Not in a cataclysmic end, but almost peacefully by the dislocation of the whole Soviet block. The nuclear Damocles sword of the cold war was lifted in 1990. NASA/AMES/FMC HAZMAT Response M577A3 (XHRV-1).Composite Armored Vehicle – Advanced Technology Demonstrator (CAV-ATD).Type 1 Technical (Toyota Land Cruiser 70 Series).EM113A2 Rapid Entry Vehicle 2 (EM113A2 REV2 / SPIRAL 2).

Deployable Universal Combat Earthmover M105 (DEUCE).Also, it is best that we leave selection of weapon systems to those who have to use them rather than speculate.About 400,000 armored vehicles until 2016 Tanks Tail piece: If we preserve the technologies involved in making the tank (like metallurgy, ballistics, propulsion etc…), they can be used elsewhere too even in some civilian applications. But we are proud that we are getting there and finally we can make our own helicopters, fighter jets, submarines, guns and tanks which we can used effectively. That is why there is now a rethink on redesigning DRDO etc…. This situation leads to a rethink…options: 1 Repeat cycle 2. Meanwhile there is advancement in technologies which the adversaries have procured by importing etc…. This whole cycle usually takes more than a decade for a major product. Each of the step takes months as many organisations are involved in the process. Then research on the technologies required to develop the product are taken up (in many cases some of the technologies are ultimately imported) 4. Requirement of a product (say, tank) is projected.

When an organization is designed for R&D of products rather than technologies at National level, such problems are bound to occur. Our DRDO was designed for R&D of products rather than of technologies (except in a couple of areas like nuclear, space etc.).

The problem is, of course not with the DRDO either. It is very simplistic to say that the Army wanted a tank that could fly may be the statement is a bit irresponsible too.

Inside modern day tank