The real strength of the shipbuilding strategy would have been, in my view, to get us down the path of continuous shipbuilding. You get industry started and then you get into producing flights of ships and you continuously build ships. Much of the analysis today would say that it's actually cheaper in the long run to run your navy that way than it is to do expensive refits. Refitting older vessels to put capability in them is always a very expensive business.
The whole idea behind a shipbuilding strategy was to get us down the path of continuous shipbuilding. That should allow us to do cyclical batch-building, if you will. Trying to reduce the time between starting a project and getting into it allows us to do better budgeting as well. What's killing us at the moment is that the navy puts forward a proposal on how much it's going to cost to build ships, and it's a decade later before we even get close to going to contract because it's taking us a ridiculous amount of time to move forward on these projects. By then, the initial estimates are completely lost in the wash and then we're blamed for not having good estimates. We need to tighten that up enormously.