms. Stupid 179s/365s still need to be abolished, I like the positive uniform changes, in active duty fighter squadrons I have personally seen contractors tackle queep jobs, constant deployments to "temporary" (ahem permanent) locations with and without pilot swaps need to be adjusted, and there are still many other changes that need to be addressed and/or implemented.
I don't think that this board's current attention on the 1500 hour rule is about that so specifically - rather it is general irritation with the latest in a series of misfires when it comes to addressing the problems the USAF says it has. The 1500 hour rule has not, in any way, contributed to the current exodus in the USAF - thus when this board reacts to it with 'really?' - it is a valid response. There is always a push and a pull when deciding on whether or not to leave the AF for other opportunities. Right now, the 'pull' factor has increased, but this was easily foreseen years ago, and is resultant from the long-looming retirement hiatus - not from the recent implementation of the 1500 hour rule. Once the regional airlines are empty, then we can talk about what the impact of that decision has had on the regional airlines as well as on military pilot retention, but as it stands now, the airlines can hire as many regional pilots as they can cram through training.
What people here are focused on are the issues that "push" individuals out of service. Many people on this board have looked at this problem with the long view in mind and I've seen many such considerations that do address these issues in serious ways, but yet, we don't see movement on them or even acknowledgement that they're factors. Things such as:
- Basing decisions (Holloman, Cannon, Creech, Shaw, etc)
- 365s/179s (which exist specifically to skirt the USAFs own rules...)
- Up or out
- "Mandatory" not-mandatory education
- Ill-timed moves/PCSs
- TAMI/drones
- Opaque/unclear/questionable promotion rules
- The list goes on
Ask me 10 years ago if I was considering going to the airlines, and I would have laughed at you. Give me more control over the factors listed above, and I'll laugh at the airlines...for at least another few years, which is all the AF wants anyway. So, yes, I sort of see that perspective, and I would give it more credence if it was backed up by actions taken 10 years ago to
- Increase the bonus
- Eliminate up or out
- Be more transparent with career opportunities/progression
Or actions taken 4-6 years ago to not
- Force-shape fighter pilots...yeah...or other 11Xs...
BL: seems to me that it is just something convenient to point at - just like the previous reasoning given which was "pilots just want to fly more..." when sequestration was all the rage.
4 hours ago, NKAWTG said:The ATP requirement to fly for 30k a year for a regional is a legitimate problem for industry. While it puts separating military pilots at the front of que for the majors, it breaks the entry level pipeline on the civilian side. Entry level wages need to go way up to provide a ROI for the years spent slumming as a CFI, or the 100k + needed to get the flight time. Legitimate problem, but where does the Air Force have a dog in this fight? Big Blue has it's own pipeline, thousands of people wanting entry level positions, and job security independent of the economy at large. Not to say you have job security, because hiring and firing are bureaucratic decisions, not rational ones.
As much "effort" as the military puts into retention, the single overriding factor is the economy. If you can get equivalent or better compensation/QoL out the military, then you leave. If we can't, then we stay. Doubling a bonus won't move the needle nearly as much as 9/11 or the great recession.
That, to me, sounds like American, Delta, United, and Southwest's problem - not the USAFs.
-
5
Trends in Air to Air Combat
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by ViperMan
Lesson (not) learned is that you don't let a kid (the Marines) sit at the grown up's table when making important DOD-wide acquisitions, or if you do, you don't allow them to have disproportionate influence on the outcome.