Any doubt regarding new/old chassis for 2S35 can be set aside from these pictures. Commander at the front. The hull is different which we can see from the front section.
Actually I think the photos you post prove the Coalition has a modified T-90 chassis... the size and angle of the front glasis plate are the same for the 2S35 and the T-90, while the Armata MBT seems rather larger with different front hull angles...
No sorry, it isn't. The angle of front glasis is completely different and it is rather bulged and have more volume due to the need to accommodate 3 crew members. Plz compare the pics closely and you might probably agree that it is different. I will try to put forth it through pics.
Front right side view. Compare the angle/edge of front hull. T-90 have these angle/edge at a low level where as T-14 & 2S35 have it higher up, which can also be sensed from the front drive sprocket that are (maybe/may be not) at a higher level than T-90.
Rear right side view. The rear hull resemble that of T-14 Armata with the two integrated/attached APU like twin boxes found on T-90SM and T-72 upgrades. The newer V-92S2F from T-90SM program is probably the engine installed in the hull and the reason for a single exhaust (other than it being a T-90 based hull). Even if its the new standard hull, its a probably a logical decision based on role, performance and cost for the platform.
The track footprint and hull is similar in length to the Armata and longer than that of 2S19 Msta. Checking the videos will make it clear. The 6-wheel arrangement of 2S35 with standard T-90 size wheels will give us an idea of how Armata would have looked like if they had retained with a 6-wheel setup.
Earlier pic during its testing which was posted in this very thread. Larger pic - https://i.imgur.com/vIfgxmA.jpg
The question is... is this hull standard or temporary?
I suspect for integration into an Armata unit it would benefit from armata components/engines/systems.
I think it could be the standard hull. Hope you will agree with my reasoning that I have given in this post. Like the 7-wheels of the Armata MBT which make many to believe the size/footprint of Armata to be in size range of Abrams...likewise, the side profile elements like the fenders and side skirt similar to the 2S19 Msta is whats making people to stick with the view that its just a modified T-90 chassis. Remove that 'old' 2S19 like side profile and put something new similar to Armata, the overall look and feel of this machine wil change. So will the opinion.
Lastly, its said to be a T-90 modified chassis...fine...but how much of a modification to the basic hull will help this hull retain its parentage as a T-90 hull? 6-wheels doesn't by default make it a T-90 hull.
I cant read or understand Russian so don't know what the Russian forum'ers know about it... I arrive at conclusion based on analyzing the pics and videos available and it tells me the hull is vastly different....and I'm rather inclined to believe that it is actually a 'modified' Armata hull because the so called T-90 hull has been so much modified for this 2S35 that it is now much closer to the Armata hull than a T-90 hull.