Actually, Chris, the argument was never used in the F-35 debate, but I will get back to that later.
As regards the SCSC, not only has this "argument" not been made yet, but there has actually not been any "argument" on either side made - just the breaking news that a the National Shipbuilding Strategy is "in trouble" and more expensive than anticipated. Thus, to say that our fellow citizen choose not to support 15 SCSC's is simply incorrect at this point in time: they have not made their position known as of yet.
As regards the "making of this argument" to our fellow citizens (so they can actually "choose" what they think they want), it may have been discussed in these fora (and I, for one have discussed it before) but in the public in general, the mainstream media or the political circles, the argument is never really made, which in my mind leads to improper decision making by the population.
IMO, if ever there was a time to explain to Canadians how these procurement program figures fabrication* work, it was the F-35 debate.
The government basically presented its figures of 25b$ to the public. lo and behold, the budget officer then comes out with a 40b$ figure and tries to imply the government did not do its work properly. Our friendly MSM then jumps on the band wagon and basically, accuses the government of lying to Parliament and the Canadian people - with the opposition jumping on the bandwagon (and putting itself in a position to look like an as# now if they ever have to actually get F-35's after review of the facts).
Here's the thing: The government figures were for 25 years of acquisition/operations, so on average 1b$ a year**, while the Budget Officer's figures were for 40 years, so on average also 1b$ a year. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the government to explain why the figures were essentially the same, we were just using different time scale, and to explain to the public that what really matters is not the overall figures, but the impact in the defence budget year after year (but, noooooo! Mr. Harper had to take the opportunity to try and discredit the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and it back fired on him). Had the conservatives done that, they would have been able to show that the defence budgets from one year to the next would have been only slightly affected by the replacement of F-18's by F-35's, with more noticeable impacts (but still small ones) only in three or four years of the program, when at its peak.
So, no Chris, the argument has never been made properly to the public, and I sure wish somebody would make it one of these days. But here is the thing: It is not for the CAF to make that argument - it is for the civilians of DND (the DM and so forth) and for the politicians. We in the CAF carry out the defence of the realm, but it is the politicians that are responsible for providing for it. That is what civilian control means in a democracy.
/RANT OFF
*: Yes, fabrications - the accuracy of one to five year predictions made by well developed economic models of actors "in the know" for the economy is below 50% - meaning they can actually throw a dice and get better predictions - here we are trying to predict costs and usage of materiel of the next 30, 40 or 50 years when you include the acquisition lead time: it becomes pure guesswork and has no validity other than as a baseline for planning purposes.
**: I know it is not spread evenly, that for instance it may be 4 to 5 b$ in each of the two or three years where we actually get the new planes, much lower then for each of the following five years and getting higher towards the end in view of higher maintenance costs, but in the grand scheme of things, since multiple acquisition programs are always underway at varying budget and stages, the overall figures balance out.
if need be.
in an effort to capture a range of "what ifs" for hull/CSI costs. 
