Yes, in these situations, I am this much of a douche.
If you'd bothered to read the complaint, Bitmanagement cites a specific email sent on a specific date by a specific NAVFAC employee with a specific document allegedly planning for deployment of the software onto a specific number of computers.
Your first post in this chain demonstrates that you are not familiar with the Navy program, not familiar with the contractor(s) involved, and for some reason assume that contractors would only include software technical support rather than, say, the engineering services, construction services, and other services that would be incolved in assessing and repairing all that infrastructure.
Then you double down and announce "OK, I know this business," which you clearly do not, and pull some numbers out of your nether regions that we should totally trust. You know better than the plantiff, who merely developed the software and was negotiating the agreement with the Navy. You also know better than the people who actually read the complaint and know that, no matter what, you do not make material misstatements of fact in documents that you submit to a Federal judge.
Finally, when it's pointed out to you that the complaint identifies a specific basis for the numbers used, you announce "It's my business and I know how such projects are run" and
I stand by the small numbers." You demonstrably do not know how this project is deployed and run, and your pseudononymous, fact-free postings do not "stand behind your numbers." I could create another Slashdot pseudonym tomorrow and then stand behind a claim that there are actually only 20 million people on the entire Earth. Neither the identify nor the self-declared expertise are verifiable, so there is nothing standing behind those posts.
You are an uninformed blow-hard helicoptering into a dispute that will be resolved in a U.S. Federal Court based upon actual evidence. Yes, your estimate is meaningless, and I don't feel remotely "douchy" for pointing that out.