The T-95 being cancelled doesn't seem to be official yet.
I remember a while back the Hermes missile was cancelled too.
That made sense at the time... who needs a helicopter launched missile with a range of 15km-20km when the in service helos had no radar and no means to detect targets beyond about 6km. ATAKA was cheaper and fit the role, plus there were plenty in stocks.
Also very few Mi-28Ns were in service and their radar was not fully operational yet.
Now that Mi-28Ns are entering service and Ka-52s are coming on line in small numbers it makes sense to switch to Hermes missiles.
The same with the Su-27M or the first Su-35. Didn't get a customer and so died as a project, but will never enter service now. Lots of bits developed for it became part of the Su-30MKI and even Su-34, but by the time the Su-35BM was developed most of the bits and pieces were more related to the T-50 than the Su-27M.
I would expect the same with the T-95, right now many of the technologies it is using are brand new and are probably not mature technologies yet so why bother introducing it now when you already have too many tanks. Step one is to finalise the T-90 design, which will be something based on the Burlak upgrade. Step two is to increase production of the upgraded T-90 and to start removing from service older model tanks starting with those that have not been upgraded at all and also those that don't have the same calibre main gun like the T-54/55 and T-62s. This will allow the withdrawl of the stocks of ammo for those calibres and perhaps gift or sale of them to a country that you might be targeting for a sale. ie country x is thinking about buying aircraft y or air defence missile system z has T-55s in service so if they buy more than 20 systems they can have 500 T-55s and an ammo factory to make as much ammo as they want.
The point is that T-55s that are used to save wear and tear on new tanks in Russian service are not a good training model because no autoloader and ammo is different.
Training on T-72s makes more sense.
Perhaps to continue the Russian tradition of using old tanks for training they should make a T-90 light that weighs 25 ton without most of the heavy armour, with a less powerful cheaper to run engine that troops can practise in but use less fuel with maybe a 57mm gun with ammo especially made to match 125mm gun trajectories to reduce the cost of training. With the Yak-130 it will be done with aircraft.
With armour removed and a smaller main gun you could fit instructors in the hull next to the driver and behind the gunner and commander to assess their performance cross country in the field.
It was obvious that the concept of closing a lot projects wasn't because of their technology, it was because it probably did not meet most others expectations in an MBT in terms of cost and capability. In other words, they will build the next MBT's around India's, Vietnams, and other countries military apsects.
This vehicle needs to be netcentric and it needs UAVs to be operational to support it. This will take 5 years to mature so why introduce it now when you can suspend it for 5 years and let new technologies improve.
It could be like the Su-30M and the Su-30MKI where the Su-30M was simply a two seat Flanker with a big expensive radar able to mini AWACS a formation of lesser fighters, whereas the Su-30MKI was a fully multirole fighterbomber that was much more capable.
Or it could be the T-50 which will be developed for the Russian AF and a seperate aircraft based on the T-50 which Russian and Indian engineers will modify to Indian and export needs.
In one case the Russian aircraft didn't really go anywhere, but the Indian collaboration greatly improved the aircraft.
In the other case the Indian collaboration was simply for export and Indian use though some innovations might find their way back to the Russian version.