I'll start and then Tim can jump in.
Nowhere have we advocated that we'd try to be everything our domestic customer needs. We don't build fighter airplanes in this country, for example; nor should we. In my view, we can't afford it. With the exception of the land vehicle capability in London, we don't build tanks. We do build ships, or we have built ships. So we need to look at what's practical, what's reasonable, and what's sustainable.
The rest of it is back to the financial model and the business model, which includes a very important element, and that is competition. How do you get the best value? You can compete in a dozen different ways. You can compete at the technology end, open it up, best team wins. You can compete at the production end. You can compete almost anywhere in between.
You also can compete at almost every level in the supply chain, and the prime contractors do. I happen to work for a mid-tier defence company, so we compete every day for business with our global peers. There's lots of room for competition. The prime contractor could have been selected. His obligation to his customer is maximized competition at every level in the supply chain, however you define competition. So there are ways of doing it, and it needs to be looked at depending on what the product is or the output is. A ship is different from an IBM computer, to use that example.
Again, it is not rocket science, but it needs to be looked at with the best value in mind. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we throw out competition, but at the same time let's not throw the investment down the tubes, if it makes sense to benefit from it.