AAV Replacement, Marine Personnel Carrier and a mistake in the making.

First we have this article on Information Dissemination by Roger Galbraith...

In his Op-Ed, LtGen reminds us that the U.S.A. is a maritime nation, and should be equipped and prepared to use the sea to our advantage, to be able to go ashore in the location of our choosing, and that an amphibious vehicle is the backbone of such an effort. Those that say the U.S. will never assault a beach again should look to the recent past for ways we have "used" beaches, if not assaulted them. To the amphibious vehicle, the unimproved beach is just another exit ramp on I-95. However, without amphibious vehicles, the beaches of Miami might as well be the Grand Canyon if the port becomes unusable.

I noticed that LtGen Flynn is careful NOT to mention a tracked vehicle in the article posted today. Previous versions of the article mentioned the tracks. It will be interesting to see if the Corps will truly go back to the drawing board to meet the amphibious vehicle's ship-to-shore problem, or if an EFV by another name will still look like an EFV.

Forgive my ignorance on this point and please read the entire article but I'm somewhat confused.  Does he mean that the next generation AAV might NOT be tracked? Or does he mean that he expects the EFV to simply rise from the dead under a new designation?

Be that as it may, an article from InsideDefence (THANKS JONATHAN!) states that the Marine Corps is about to issue 3 Requests for Information...

Industry sources said the service will make a major investment to extend the lives of existing amphibious assault vehicles (AAVs), while also accelerating the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) program and launching a New Amphibious Vehicle (NAV) program based on revised requirements to replace the existing vehicles.

and then this...

The Marine Corps also has a need to provide a medium-lift combat capability to support sustained operations ashore, the notice states. The required MPC -- an advanced-generation, eight-wheeled, armored personnel carrier -- must also provide force protection, land mobility, lethality, and survivability while balancing payload, mobility, transportability and total ownership costs, according to the notice.
The notice states the Marine Corps is “developing both interim and long-term investment strategies and plans” and will release three requests for information (RFIs): one for an AAV upgrade to serve as an interim solution, one for a Marine Personnel Carrier and one for an AAV replacement.

Sorry guys...InsideDefense is subscription only...but my fear is this...Once the USMC gets its MPC, the need for an AAV Replacement will go away.  We'll end up being less, not more amphibious and we'll be taking another step toward either being another land army or heading toward a Commando style force because of all our air assets and lack of armor.

The MPC is a dangerous concept (budget and concept wise) and could end up absorbing all of our ground vehicle money unless we're extremely careful.

My modest proposal (if we must get a wheeled vehicle) is simply to buy off the shelf, the cheapest vehicle available. 

If that means an SEP, Patria, Strker, LAV-25A2 then lets do it, but lets guard the budget like a hawk.

We don't need another 10 year development boondoggle like we just experienced.