The Marine’s Amphibious Assault Vehicle, AAV, is now just the Vehicle, V. The amphibious part is gone as the Marines have announced that the AAVs will no longer be used for water operations.
… given the current state of the amphibious vehicle program, the Commandant of the Marine Corps has decided the AAV will no longer serve as part of regularly scheduled deployments or train in the water during military exercises; AAVs will only return to operating in the water if needed for crisis response. … The AAV will continue to operate on land; 76 percent of its tasks are land-based. 
|AAV - Now Just 'V'|
Well, they always have the new ACV, right? Well, no, at least not at the moment.
The ACVs are under their own restrictions from waterborne operations. 
The Marine Corps in early September announced the pause to ACV water operations due to the problem with the towing mechanism. 
ACVs were temporarily suspended from open ocean waterborne operations as we worked to solve an issue that was identified with the towing mechanism. We expect that issue to be resolved soon and for ACVs to return to the water early in the New Year. 
So, currently the Marines have no means to get ashore in an assault since the LCAC is doctrinally excluded from initial assaults and has been relegated to follow on support. Of course, the Marines have stated that they’re out of the amphibious assault business so I guess this isn’t really a problem.
This does, however, lead to a potentially serious question.
Is the AAV the best vehicle for land tasks? Presumably, the newer ACV also has the same 76% land tasks so the same question applies. The AAV/ACV is not an armored personnel carrier (APC) like the Israeli Namer nor an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) like the Bradley so what tasks is it being asked to perform?
Land combat vehicles are intended to go in harm’s way and are armed and armored appropriately. The AAV/ACV is not. As best I can tell – not being a land combat expert – the AAV/ACV was intended as a poor man’s APC, though without the armor – thus making it a very lightly armored personnel carrier. As such, it is unsuited for modern battlefield combat. It could, perhaps, function as a rear area personnel carrier but does that role justify the expenditure on the new ACV? I would think not.
The amphibious nature of the AAV/ACV led to a compromised vehicle that is optimized for neither water nor land tasks. This was possibly acceptable if the Marines were going to conduct amphibious assaults (no, it really wasn’t but we’ll set that issue aside for now). Now, since the Marines are abandoning landings from the sea they should seriously re-evaluate whether the AAV/ACV is suited for strictly land tasks.
The AAV/ACV seems to have no role in the new Marine Corps so why are they continuing to purchase ACVs?
On the bright side, the Marines have no viable mission so I guess none of this matters but, wow, this is some top notch embarrassing fumbling and incompetence on display for the world to see. China has to be wetting themselves laughing about this.
USNI News website, “Marines Keeping AAVs Out of the Water Permanently”, Sam LaGrone, 15-Dec-2021,