Let me try to make it clear. We were told, first of all, that it was going to be an open competition, and then we were told a few months later that this was the only aircraft that would do the job. Either something happened in the meantime...and we're being told the competition actually took place 10 years ago and all of that. So the question really is this. The statement of requirements is supposed to be the starting point. That's what the Auditor General told us; that's what Alan Williams told us: you make your statement of requirements and decide what your needs are, and then you go looking for something to fill them.
That's apparently not what happened with the Chinook, for example. There's been some suggestion that it is not what happened with the search and rescue aircraft, that the statement of requirements was actually drafted to conform to an airplane. That's the suggestion.
The question then becomes, do we have a pattern here that causes us to question whether the cart was put before the horse here? We're involved with the joint strike fighter development program, and therefore it's an easy step to decide that this is the only plane we need and we'll draft our statement of requirements around it. That, to me, would be putting the cart before the horse.