Thank you, sir, for the question.
The model that we used in the report, which is actually described in some detail—certainly the model and the assumptions—is what we would call a cost-estimating relationship model. We're historically extrapolating costs on fighter planes.
We used this extrapolation of 30 years of history of previous fighter planes, indexed, based on a per-kilogram kind of basis, to project forward an estimate of acquisition costs. Then we derived sustainment costs based off that estimate of acquisition costs, based on historical estimates for different cost categories.
There are benefits and certainly limitations for this model. First of all, when we look at these top-down models, sir, we see them as tests of reasonableness of where costs may be. So we were actually pleased to see today—or actually earlier than today, when we saw the release of the full life-cycle cost estimates from the Department of National Defence—that our numbers are roughly in line on a total life-cycle cost basis.
But again, you're using high-level data and you're extrapolating forward using broad-based assumptions. You're assuming that history will repeat itself. So there are always limitations in that sense.
Yes, I think these sorts of models should be complemented by much more detailed, bottom-up models to provide real confidence. We hope, going forward in that context, to work with the new secretariat, or they could conduct some of this work themselves. I think it would add a lot to this debate in Parliament.