What does obsolete mean?
The Russian Army is looking to become a more mobile force so a 55 ton tank will only mean they have to reinvest in logistics to support heavier vehicles, which will make those support vehicles heavier.
The main concept of the T-95 was to move the crew to the front hull position under the heaviest armour of the tank and to use UAVs and other platforms as well as turret roof mounted optics and radar to provide situational awareness.
That is not obsolete, that is future stuff.
The problem is that the Russian Army has decided to become a much lighter and more mobile force.
Even with the changes for the VDV, which is becoming a more wheeled force than it ever was the same changes are being made.
Of course with what we know of the Burlak upgrade with the turret bustle autoloader and the underfloor autoloader the crew is separated from the ammo, so crew safety is still a feature, though clearly not the design focus as it is in the T-95.
Im somehow doubtful T-95 will pass away just like that.
There is only one tank maker in Russia now, so what they thought was state of the art 5 years ago or now may dramatically change in 5 years from now.
They might look at new lighter armour materials, including plastics etc.
The guy doing all the program cutting is responsible for the current budget and he is probably looking at who is asking for money.
There seem to be two schools of thought on the internet... first is: all Russian tanks are junk and will burn like the Iraqi T-72s in Iraq in Desert Storm, mainly from the US strong group who think all Russian and Soviet stuff was crap, and second: that the T-90 is comparable to modern western tanks in protection through the use of ERA, though the storage of ammo in the crew compartment is a design flaw that means crew survival potential is much lower than an Abrams, which stores its ammo separately from the crew and that the lack of a battle managment system means the Russian forces are not coordinated as well as a western army with a BMS. Other western tanks of course store ammo in the crew compartment and are just as vulnerable as the T-90 to internal explosions.
The guy cutting the T-95 program described the T-90 as being an evolved T-34, which I find very illogical. Is he against evolutionary development? If he is then why is he cutting the non evolutionary T-95? It doesn't make sense to me.
Previous plans were for the upgraded T-90 to form the backbone of the Russian Army while the T-95 was introduced in small numbers as an expensive but exponentially more capable vehicle... a sort of T-80 + T-72 situation where you are saying the T-80 is the best you can make but is too expensive to afford for everywhere so we make the T-72 for numbers to replace all the older models... obviously with the T-90 being the numbers tank and the T-95 being the top quality tank.
Perhaps his solution is the upgraded T-90 becomes the expensive model and the cheaper model is upgraded T-72s but with cheaper older technology Russian Thermal Sights. The problem is that older thermal sights are not that much cheaper but have much worse performance.
With everyone in the hull the situational awareness of the T-95 is going to be restricted so it needs to operate in a net centric environment to operate properly and effectively. This net centric environment doesn't exist at the moment within the Russian Armed forces so why fund a tank that needs that environment to be effective now? Upgrade the T-90 with a battle management system, create a net centric system piece by piece and introduce UAVs and high flying recon platforms and then introduce the T-95 when the technology is more mature and cheaper in Russia.
What will be then introduced will not be the current T-95, but a newer better armoured more aware tank that is probably 10-15 tons lighter and will probably have a 125mm gun with newer better ammo initially and then a decision can be made to increase the calibre.
Who knows... the solution might be that vertical launch missiles like TOR could be carried in a trailer with terminal guidance and diving top attack flight profiles might replace the gun tube launched missiles. Or these vertical launch weapons could be mounted at the very rear of the vehicle behind the engine and form a spaced armour area after they are launched to protect the engine from attacks from the rear.
The missiles could be dumb command control missiles that were cheap like TOR, or they could be based on the Morphei short range SAM with IIR seeker that can also deal with aircraft or a range of point targets out to 10km or so.
NOTE, This is my opinion based on what I have read on the internet.