The Marine Corps has painted itself into a corner with regard to amphibious ships...

 via Breaking Defense.

An intra-governmental “war” has broken out between Congress and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) over how many large amphibious ships the Navy must have.

The Pentagon’s fiscal 2024 budget request “paused” construction of large amphibs. 

&

 The war began when a series of missteps by the Marine Corps undermined the justification for large amphibious ships. To overcome these missteps — and make things right with a skeptical Congress and OSD — it falls on the Navy and Marine Corps to develop stronger justifications for why they want 31 large amphibious ships and why OSD’s proposed smaller fleet is inadequate. 

&

General Berger’s initial planning guidance as commandant ended that long-time rationale. It argued that large amphibious ships were too vulnerable and too expensive: “We must continue to seek the affordable and plentiful at the expense of the exquisite and few.” In highlighted text, the guidance announced: “We will no longer use a ‘2.0 MEB requirement’ as the foundation for our arguments regarding amphibious shipbuilding. We will no longer reference the 38-ship requirement.”

That fit the new vision of small Marine units carried in a new design small amphibious ship (then called the light amphibious warship, now called the medium landing ship). These groups would operate inside the Chinese weapons engagement zone and strike at the Chinese fleet with long-range missiles.

&

 The Office of the Secretary of Defense, specifically the Directorate of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, (CAPE) took notice. CAPE―the lineal successor to famed Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s systems analysis office―analyzes programs and operations. Based on the new amphibious concept, it made the logical recommendation: If large amphibious ships were too expensive and too vulnerable and the Marine Corps believed that the future lay in small amphibious ships, then the Pentagon should limit the building of large amphibious ships.

&

 The controversy would die down if the Marine Corps offered a strong wartime rationale for 31 large amphibious ships. However, it continues its wartime emphasis on small units under FD 2030. The latest FD 2030 update does cite the need for 31 large amphibious ships but is vague about why, saying it’s: “[to] coordinate their actions directly with stand-in forces to control maritime terrain.” The Marine Corps has provided a calculation for their goal of 35 Landing ships Medium (nine for each of the three Marine Littoral Regiments and eight more for maintenance and other unavailability). Yet, there is no proposed calculation for arriving at 31 amphibious ships as there had been for the earlier amphibious ship goal of 34.

Here 

I don't believe this was a mistake.  I believe that Berger happily gave up 38 and even 31 large amphibs as long as he got his Landing Ship Mediums.

I think outrage from Congress and the Marine Corps family pushed the issue which made them backtrack.

The USMC painted themselves into a corner and the "mothership" idea isn't a solution.

The current Marine Corps is gonna be different.

It's gonna be totally defensive and totally wedded to the Pacific.

It will not be the Marine Corps of the past.  This new breed of Marines should do us all a favor and case the colors, change the name and christen a new organization.