I can probably give you information on the first two questions. On the last one, unfortunately, I don't have the expertise in that particular area.
When it comes to the process whereby we set requirements, there is an ongoing process. It starts at certain levels, and over time, it bubbles its way up to the top. I talked earlier about a challenge process where we set something out and it gets looked at.
I also talked about guiding principles. One of the guiding principles for strategic lift was that we already have a platform that performs one element of strategic lift, and that is our Airbus A310 aircraft. So one of our principles was that whatever we got had to be able to lift at least as much as that particular Airbus, because it didn't seem to make a lot of sense for us...especially when we were looking for a bipolar solution, if you will, one that had a strategic element to it and one that had a tactical element to it.
When things began to bubble up and we looked at the numbers, it seemed to us a bit of an anomaly that we would only want to be able to lift one LAV III vehicle, which is essentially only incrementally more than our tactical aircraft can do right now. So we were going to have two parts to the solution, and in its early stages we identified a requirement for something that was only incrementally larger than the Hercules could lift right now, so--