I always get mystified by the numbers game. I grew up in the nuclear age when how much was enough for nuclear strike capabilities was the obsession of the academic community and the strategic world at large. Now we get to the numbers.
I think part of it depends upon this. How much is enough? Can we do with 30 or 40? What are we going to lose? In terms of the fundamental role in the defence of Canada of an advanced multi-role fighter like the F-35, given what I can discern about the number we deploy on a daily basis or leave on standby on a daily basis for NORAD and air sovereignty missions, reducing that by 30 to 40 is not going to affect anything whatsoever in order to meet those missions. The question becomes, what, then, in terms of 30 to 35...?
I think the bigger question this committee might want to ask is, why 60 or 65? Where does that number come from? I don't have the answer, because every time I've asked it, it's classified.