These are all great questions. There is a very large staff in Ottawa working on making sure we do the best, given all of the constraints that are in defence procurement.
One thing I would say from my level is that we have to prove and sustain that we are a globally deployable, valued navy no matter where we show up to do the business of the nation. “Globally deployable” means the ship has to be big. What we have today is a big ship in the world of warships. It's not a huge ship but it is a fairly big ship, a very sea-keeping, stable platform capable of carrying a very large helicopter. It has the volume for the crew size we need, which is globally deploying, and it has space for the growth in equipment and capacities as technology and finances allow the country to pursue advancements as the ship evolves. We're always looking for that capacity, which is in essence a modularity in its own right that we have added to all our warships, a modular component, as time evolves. If we hold on to the premise that we're a globally deployable navy and that we require a fairly large and high-volume platform, we're tipping toward the domain that you're speaking of.
Modularity doesn't frighten us, but it's for programmers to decide whether it's the appropriate way to go. We have experience with modularity and mission modules in the Kingston class. It has its own set of challenges that are worth study and reflection on.
I would just leave it at that, with one final comment. We're getting an Arctic offshore patrol ship—6,000 tonnes, 6,000 miles, high volume, utility space for varied missions that will grow into that ship as we realize the potential of what has been purchased—and there is a case in point for many of the things you've just mentioned.