Gilday's numbers for the amphibious fleet just don't make sense...

 via USNI (many thanks to those that pointed to this article).

“We need 12 carriers. We need a strong amphibious force to include nine big-deck amphibs and another 19 or 20 [LPDs] to support them. Perhaps 30 or more smaller amphibious ships to support Maritime Littoral Regiments… to 60 destroyers and probably 50 frigates, 70 attack submarines and a dozen ballistic missile submarines to about a 100 support ships and probably looking into the future about 150 unmanned.”

According to Gilday’s list, that force would be about 513 ships with 263 manned combatants, plus 100 logistics and supply ships and 150 unmanned vessels. Gilday told reporters later that the total would include Littoral Combat Ships.

“LCS is in that mix,” he said.

Here 

Everything outside of the amphibious ship numbers makes sense. I can see it.  It's easily understood.  Still lacking against the Chinese behemoth but a reasonable force (interesting that they still fall under the 600 ship Navy Reagan proposed).

But the amphibious ship number.

I don't get it.

The Marine Corps is smaller.

Will have less ground vehicles.  Fewer grunts. It just doesn't sing.

With the number of amphibs and the mix you would expect a totally mechanized Marine Corps that is scalable and operating world wide.

The sheer number of Light Amphibious Warships (30 or more...that's quite open ended) indicates that we're looking at excess capacity during a time of strained budgets.

Expect the Army and Air Force to come after the Navy/Marine Corps numbers hard.  Expect a big fight over resources and expect the Navy to quickly toss amphibious ships on the altar.

EABO from my chair is as I've been saying.  One foe.  One region.

The Marine Corps is out of the force in readiness business, out of the expeditionary business, and out of the world wide operations business.

Simply put?  We don't won't need all those amphibious ships...maybe they're being setup for Army use?