Why did we develop the Stryker for the US Army instead of buying the off-the-shelf General Dynamics LAV 3?

Greetings to ALCON in this interesting and relevant thread.
May I observe -- with all due respect accorded to all concerned parties -- that, IMPO, the LAV series of wheeled tactical vehicles -- when in employed in a light infantry (i.e. absent an armor-dominant) operating environment -- is a much-superior and substantially more-mission-adaptable system than the Stryker series (which have reportedly emerged in their using US Army units as support-heavy "maintenance dogs"). Releasable details provided on request.
Hope this helps in this discussion. Today is Sunday, 18 February 2018.
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, U.S. Army Retired

The Bradley is to slow period, they wanted all track vehicles in the 80-90’s and turned down the LAV for the Bradley.

Each Stryker IFV can carry an entire squad of infantry soldiers in relative comfort while the LAV loses much of that capability because of the turret. With the exception of the MGS, all Stryker versions have a lower center of gravity than the LAV, and all are easy to load on a C-130, allowing them to be quickly transported to wherever needed. The same basic chassis can be fitted to accomplish a wide array of missions, while reducing supply chain logistics issues through standardized parts. This flexibility designed into the Stryker system makes it superior to the LAV in every way except armament. I missed that Bushmaster when I switched from Bradley to Stryker combat vehicles.

The short answer is "To meet the Army's requiernment". Everything in Army Acquisitions is done to meet a requirement in an approved requiernments document. The driving force behind many early decisions on Stryker was the requiernment to be C-130 transportable. We could have done a lot of things diferantly without that requiernment.

The contractors got to spend billions developing it. What is "developed" is not important, it's how much you can bleed the taxpayer for that counts

You mean the vehicle the Marine CORPS want to get rid of, that one?
https://www.rallypoint.com/shared-links/corps-to-upgrade-lavs-searching-for-a-replacement-marine-corps-times?loc=similar_main&pos=0&type=qrc

Why would the Army buy into a vehicle that has 1960's Tech in its AT weapon system, a turret that can not handle modern electronics because the slip ring is not capable, a vehicle that has parts obsolesce NOW and will only get worse

Well I don't know much or anything about those 2, but from 1st hand experience can tell you that the Bradley is a very awesome vehicle, just as long as it's in open country or forest's but get it in the city alleyways it becomes a big casket. Example is when the 24th Inf Div. went to Somalia it didn't take very long for them to want to talk. Cause if it was hot in the scope it was shoot, just like what we did during Desert Storm but when the ROE changed the Iraq's were a little bit more braver. Bottom line is this if it is good in the field and it saves lives that's what really matters.

The Stryker is just an updated LAV III. Makes sense to take an existing platform and update it, so that is what they did

The LAV III, originally named the Kodiak by the Canadian Army, is the third generation of the Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) family of Infantry fighting vehicle built by General Dynamics Land Systems first entering service in 1999. It is based on the Swiss Mowag Piranha IIIH 8x8.The LAV III, originally named the Kodiak by the Canadian Army, is the third generation of the Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) family of Infantry fighting vehicle built by General Dynamics Land Systems first entering service in 1999. It is based on the Swiss Mowag Piranha IIIH 8x8.
It was developed in Canada and is the primary mechanized infantry vehicle of the Canadian Army and the New Zealand Army.[1] It also forms the basis of the Stryker vehicle used by the US Army and other operators.
Piranhas are available in 4×4, 6×6, 8×8, and 10×10 wheel versions. There are several variants within these versions, giving different degrees of armour protection and several kinds of turret, for use in a variety of roles. Piranha derivatives have been assigned roles as troop transports, command vehicles, fire support vehicles, tank trainers, and police vehicles.

Piranhas are used by the Swiss Army. Swiss-built Piranha derivatives have been exported to Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Romania, Spain, and Belgium. The Romanian and Belgian Armies have selected the Piranha IIIC 8x8. Belgium converted to an all-wheeled force, and replaced all their M113s, AIFVs and Leopard 1s with 268 Piranha IIIC in 7 variants.[2][3]

Piranha derivatives have been manufactured under license by General Dynamics (Canada), BAE Systems Land Systems (UK), Cardoen and FAMAE (Chile), and in the USA. The 8x8 US Army Stryker vehicle is derived from the Canadian LAV III, which in turn is based on the Piranha, as is the LAV-25 family in service with the USMC. The Australian Defence Force also has its own modified version of the Piranha I 8x8, known as the ASLAV (Australian Light Armoured Vehicle). The ASLAV is operated by two cavalry regiments (the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment) and is used in the armoured reconnaissance and armoured personnel carrier roles.

I don't know anything about the Stryker. I was on Bradley's.

My question is what was wrong with the Bradley? We could swim them easily.