One of the early issues that drove the development of the IFV was the need to have a vehicle that could serve in a high-intensity conflict in Europe, which was feared might include the use of nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) type weapons. To work in such an environment, an IFV would have to have a life-support system that protected from outside contaminants while allowing the soldiers to fight from inside the vehicle. The earliest specification, from 1958, called for a vehicle of no more than 8 tons, mounting a turret with a 20 mm autocannon and a 7.62 mm machine gun, with sealed firing ports for five infantry gunners.

The first U.S. Army IFV design was the XM734, a modified version of the M113. A commander's cupola and passenger firing ports were added. The second design was the XM765 Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle, based on the M113A1 chassis. The upper sides of the vehicle were sloped and spaced steel armor plates were added to improve protection. In addition, firing ports for the passengers were added and a M139 20 mm cannon was added to the commander's cupola.[9]

In 1963, the U.S. and West German governments began work on the MBT-70 design and an IFV companion project named the Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV-70).[9] The contract was handed to the Pacific Car and Foundry Company, which delivered the XM701 prototype in 1965. The prototypes had the following characteristics: weight of 25–27 tons (depending on an aluminum or steel hull); 425 HP diesel engine; a two-man turret with a 20 mm gun & 7.62 mm MG; crew of three plus nine infantry equipped with firing ports; a built-in toilet; armor that was proof against Soviet 14.5 mm MG fire beyond a certain range; a collective and overpressure CBR system; amphibious.[9] The filtration system provided a shirt-sleeve environment until the passengers dismounted, after that they could not repressurize without fear of contamination, but they could plug their suits into the vehicle's filtration system. The vehicle was 9 ft (2.7 m) high, 20 ft (6.1 m) long, and 10 ft (3.0 m) wide. After testing, the vehicle was criticized for its poor mobility and excessive weight and size; it could not be carried aboard a C-130 or a C-141 Starlifter). New specifications were written in 1965.

In 1967, the public display of the BMP-1 caused additional interest in the MICV-70 program, which concluded its studies in 1968. However, continued disagreements on specifications continued to slow down development.

At this time, the Army looked at two alternate vehicles that could be fielded more quickly. The FMC company had developed an IFV version of the M113, which had a one-man turret mounting a 25 mm gun, a sealed environment, and firing ports. The vehicle weight was 15 tons. The U.S. Army rejected it due to limited mobility, which would have prevented it from keeping pace with the proposed MBT-70. However, the design was purchased by the Dutch and Belgian governments.[9] The other alternate vehicle was the West German Marder, which mounted a 20 mm autocannon, two 7.62 mm MGs, relatively strong steel armor, and full CBR protection. The U.S. Army rejected it due to it not being amphibious, too large and heavy for air transport, and too expensive.
XM723 prototype being offloaded from a McDonnell Douglas YC-15 during a test, 1977

The MICV program continued on, and in 1972, a new request for proposals was issued. This was won by FMC, which began construction of the XM723 prototype, which was completed in 1973. The XM723 weighed 21 tons, had spaced aluminum armor proof against 14.5 mm fire, had a crew of three plus eight infantry, firing ports for the infantry, and a one-man turret with a 20 mm gun. The commander sat inside the hull. To adapt the XM723 to be usable in a reconnaissance role, as well as an IFV, the turret was replaced in 1976 with a two-man turret mounting a 25 mm Bushmaster cannon and TOW missiles (this was the MICV TBAT-II design). A two-man turret design put the commander in a position with a better view of the battlefield. The TOW missiles give the vehicle a strong antiarmor capability. The value of antitank missiles had been well established in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The added political advantage was that the TOW missiles made it an easier sell to Congress, as it was a whole new capability not possessed by the M113.[9]

We in TRADOC...decided to put the TOW on the MICV because we realized that if we did not put the TOW on the MICV, we would probably never have a MICV.
— General Donn Starry, Army magazine, 1987.

In 1977, the MICV TABA-II was renamed the XM2. The scout version became the XM3. The U.S. Congress was questioning the development of the XM2 due to the high losses incurred by BMP-1s in the 1973 war and suggested the development of a more heavily armored vehicle. The Army argued against this due to concerns about cost, weight, and development time.

Almost every army you look at is ahead of the American Army, as far as taking care of our infantry. The Russians are ahead of us, the Germans are ahead of us, the Dutch are ahead of us, the French are ahead of us, the Yugoslavians are ahead of us. Almost everybody has a better infantry vehicle than the U.S. Army.

We would have been better off in 1963 when we started to just build the MICV immediately. Are we to start over again? My guess is that if you start over again, you will have a 10% increase in effectiveness and 50% increase in cost.
— General William E. DePuy, testimony to Congress, 1977.[citation needed]

In 1977, Congress ordered two new evaluations of the IFV program, one by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and one by the Department of the Army, under General Pat Crizer. The GAO report was critical of the XM2's height, mobility, complexity, lack of clear doctrinal use, and lack of chemical/biological/radiological protection. Based upon this criticism, the OMB deleted M2/3 funding from the budget for the 1979 financial year. In 1978, the Crizer report asserted that the basic design was consistent with doctrine and development of an IFV with superior characteristics would be costly and pose significant developmental risks. An additional study, the IFV/CFV Special Study Group, evaluated whether an improved version of the M113 could be used instead of the M2/3 IFV. Their conclusion was that extensive redesign would be necessary for even marginal improvements in M113 derivatives. In October 1978, Congress reauthorized procurement funds.

The XM2/3 passed the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council Milestone II review in 1979 and final approval for production came from the Secretary of Defense on 1 February 1980. In October 1981 the vehicle was christened the "Bradley" after Army General Omar Bradley, who had died earlier that year.

In 1993, one of the military inspectors, Col. James G. Burton, released his book The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard, exposing from within how the Army had falsified test results during the development. The book is adapted to the TV movie The Pentagon Wars in 1998.

I was going to put something like just like the box above but with a different story or something. I was kinda intrigued by the F5 Freedom Fighter but honestly I was just reading up on it and the development for that plane was something along the lines of "Oh yeah we need a cheap plane to sell to Europe and Asia" and Northrop kinda just went in another direction and made a small and manouverable fighter jet. It was really effective though, I mean a lot of countries bought them and some are still in service, but the United States Airforce only wanted the bigger and heavier planes like the f-14 and f-15. They were wrong though, because while they made these awesome planes like the f-15 and f-14 there was a group of people that (And I'm not making this ♥♥♥♥ up) called themselves the "Fighter Mafia", who wanted to build lighter and more manouverable planes, I'll have to look up on wikipedia if it was the "Fighter Mafia" or the government that started the "Light Fighter Program" but anyway, after Two companies, Boeing and General Dynamics had built their designs, the YF-17 and YF-16 respectively, the air force had to choose one and they chose the YF-16, which is known today as simply the F-16. The navy also needed planes to replace their ageing fleet of F-14s so they just picked the YF-17 which was renamed to the F-18 after some modifications were done. So basically, the US government originally wanted bigger and heavier planes, and ended up with BOTH of their massive air fleets consisting of fighters from the "Light Fighter Program".

I mean this story isn't as "conspiracy-esque" as the one above but holy ♥♥♥♥ the US government really make some weird decisions.
It's not like they are alone though, I mean did you know that the germans just DIDN'T add armor to some of their vehicles post-WW2 because "Oh well if a tank gets hit with a HEAT shell or rocket it's going to die anyway so we might aswell make them mobile", meanwhile the russians built a tank designed to withstand a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ nuclear explosion, you know, from a distance but still.

I don't really know where I was going with this but just google some of this ♥♥♥♥ it's a good read.