Go ahead? Okay.
As I was saying on the Aurora, one of the critical things we have found—and the Russians and the Americans have found it—if that if you have a relatively robust size of airframe and it is not supersonic, you can actually make them. The new industrial capabilities mean that we're getting a lifespan out of these aircraft that exceeded anyone's expectations. If you look at the American B-52s and you look at the Russian Bears, those are even older aircraft. Both the Russians and the Americans have found out that there are certain aspects, in terms of responding to the airframe fatigue that everybody thought was a major issue, so the airframe itself can actually go much further than we thought.
That's part of the problem that adds to the complexity of this. We have found that we can push the lifespan of the Auroras. Of course, the question is, what is the optimal amount? Usually the numbers in most studies go all the way from 12 to about 24, but it really depends on what we do. The problem is every time we do a refit with the Auroras, and get them up and get new assets, we find new things for them to do. The problem is that every time we make them better, as typical Canadians, we use them for more. What we were saying we needed them for is to go, “Oh, by the way, we're going to do it, and we're going to do a whole lot more”, and that becomes part of the problem.